U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
o
0
S
:&
I
•
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS
-------
ERA'S FY 2005 PERFORMANCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
A Note on this Report
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted this prepublication version of
its Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report to the President on
November 15,2005.
The published version of the report, which will be available in January 2006, will be
redesigned and reformatted. It will include:
• Cross references for the data quality and performance evaluation information
discussed under each-annual performance goal and included in the appendices.
• Additional photographs.
• Color charts and tables.
Printed copies of EPA's FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report will be
available from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications at
1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail via ncepimal@one.net. Please ask for publication number
EPA-190-R-05-001.
November 15, 2005
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MOV 152005
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Fiscal
Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report. This report reviews EPA's
programmatic and financial performance over the past fiscal year. It meets the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act and other management
legislation. This report demonstrates EPA's commitment to be accountable for results
measured against the annual performance goals presented in our FY 2005 Annual Plan.
With the help of our state, local, and tribal partners, EPA has made considerable
progress toward each of the five long-term goals for protecting human health and the
environment established in our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. Our accomplishments hi
FY 2005 are evidence of our commitment to accelerate the pace of environmental
progress. We continue to adopt innovative approaches, focus on results, and use the best
available science in making decisions.
In addition, I give my assurance that the performance and financial data included
hi this report are complete and reliable, consistent with guidance provided by the Office
of Management and Budget. EPA and its partners are proud of our achievements in
improving the quality of air and water and protecting the land. We intend to learn from
our experience, adjust our approaches as necessary, and build on our FY 2005 results to
fulfill our responsibility for protecting human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
-------
ABOUT THIS REPORT
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Performance and Accountability Report for
Fiscal Year 2005 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)
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
Government Performance and Accountability Act of 1993 (GPRA)
Government Management Reform Act of 1994
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA)
Reports Consolidation Act of 2000
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
HOW THE REPORT IS ORGANIZED
Transmittal Letter to the President
This letter transmits EPA's FY2005 Performance and Accountability Report from the
Administrator to the President, Congress, and Office of Management and Budget.
Message from the Administrator
The Administrator's message briefly describes EPA's mission and highlights some of the
Agency's FY 2005 accomplishments. It 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 the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA),
indicating whether the Agency's management controls and financial systems meet the
objectives of the Act.
Message from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
The CFO's message describes progress and challenges pertaining to EPA's financial
management. It discusses EPA's efforts to integrate budget and performance information, and it
provides information on the Agency's management controls program under FMFIA and financial
management systems under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
(FFMIA).
Section I - Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
The MD&A presents an overview of the entire report. It includes an organizational overview; a
summary of the most significant performance results and challenges for FY 2005; information
on the Agency's progress in implementing the President's Management Agenda; and a brief
analysis of financial performance. It also discusses EPA's progress in strengthening its
management practices and compliance with laws and regulations (FMFIA, FFMIA and others) to
-------
assure the integrity of its programs and operations. Lastly, the MD&A includes the
Administrator's assurance statement on the soundness of the Agency's internal controls. The
MD&A is supported and supplemented by detailed information contained in the Performance
Section, Management Accomplishments and Challenges Section, Financial Section, and
Appendices.
Section II - Performance Section
This section presents the annual program performance information required by GPRA and,
combined with the Appendices, addresses all of the required elements of an annual program
performance report as specified in "OMB Circular A-11, Preparing, Submitting and Executing
the Budget." Performance results are presented for each of the Agency's five strategic goals
and for itsenabling and support programs. For more information on this section, please contact
EPA's Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability at (202) 564-9327.
Section III - Management Accomplishments and Challenges
This section discusses EPA's progress in strengthening management practices to achieve
program results. It includes the Inspector General's list of top management challenges and the
Agency's progress in responding to each issue. For more information on this section, please
contact EPA's Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability at (202) 564-9327,
Section IV - Financial Section
This section contains the Agency's financial statements and related Independent Auditor's
Report, as well as other 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.
Appendices
The Appendices provide more detailed information on the Agency's performance results,
including prior year performance data and summaries of program evaluation results. They also
include a glossary of acronyms and a list of relevant EPA internet links.
-------
ERA'S FY 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to the President
About this Report
Table of Contents
Message from the Administrator
Message from the Chief Financial Officer
Page Number
SECTION I - MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction MD&A-1
Mission and Organization 1
Highlights of FY 2005 Performance 4
Significant Environmental Accomplishments and Challenges 4
Homeland Security 9
The President's Management Agenda 10
Summary of Performance Data 13
Improving Results 16
Strengthening Collaboration with Partners 16
Using Program Evaluation and the PART 18
Improving Environmental Indicators, Performance Measurement,
and Data Quality 19
Considering Future Trends and Looking Ahead 20
Internal Controls, Financial Management Systems, and Compliance with Laws and
Regulations 21
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act 21
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 23
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 24
Federal Information Security Management Act 25
Government Management Reform Act 25
Financial Analysis 25
Measuring Financial Management Results 26
Resources and Outlays 27
Innovative Financing: Partnerships and the Environmental Finance Program 28
New Financial Management Initiatives 29
SECTION II - PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Introduction to Performance Section
Goal 1 - Clean Air and Global Climate Change Goal 1-1
Objective 1: Healthier Outdoor Air 1 -5
Objective 2: Healthier Indoor Air 1 -6
Objective 3: Protect the Ozone Layer 1 -7
-------
Objective 4: Radiation 1-8
Objective 5: Greenhouse Gas Intensity 1 -9
Objective 6: Science and Research 1 -10
Annual Performance Goals 1-11
Goal 1 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 1-39
Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water Goal 2-1
Objective 1: Protect Human Health 2-4
Objective 2: Protect Water Quality 2-6
Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research 2-8
Annual Performance Goals 2-10
Goal 2 PART Measures Without Corresponding FY 2005 Goals 2-33
Goal 2 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 2-33
Goal 3 - Land Preservation and Restoration Goal 3-1
Objective 1: Preserve Land 3-4
Objective 2: Restore Land 3-5
Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research 3-6
Annual Performance Goals 3-7
Goal 3 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 3-25
Goal 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Goal 4-1
Objective 1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks 4-6
Objective 2: Communities 4-7
Objective 3: Ecosystems 4-9
Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research 4-11
Annual Performance Goals 4-13
Goal 4 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 4-58
Goal 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship Goal 5-1
Objective 1: Improve Compliance 5-5
Objective 2: Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution
Prevention and Innovation 5-6
Objective 3: Tribal Capacity 5-7
Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research 5-8
Annual Performance Goals 5-9
Goal 5 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 5-24
Enabling and Support Programs ESP-1
Annual Performance Goals ESP-4
SECTION III - MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Introduction to Management Section 111-1
OIG's 2005 Key Management Challenges III-2
EPA's Response to Key Management Challenges 111-11
SECTION IV - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Introduction to Financial Section 1
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis 4
Principal Financial Statements 7
Required Supplementary information (Unaudited) 51
-------
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited) 58
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited) 61
Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes 61
Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-11, Section 52.4a) 71
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report 83
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements 88
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Annual Performance Goals Results for FY 2002-2004 A-1
Appendix B - Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2005 B-1
Appendix C - Data Quality C-1
Appendix D - Acronyms D-1
Appendix E - Public Access E-1
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S MESSAGE
I am pleased to present EPA's Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2005. This
report demonstrates the progress EPA has made with the help of our state, local, and tribal
partners to provide people with cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land. It also provides
an accounting of the resources we used to meet our goals and fulfill our mission of protecting
human health and the environment.
Since its inception 35 years ago, EPA's environmental accomplishments have been remarkable.
The air is the cleanest it has been in 30 years. Emissions of six principal air pollutants are down,
and we estimate that the new Clean Air Interstate Rule, put in place in FY 2005, will result in the
greatest health benefits of any rule EPA since the phase-out of lead in gasoline. More Americans
have reliably safe drinking water, and more people can safely fish and swim in waters that were
once polluted. Working with our state and tribal partners, we have restored more than 8,000
acres of wetlands. Through our brownfields program, we are cleaning up contaminated properties
and returning them to productive use. Brownfields grantees have assessed 7,752 properties and
leveraged $7.2 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding, creating 33,599 jobs. Waste
recycling is up, with over 50 percent of all aluminum cans, steel packaging, and major appliances
now being recycled. Finally, as a result of enforcement actions, 1.1 billion pounds of pollutants
were reduced, treated, or eliminated.
In the aftermath of the hurricanes, EPA is committed to help the citizens of the affected states
safely restore their communities and to provide the public and emergency personnel with the
most accurate environmental information possible. After the storms passed, EPA national and
regional emergency operations centers were activated 24 hours a day to coordinate response
activities. Our headquarters and regional offices are working as part of a highly coordinated effort
with our federal, state and local partners. We are have assessed damage, monitored
environmental effects, and assisted efforts to protect human health and the environment - part of
which includes helping to restore the vital drinking water and waste water infrastructure systems.
EPA also has significant responsibilities in providing for the security of our nation's homeland. We
play a lead role in supporting the protection of critical water infrastructure and coordinating
development of national capabilities and strategies to address chemical, biological, and
radiological contamination from a terrorist event In FY 2005, EPA established health effects
guidelines for exposure to hazardous chemicals, developed a web-based system to identify
.hazards and characterize risks in emergencies, continued to assist the nation's drinking water
systems in protecting their infrastructure from terrorist and other intentional attacks, enhanced
national decontamination capabilities, and trained EPA field respondent
Performance information presented in this report is complete and reliable as defined by OMB in
Circular A-11. In FY 2005, EPA continued work to detect and correct errors in environmental
data, standardize reporting, and exchange and integrate electronic data and data quality
information with our partners and the regulated community.
EPA is committed to achieving the goals set under the President's Management Agenda (PMA)
for delivering environmental results to our customers—the American public—effectively and
efficiently. We continually assess our management practices and structure to identify and address
issues. Under the PMA, EPA has attained the highest rating possible for financial management
where we are focused on providing program managers with the performance and cost information
they need to set priorities and make sound decisions. EPA is a leader in e-govemment where
we have worked to reduce the reporting burden on the regulated community and improve
information sharing and data security. We are also making progress in other initiative areas:
identifying our workforce needs and developing recruitment strategies to ensure that we maintain
a highly skilled workforce, as well as refining our environmental goals and developing measures
to gauge efficiency of our programs.
-------
For the fourth year, EPA has no material weaknesses to report under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), a law focused on safeguarding against fraud, waste, abuse, and
misappropriation of federal funds. During FY 2005, the Agency did resolve two of its less severe,
internal Agency-level weaknesses in the areas of data management and water permitting.
We must continue to focus on achieving environmental outcomes and program efficiencies.
Building on our FY 2005 accomplishments, we will strive to accelerate environmental progress;
promote environmental stewardship within the United States and abroad; drive economic growth;
and approach new challenges with enthusiasm, while meeting our responsibilities for enforcing
environmental laws and regulations. As we look to the future, these priorities will help us meet our
goals for cleaner air, purer water, better protected land, and healthy communities.
Uohi
Administrator
-------
CFO MESSAGE
As I begin my tenure as EPA's Chief Financial Officer, I am impressed by the progress
the Agency has made toward its goals of protecting human health and the environment.
This report reviews the goals we set for ourselves for FY 2005, describes our
achievements, and discusses some of the work that remains before us. On behalf of the
Agency, I thank our partners—state and local governments, tribes, businesses, and other
federal agencies—for their contribution to these FY 2005 results and for their continued
participation and collaboration as we address the challenges that lie ahead.
Performance and Audit Results
The Administrator's Message, which introduces this report, highlights some of the
Agency's accomplishments this year in protecting human health and the environment.
These results are discussed in this report. We offer a broad perspective on the progress
toward the goals and objectives established in EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan and
discuss each of the 84 annual performance goals set out in EPA's FY 2005 Annual Plan.
This report also reflects the improved alignment of the measures associated with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART).
EPA is committed to managing our programs in a fiscally responsible manner, ensuring
that government resources are used wisely and efficiently to protect human health and the
environment. The Agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an unqualified
opinion in its FY 2005 Financial Statements Audit. As part of the audit, OIG noted nine
reportable conditions and one noncompliance issue.
We continue our efforts to address areas of weakness proactively. We submitted
corrective action plans for all reportable conditions and compliance issues within ten
months of the OIG's FY 2004 Financial Statements Audit. We have already initiated
corrective actions to address this year's issues and are dedicated to correcting audit
recommendations in a timely manner.
Financial Management and Other Accomplishments
In addition to meeting federal financial requirements, we assess our own financial
management goals and our progress in achieving them. EPA's success also is measured
by our continued ability to meet the President's Management Agenda (PMA) standards.
We have received a green status score for our accomplishments in the area of Improved
Financial Performance and green progress scores for Budget and Performance Integration
and Eliminating Improper Payments. To demonstrate sound financial management, we
continue to focus on improving our ability to meet and exceed government-wide financial
performance metrics.
-------
Additionally, we are modernizing our financial system infrastructure to help us manage
the resources that support our environmental mission more efficiently, measure the costs
of environmental programs more precisely, and inform the public about our activities
more effectively. The enhanced internal control requirements under the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-123 will strengthen our existing management
integrity efforts.
In FY 2005, as part of EPA's efforts to institute competitive sourcing, we placed the
Agency's vendor payment services in competition against private sector businesses. EPA
demonstrated that its process for handling the Agency's vendor payments was the most
cost effective. We will be consolidating all vendor payments, saving approximately $3.5
million over five years.
Data Availability
Readers should note that the Agency does not yet have all the data necessary to present a
full picture of our FY 2005 performance. In many cases, the data will not be available
until 2006. This FY 2005 PAR does, however, report information from past years that
only became available this year.
Looking Ahead
EPA has recently launched initiatives to sharpen its focus on environmental outcomes
and results; to strengthen regional, state and tribal planning; and to enhance
accountability at every level. As we develop our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, we will be
building on these efforts. We will consider emerging challenges and opportunities and
take advantage of recent efforts to develop better environmental indicators as we develop
our measures of success. Our experience in measuring performance under GPRA and
program effectiveness under the PART process will guide our planning. Like other
agencies, we can anticipate tight budgets, complicated by rising fixed costs, in the years
ahead. We intend to link performance and costs to inform our decision making and
ensure that we use resources as efficiently and effectively as possible.
In closing, I also want to thank the dedicated EPA staff who contributed to the progress
we have achieved this year and who assisted in developing this report.
Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
-------
Section I
Management's Discussion and Analysis
Introduction
Mission and Organization
Highlights of FY 2005 Performance
Significant Environmental Accomplishments and Challenges
Homeland Security
The President's Management Agenda
Summary of Performance Data
Improving Results
Strengthening Collaboration with Partners
Using Program Evaluation and the PART
Improving Environmental Indicators, Performance Measurement,
and Data Quality
Considering Future Trends and Looking Ahead
Internal Controls, Financial Management Systems, and Compliance with Laws
and Regulations
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
Federal Information Security Management Act
Government Management Reform Act
Financial Analysis
Measuring Financial Management Results
Resources and Outlays
Innovative Financing: Partnerships and the Environmental Finance Program
New Financial Management Initiatives
November 15, 2005
-------
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its state and local partners
are making great progress in improving air quality; ensuring clean, safe water; and
restoring and protecting the land. For example:
• Today, the air is the cleanest it has been in 30 years: total emissions of the six
principal air pollutants—lead, ozone, participate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide—decreased by more than 48 percent.
• More than 90 percent of the nation's population served by community water
systems receives drinking water that meets all health-based standards—up from
79 percent a decade ago.
• Two percent of America's children have blood lead levels above 10 micrograms
per deciliter, compared to 90 percent in the 1970s.
• In the last decade, more than 1,000 contaminated sites began cleanup
operations, and recycling and composting of municipal solid waste has increased
more than ten-fold.
• Industrial releases of 332 chemicals tracked since 1988 are down by nearly 50
percent, a reduction of 1.55 billion pounds.
• Pesticides that pose the greatest risks to human health and the environment
have been regulated to meet tough new health standards.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
EPA's Long-Term Strategic Goals
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Clean and Safe Water
Land Preservation and Restoration
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
The nation's environment is steadily
improving; however, there is more to do and much
of it is very complex and costly. This report
reviews progress EPA made toward its goals
during FY 2005. It fulfills the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act and
other management legislation1 for reporting on
performance and demonstrating results.
To help measure EPA's annual progress, Agency leaders established 84 annual
performance goals at the beginning of FY 2005. The chapters that follow describe
EPA's progress toward meeting these annual goals. This report also presents a picture
of the Agency's financial activities and achievements during the year, because
managing taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively is critical to delivering the greatest
results to the American people.
MISSION AND ORGANIZATION
EPA's mission is: To protect human health and the environment." To achieve its
mission, the Agency assesses environmental conditions and works with its partners and
stakeholders to identify, understand, and solve current and future environmental
problems. EPA develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws
MD&A-l
-------
to protect America's air, water, and land. It works with the regulated community to
provide assistance and incentives for complying with environmental laws.
EPA employs approximately 18,000 people across the country, including its
headquarters offices in Washington, DC, 10 regional offices, and more than a dozen
laboratories. The Agency's staff is highly educated and technically trained; more than
half are engineers, scientists, and policy analysts. In addition, EPA employs legal, public
affairs, financial, information management, and computer specialists. EPA
Administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, who was appointed by the President of the United
States, is the first career scientist to lead the Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment
b#o»<
CMc>|o.E D«ta,TX
Kuatdiy.KS
Omnr, CO
MD&A-2
-------
EPA Offices
• Office of the Administrator - provides overall supervision of the Agency and is responsible directly
to the President of the United States.
• Office of Administration and Resources Management - manages EPA's human, financial, and
physical resources.
• Office of Air and Radiation - oversees the air and radiation protection activities, including national
programs, technical policies, and regulations.
• Office of the Chief Financial Officer - manages and coordinates EPA's planning, budgeting, and
accountability processes and provides financial management services.
• Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance - delivers compliance with U.S. environmental
laws and promotes pollution prevention.
• Office of Environmental Information - advances the creation, management, and use of
information as a strategic resource at EPA.
• Office of General Counsel - provides legal service to all organizational elements of the Agency.
• Office of Inspector General - conducts audits, evaluations, and investigations of Agency programs
and operations.
• Office of International Affairs - manages Agency involvement in international policies and
programs that cut across Agency offices and regions and acts as the focal point on international
environmental matters.
• Office of Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances - regulates pesticides and chemicals to
protect public health and the environment, and promotes innovative programs to prevent pollution.
• Office of Research and Development - meets programs' research and development needs and
conducts an integrated research and development program for the Agency.
• Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - provides policy, guidance, and direction for
safely managing waste; preparing for and preventing chemical and oil spills, accidents, and
emergencies; and cleaning up and reusing contaminated property. Provides technical assistance to
all levels of government to safeguard the air, water, and land from the uncontrolled spread of waste.
• Office of Water • develops national programs, technical policies, and regulations relating to drinking
water, water quality, ground water, pollution source standards, and the protection of wetlands,
marine, and estuarine areas.
• Research Triangle Park (RTF). North Carolina • the Agency's center for research on how humans
and ecosystems are exposed to various pollutants, the extent of that exposure, and the health and
ecological effects which result from such exposure. RTF is also the hub of EPA's air pollution
programs under the Clean Air Act and home of the EPA National Computer Center.
• Regional Offices - EPA has 10 regional offices, each responsible for several states and territories.
MD&A-3
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF FY 2005 PERFORMANCE
In FY 2005, with resource obligations of $10.13 billion and 17,486 full-time-
equivalent employees, EPA achieved significant results under each of the five long-term
environmental goals established in its 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. This section highlights
the Agency's accomplishments and continuing challenges under each of its strategic
goals. It also discusses progress under the Agency's homeland security programs and
the President's Management Agenda. Detailed performance information is presented in
Section II of this report.
Significant Environmental Accomplishments and Challenges
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change. In FY 2005, EPA issued the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which when fully implemented is expected to
dramatically reduce pollution in the
eastern United States by cutting
power plant emissions of sulfur
dioxide by more than 70 percent and
nitrogen oxides by more than 60
percent. EPA estimates that CAIR
could result in annually preventing
approximately 17,000 premature
deaths, 1.7 million lost workdays,
500,000 lost school days,
22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and
12,300 hospital admissions at full
implementation in 2015.2
EPA also released a rule
designed to reduce mercury -
emissions from power plants. This
rule, known as the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR), is intended to provide
a flexible multi-pollutant approach to
reducing mercury emissions from
power plants. Like CAIR, the CAMR
limits emissions by using a market-
based, cap and trade program that
will permanently cap utility mercury
emissions in two phases. The first
phase is expected to reduce
emissions from 48 tons to 31 tons by
2010, and the second phase is
expected to achieve a reduction of
EPA Responds to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita
In August and September of 2005 EPA emergency response personnel partnered
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state and local agencies to
assess damages, test health and environmental conditions, and coordinate cleanup
from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. EPA served as the lead agency for cleaning up
hazardous materials, nduding 08 and gasoline. National and regional Emetgency
Operations Centers were activated 24 hours a day. Additional information about
EPA's hurricane response activities can be found at
www.eoa.9ov/katrina/index.h1ml.
• Environmental Health Needs & Habitability Assessment EPA and the
Centeis tor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) focmed a joint taskforceto
advise local and state officials of Ihe potential health and environmental risks
associated with returning to the city of New (Means. The initial Environmental
Health Needs & Habitability Assessment was issued September 17,2005.
• Air Sampling. Soon after Hurricane Katrina, EPA began collecting air qualify
data to assess possfcte health risks to ctean-up workers and inhabitants of New
Orleans.
• Water Sampling. EPA and local agencies sampled and performed a variety of
biological and chemical tests on floodwaters. EPA made the results of these
tests avaaabte to the pubfc.
• FudWaivtrs. EPA issued emergency waivers of certain fuel standards in
affected areas to address disruptions to the fuel supply due to refinery and
pipefine infrastructure damage in the GuB Region.
• Superfund Site. EPA's emergency response team conducted initial
assessments of the status of Supertund sites In areas affected by Hurricane
Katrina. EPA teams are currently conducting more detailed, on-site inspections
• Disposal of Hazardous Waste and Other Debris. Along with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, EPA worked on the dsposal of the enormous amounts of
hazardous waste and oflwr debris left behind by Hurricane Katrina. establishing
several sites for debris coBecfion. During September 2005. the EPA team
cdected over 50,000 unsecured or abandoned containers of potentia8y
hazardous wastes.
MD&A-4
-------
70 percent from current levels. As a result of this action, the United States is now the
only country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power
plants.3
EPA launched a "Clean Diesel Campaign" in FY 2005 as well. The Clean Diesel
Campaign consists of both regulatory and voluntary efforts to reduce emissions from
new and existing diesel engines by 2014. Many geographic areas in the country have
not met the national standards for participate matter and/or ozone. The campaign
contains components to help those areas reduce emissions of these pollutants from
diesel engines used in construction, agriculture and port equipment, waste haulers,
locomotives, fire trucks, and ambulances. EPA's campaign is expected to help reduce
the impacts of pollution on populations that are especially susceptible to the effects of
diesel exhaust, including children, the elderly, and the chronically ill.
EPA's CAIR and CAMR rules are critical components of the Agency's strategy to
achieve the greatest reductions in air toxics emissions. The Agency's Air Toxics
Program is also working to address requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(e.g., issuance of final standards for 70 stationary area source categories of toxic air
pollution). EPA has completed 15 area source standards and is working to develop
standards for an additional 25 area source categories, projected for completion in 2008.
These 40 standards will address more than 90 percent of the 1990 baseline of toxic air
pollutant emissions from area sources. The Agency has been and will continue to
monitor progress in this area through its management integrity process, which tracks
important management challenges.4
In FY 2005, EPA helped owners and managers of office buildings understand
and achieve the benefits of good indoor air quality, thereby improving the health and
productivity of office workers. The national cost of poor indoor air quality, including lost
worker productivity, direct medical costs for those whose health is adversely affected,
and damage to equipment and materials, runs to tens of billions of dollars per year.5
EPA estimates that approximately 150,000 office workers experienced improved air
quality in their workplaces, meeting the Agency's FY 2005 annual performance goal.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water. The importance of safe drinking water supplies
for protecting public health has never been more evident than in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, which occurred late in FY 2005. In early September, EPA, state and
local officials, systems operators, and volunteers worked around the clock to assist
more than 895 drinking water systems in repairing their infrastructure and restore
sources of safe drinking water for all people in the affected region. In FY 2006, EPA will
assess the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Agency's progress towards achieving its
2008 drinking water protection goal.
EPA and its state partners attained water quality standards in eight percent of
waters previously identified by the states as impaired, exceeding the Agency's FY 2005
annual performance goal of two percent. Also in 2005, permits implementing effluent
guidelines under EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System prevented the
discharge of 26 billion pounds of pollutants, nearly double the amount removed in 2002
before new storm water and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations regulations as
well as new effluent guidelines took effect.
MD&A-5
-------
EPA issued the National Coastal Condition Report II (NCCRII) in January 2005.6
The second in a series of environmental assessments of U.S. coastal waters and the
Great Lakes, the report assesses 100 percent of the nation's estuaries in the contiguous
48 states and Puerto Rico. The NCCR II is based on data gathered by a variety of
federal, state, and local sources, including more than 50,000 samples taken between
1997 and 2000 in all continental seacoasts and Puerto Rico. The NCCR H's data for
FY 2005 indicate that the overall ecological health of coastal waters improved, meeting
the Agency's FY 2005 annual performance goal.
Finally, in addition to improving the quality of drinking and surface water data and
information (see Section III of this report for more information on these data
improvements), EPA completed data collection for the first wadeable streams
assessment. This is the first time a national assessment of ecological conditions in
small streams has been conducted using a random sampling, statistically valid
approach. States worked with EPA to conduct monitoring using the same methods at
each sampling site so that the results can be compared across the country. A report on
small stream conditions, scheduled to be released in March 2006, will establish baseline
conditions for tracking ecological trends over time in small streams nationwide. EPA
intends to follow this report with nationwide assessments of lakes, large rivers,
wetlands, and other water types.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration. In FY 2005, EPA completed the
cleanup ("construction completes") of 40 sites on the Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL), for a cumulative total of 966 sites—more than 64 percent of the sites on the NPL.
At sites with groundwater contamination, migration of contamination was brought under
control at an additional 23 sites in FY 2005, for a cumulative total of 898, or 70 percent,
of such sites on the NPL.7 Among the challenges facing the Agency in FY 2006 is the
need to balance limited resources between beginning construction at an increasing
number of Superfund projects, and continuing long-term remedial actions at several
ongoing, large and complex sites.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program, the
Agency met its FY 2005 goal for increasing the number of RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities with permits or other approved controls in place, and EPA
expects to bring 95 percent of facilities under approved controls by FY 2008. Under the
RCRA corrective action program, more than 96 percent of high-priority RCRA
hazardous waste facilities have met Agency goals for having controls in place to prevent
any human exposures from occurring under current land and groundwater use, and
more than 78 percent have met goals for having controls in place to prevent
groundwater migration. Under the Agency's Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Program, 6,181 cleanups were completed by the end of March 2005.8 Data for the end
of the year, which were undergoing a quality assurance/quality control check at the time
this report was published, indicate that the Agency's state partners completed 14,583
underground storage tank cleanups, meeting the Agency's FY 2005 goal of 14.500.9
While recycling has increased in this country in general, recycling of specific
materials has grown even more: 42 percent of all paper, 40 percent of all plastic soft
drink bottles, 55 percent of all aluminum beer and soft drink cans, 57 percent of all steel
MD&A-6
-------
packaging, and 52 percent of all major appliances are now recycled.10 To achieve
national recycling goals, the Agency continued to develop alliances with manufacturers,
communities, and governments to: (1) foster a new recycling infrastructure, which will
reclaim valuable materials, and (2) address the increasing variety and volume of
obsolete electronic products entering the waste stream. Although recycling rates were
lower than expected in FY 2003 (the last year for which the Agency has data), EPA
expects that these collaborative efforts will encourage higher recycling rates in future
years. In FY 2006, EPA will be initiating a challenge to major industries to encourage
the "early retirement" of devices containing mercury.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems. To protect human health and the
environment from pesticide use, EPA reassessed risks posed by older chemicals and
established new risk mitigation measures where needed. By the end of FY 2005, the
Agency had reassessed 80 percent of the 9,721 pesticide tolerance levels requiring
reassessment under the Food Quality and Protection Act.11 In addition, EPA registered
14 new reduced risk pesticides, increasing the number of safer alternatives to older,
more dangerous pesticides to 143.12
EPA identifies and addresses risks posed by chemicals already in commerce
through its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. Under this program, the
Agency will complete work by the end of calendar year 2005 to provide the public with
critical health and environmental effects data on more than 2,200 chemicals
encountered in communities every day. In FY 2005, more than 360 chemical
companies and 100 industry consortia volunteered to provide data for 1,397 HPV
chemicals directly to EPA, and to provide data for 854 chemicals to the European
component of the program -the International Council of Chemical Associations HPV
Initiative13. Data for 300 of those chemicals will be publicly available by the end of
2005. EPA continues to encourage companies to sponsor additional HPV chemicals,
and is obtaining data on un-sponsored "orphan" chemicals by issuing Test Rules under
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
In FY 2005, EPA led a collaborative effort to develop guidelines on the potential
health effects from various levels of exposure to hazardous chemicals during an
accidental spill or a terrorist incident. The Agency partnered with nine federal agencies,
numerous state agencies, private industry, academia, emergency medical associations,
unions, and other organizations in the private sector as well as international participants
on this project. In FY 2005, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) were proposed
for 32 highly hazardous chemicals, bringing the cumulative total to 165 chemicals.
These guideline levels are meant to address the millions of pounds of highly toxic
chemicals used in industry and routinely stored at fixed sites or shipped over road or rail
in single containers of 50,000 to 300,000 pounds or more. AEGL values, including
those proposed in 2005, were used in responding to the environmental devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina.
In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control released data demonstrating major
reductions in the incidence of childhood lead poisoning—from approximately 900,000
children with elevated blood lead levels in the early 1990s to 310,000 children from
1999 to 2002.14 To virtually eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 2010, EPA focused
its FY 2005 outreach and education efforts on remaining "hot spots," often
MD&A-7
-------
disadvantaged urban areas where the incidence of childhood lead poisoning remains
high. In FY 2006, the Agency will be revamping its strategies and expanding its
regulatory and voluntary tools to address the remaining population of children at risk for
lead poisoning.
EPA continues to make progress on improving and protecting the health of
ecosystems in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Index, indicating overall ecosystem
condition in the Great Lakes, improved in FY 2005. Long-term concentrations of PCBs
in predator fish and trends of toxic chemicals in the air are declining faster than
targeted. Cumulatively, 3.7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been
remediated, including 345,000 cubic yards in 2004. However, phosphorus
concentrations in the Lake Erie Basin increased slightly. Although EPA has not met the
target of delisting three Areas of Concerns (AOC), significant progress has been made
towards delisting of two AOCs for FY 2006.
EPA and its partners also protected and restored 103,959 acres of estuarine
habitat within the 28 estuaries of the National Estuary Program in FY 2005. This
acreage includes critical estuarine, riparian, and coastal wetlands, which help support
many commercially valuable fisheries and the economic, environmental, and aesthetic
functions on which coastal populations depend for their livelihood. EPA faces
significant challenges in continuing to restore and protect estuaries as more difficult
projects remain.
6oa/ 5; Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. In FY 2005, more than
1.1 billion pounds of pollutants were reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
Agency enforcement actions. For example, EPA settled a Clean Air Act enforcement
case against the Ohio Edison Company that will reduce more than 212,000 tons per
year of emissions of harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from several of its
plants. The company is required to install pollution controls and carry out other
measures expected to cost approximately $1.1 billion. In addition, three enforcement
actions taken in FY 2005 under the Clean Water Act will significantly reduce pollutants
entering the Chesapeake Bay. One of the actions was taken with the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and will lead to the elimination of 3.2 billion
gallons a year of untreated sewage to the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and cost the
company an estimated $1.5 billion15.
in an example of one of the Agency's criminal enforcement actions, criminal
prosecution was taken against the owners of AAR Contractors, Inc. for conducting
illegal asbestos operations at more than 1,500 sites, including schools, hospitals, and
churches, in upstate New York. More than 500 workers were exposed to potentially
deadly asbestos-related diseases. The company owners received the two longest jail
sentences in environmental crimes history, 25 and 19% years, along with almost $23
million in restitution16.
Finally, EPA has been working to replace the Agency's Permit Compliance
System (PCS), which tracks Clean Water Act results for use in permitting, compliance
and enforcement programs17. This project has been a top management challenge for a
number of years and the Agency is now close to resolving it. Actions taken include
working with states on interim solutions during development of the new system and
MD&A-8
-------
adding capabilities to better track pollutant loadings, capture information on storm water
sources of pollution, and assess the health of individual watersheds. In September
2005, EPA completed development of the replacement system (ICIS-NPDES) and
officially moved into the testing phase. The first states are scheduled to begin
accessing the system by March 2006.
Homeland Security
EPA's FY 2005 Progress
in Homeland Security
• Developed a Web-based system to
quickly identify hazards and
characterize risks in emergencies.
• Completed vulnerability assessments
for nearly all of nation's drinking water
systems.
• Worked with other federal agencies to
establish a National Decontamination
Team and Strategy.
• Trained EPA field responders in
detecting, analyzing, and responding to
chemical, biological, and radiological
agents.
• Established health effects guidelines for
32 highly hazardous chemicals.
Three years ago EPA assumed
significant new responsibilities in homeland
security work needed to protect human health
and the environment from intentional harm.
EPA now plays a lead role in supporting the
protection of critical water infrastructure and
coordinating development of national
capabilities and strategies to address chemical,
biological and radiological contamination from
a terrorist event. In FY 2005, the Agency
conducted the following key work to
understand and communicate the potential
health effects of exposure to hazardous
chemicals during an accidental spill or terrorist
incident; to help water systems understand and
address their vulnerability to intentional
attacks; and, to enhance the nation's
decontamination and emergency response
capabilities:
Developing a Web-Based System to Identify Hazards and Characterize Risks in
Emergencies: In 2005, EPA began developing a Web-based system to quickly
identify hazards, assess exposure to humans, and characterize risks during an
emergency response. This Emergency Consequence Assessment Tool (ECAT)
will help in preparing for and rapidly responding to terrorist incidents by
integrating a variety of relevant information on the hazards and exposures for a
specific situation. ECAT will be expanded to include a variety of scenarios and
contaminants and will eventually be used to inform the general public and
scientific community.
Protecting Critical Water Infrastructure from Terrorist Acts: EPA continued to
assist the nation's drinking water systems in protecting their infrastructure from
terrorist and other intentional attacks. By the end of FY 2005, all of the 467
publicly and privately owned drinking water systems serving at least 100,000
people, and 100 percent of the nation's 444 medium-sized drinking water
systems (those that serve 50,000 to 99,999 people) had completed vulnerability
assessments. Furthermore, approximately 95 percent of the nation's small-sized
community drinking water systems that serve populations of 3,301 to 49,999
people had completed vulnerability assessments. The Agency will continue to
MD&A-9
-------
work with the small drinking water systems and its partners to ensure 100
percent of these systems have completed vulnerability assessments.
• Enhancing the Nation's Decontamination Capabilities: During FY 2005, EPA
worked with other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security, to enhance the nation's decontamination capabilities by establishing a
National Decontamination Team and by developing and implementing a National
Decontamination Strategy. Additionally, EPA improved capabilities for
characterizing chemical components that might be intentionally released during
incidents of national significance by standardizing analytical method validation
and determining laboratory training requirements.
• Training EPA Field Responders: In 2005, EPA improved the Agency's capability
to respond to multiple chemical, biological, and radiological incidents. EPA field
respondent and National Response System personnel received extensive
response-related training: scientific and technical training for detecting, analyzing
and responding to chemical, biological, and radiological agents and training in
managing incident command system responses.
• Establishing Health Effects Guidelines for Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals: In
FY 2005, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) were proposed for 32 highly
hazardous chemicals. Some of these guideline levels are critical for responding
to terrorist incidents when making decisions on evacuation, shelter-in-place,
worker entry, decontamination, protective equipment, and monitoring and
detection efforts.
The President's Management Agenda
Since 2001, the President's Management Agenda (PMA) has challenged federal
agencies to improve performance, manage for results, and better serve the American
people (see www.whitehouse.gov/results). During FY 2005, EPA made progress under
each of the seven PMA initiatives: Human Capital, Competitive Sourcing, Expanded
E-Govemment, Improved Financial Performance, Budget and Performance Integration,
Eliminating Improper Payments, and Research and Development.
Each quarter, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) releases an
executive scorecard that rates progress and overall status under each of the PMA
initiatives using a color-coded "stop-light" system. As of September 2005, the EPA
achieved three green scores for progress on implementation and one green score on
the status of Improved Financial Performance initiatives. In addition to tracking PMA
progress on a quarterly basis, each federal agency establishes yearly goals for where
they would be "Proud to Be" on the status of PMA initiative implementation. The Proud
to Be milestones and goals are set every July and assessed during the third quarter
PMA Scorecard process. More information about the Agency's work under the PMA is
available at www.epa.gov/pmaresults.
MD&A-10
-------
EPA's FY 2005 Progress Under
The President's Management Agenda
(Scorecard ratings current as of the 4th Quarter of FY 2005)
INITIATIVE
Human CapH
EPA's Chalte
understanding
environmental
employees ap
Campettve
Saucing
EPA's Chalta
means of mo
\nytnw0mnto
commnrnents
EipMME.
GOWIMIMt
EPA's Chalk
Integration, F
governments
ensuring that
STATUS"
Yellow
ngeslnHun
oftheconm
goals. Addit
propriately, t
r*iS "•*•
*"4"'"-!>
Ye»ow
>ngeslnCor
B efficiently;
function, nu
•
Yetaw
PROGRESS
^ • ,j>; -
YeOow
PROUD TO
BE II (07/05)
RESULTS
•Yellow" EPA
did not meet its
goal of "Green*
forP2B2
EPA has set a
goal of "Green"
forP2B3
HIGHLIGHTS
• In FY 2005, EPA transitioned its employees to a new five-level
Performance Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS). During
Q4, EPA trained all Agency leaders on the new system, and
assessed the system against OPM required elements to identify
areas in need of improvement
• EPA revised and updated the HC Accountability plan to integrate
assessments of office level HC activities and compliance with the
Merit System Principles.
• EPA analyzed the results of the FY 2004 Federal Human Capital
Survey and developed and began implementing a plan of action for
disseminating results and targeting areas for improvement to
leadership Agency-wide.
• As of the end of the Q4FY2005, EPA demonstrated that 100
percent of Agency employees are covered by the PARS.
ian Capital -A cultural change is needed to strengthen EPA executives', managers', and employees'
wticn between personal "on the Job" performance and the Agency's ability to meet its strategic
ionaPy. the Agency must dearly differentiate levels of performance among employees and reward
lased on the results they deliver and the way those results contribute the Agency's overall mission.
"'V.
Yellow
npetitive Soun
wid effectively c
magers involve
Yellow
mges in E-Gov - Success!
Inonjiicit DoHvwrnonMk and E
manual rtniuiiiidnCB, ana r
wide solutions embedded in
EPA adopts E-Gov solution
"Yellow* EPA
met Its goal tor
P2B2
EPA has set a
goal of -Green*
fbrP2B3
• The Agency completed six 'streamlined* competitions for small
activities that covered about 26 Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
positions in the areas of information technology and clerical
services. The Agency retained the work in all six competitions.
• EPA also announced an additional seven •streamlined'
competitions encompassing the work of about 39 FTE performing
information technology services.
• The Agency completed a standard competition for vendor
payments, which involved 26 FTE. As a result, the work will
continue to be performed by EPA employees at the Finance Center
in NC and achieve about $3.5 million in savings over the next five
years.
• EPA completed creation of a Competitive Sourting Plan identifying
and scheduling approximately 800 FTE for competition between
2005 and 2008.
:ing - EPA must overcome cultural reluctance to consider competitive sourdng as a
telivering government services. Once decisions are made to compete a particular
d in the competitions must be held accountable for timely follow-through on their
"Green* EPA
met its goal of
"Green* for
P2B?
EPA has seta
goal of 'Green*
ferP2B3
• Cost schedule and performance for adherence with earned value
management tor major IT investments are less than 1 0%.
• EPA's E-Gov Implementation Plan is approved and accepted.
• 1 00% of EPA's IT systems are secure.
• EPA's IT systems are installed in accordance with security
configurations.
• E-Rutemaking deployed four agencies in the Federal Docket
Management System. Late deployment of the fifth agency is the
sole reason for the yellow score in progress and status.
• To date E-PayroU completed scheduled modifications and testing
of afl necessary interfaces to ensure a migration to the Defense
Finance and Accounting; Service by March 2006.
ul performance in Human Capital. Competitive Sourdng, Budget and Performance
Research and Development Investment win require development and integration of
numerous E-Gov projects. These intenJependendes create special challenges for
3 as part of its strategic plan for success in each PMA area.
MD&A-ll
-------
INITIATIVE
STATUS11
PROGRESS
PROUD TO
BE II (07/05)
RESULTS
HIGHLIGHTS
Financial
tafuiiiunc*
Green
Green
•Green1 EPA
met its goat of
•Green" for
P2B2"
EPA has set a
goal of "Green*
forP2B3
EPA maintained a green rating for both progress and status for all
four quarters of FY 2005. EPA is one of only three federal
agencies to maintain a green rating for 10 or more successive
quarters (since FY 2003).
The Agency delivered its FY 2005 Performance and Accountability
Report with audited financial statements by the required November
15,2005, deadline and met all required deadlines for the its
quarterly financial statements.
EPA is expanding the use of financial information by integrating
additional financial information into EPA's dedstonmaking
processes, with an initial focus on grants.
EPA's Challenges In Improved Financial Performance - No challenges at this time.
Pcrfonmncc
Yellow
Green
•Yellow" EPA
did not meet its
goal of "Green"
forP2BZ
EPA has set a
goal of "Green"
fbrP2B3.
The Agency received green progress scores for all four quarters in
FY2004.
EPA worked cooperatively with OMB on the FY 2005 Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process, completing 43 PART
assessments to date.
At the conclusion of the FY2005 PART Appeals process, EPA has
developed efficiency measures for 35 of 43 completed PART
programs.
Held meetings with EPA's senior leadership throughout the year to
discuss the integration of budget, performance, and in particular
the PART as a means to better manage the Agency's resources
and deliver environmental results.
EPA has developed a process in alignment with the Enacted
Budget identifying impacts of Congressional action on planned
performance; specifically related to the targets associated with
EPA's GPRA/PART annual and long-term performance measures.
EPA senior leaders assess these impacts as part of their
decisionmaking.
EPA's Challenges In Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) - EPA must continue to develop appropriate OMB-approved
measures that gauge the efficiency of an environmental program's administration. Each program evaluated by the PART is required
to have at least one OMB-approved efficiency measure. Currently 35 of 43 PARTed programs have OMB-approved efficiency
measures.
knpraptr
Payninto
Yeflow
Green
EPA did not
have a goal for
P2B2.
"tPA has seta
goal of "Green*
forP2B3.
• EPA successfully demonstrated that it has a low incidence of
erroneous payments and was upgraded to a "yellow' status and
"green" progress score during FY 2005.
• EPA's FY 2005 error rate for its two State Revolving Funds was
0.16 percent, which surpassed the target error rate of 0.45 percent.
• EPA documented its approach for conducting a statistical sample
of sub-recipient payments in two states in FY 2006.
EPA's Challenges In Eliminating Improper Payments: No challenges at this time.
RttMTChtnd
Criteria
Red
Yellow
•Red" EPA did
not meet its
goal of "Yellow
forP2B2
EPA has seta
goal of-Yellow*
forP2B3
EPA held four independent, external reviews of the following
research programs: Drinking Water, Human Health, Ecological and
Paniculate Matter.
The Agency participated in the FY 2005 (formerly known as the
FY 2007) PART process with two new PART assessments for
Human Health Research and Drinking Water Research, and two
PART reassessments for PM Research and Ecological Research.
EPA's FY 2007 Annual Research Planning process expanded to
include regular discussions about resources and performance in
the context of the R&D Investment Criteria.
EPA's Challenges in Research and Development - EPA's research and development programs do not yet have acceptable
performance and efficiency measures for research programs. This has resulted in less than successful performance on the PMA
Scorecard for the Research and Development Investment Criteria Initiative and a negative impact on EPA's performance on the
Budget and Performance Integration Initiative. EPA continues to work with its research community and OMB to develop measures
that are meaningful to environmental program managers and dearly illustrate performance over time.
MD&A-12
-------
Summary of Performance Data
EPA's FY 2005 Performance Results
. . -
34 APGs 33APGs
Goal
Not Met
l7APGs
Goals Met. In its FY 2005 Annual Plan, EPA committed to 84 annual
performance goals (APGs). In FY 2005, the Agency met 34 of these APGs, 67 percent
of the APGs for which data were available at the time this report was published.
FY 2005 results to date reflect a decrease in the number of APGs met from FY 2004
results; last year, EPA met 76 percent of its APGs for which data were available. EPA
has significantly exceeded its targets for a number of its FY 2005 APGs. For example,
the Agency restored eight percent of the nation's impaired waterbodies in accordance
with Water Quality Standards, significantly exceeding its FY 2005 goal of two percent
(APG 2.13). This achievement is partly due to the work EPA and states have done to
refine water quality assessments, which now more accurately reflect improvements in
impaired waterbodies. In another case, EPA greatly exceeded its cumulative goal of
reducing by 11 percent the households on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation. By increasing coordination with other federal agencies to more effectively
fund and implement infrastructure programs, the Agency and its partners have achieved
a cumulative 34 percent reduction in the number of households lacking access to
wastewater sanitation (APG 2.15).
Goals Not Met. Despite their best efforts, however, EPA and its partners were not
able to meet all planned targets for FY 2005. EPA did not meet 17 of the 51 FY 2005
APGs for which performance data were available. The Agency is considering the
various causes of these shortfalls as it adjusts its annual goals and program strategies
for FY 2006 and beyond.
MD&A-13
-------
There are a number of reasons for these missed goals. In some cases the APGs
were new in FY 2005—a part of EPA's effort to develop more meaningful goals and
measures—and the Agency overestimated its ability to achieve annual results. For
example, EPA anticipated improvements in water quality to reduce the levels of
contaminants in fish, leading to a one percent decrease in waterbodies with fish
consumption advisories (APG 2.8). EPA fell short of achieving this APG, and the
Agency is assessing the information it has received to determine a more realistic future
target.
External factors also contributed to missing APGs. For example, the Agency had
anticipated reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loadings from entering the
Chesapeake Bay (APG 4.18). However, such external factors as continued growth in
human and farm animal populations in the region and rainfall levels affect the Agency's
success in reducing existing nutrient loading levels. In other cases, EPA relies on the
efforts of its federal, state and local partners to help achieve annual goals, and the
actions of the Agency's partners are a significant factor in performance results. For
example, the Agency and its partners did not meet the goal for improving water and
sanitation systems in the US-Mexico border region; funding for this effort was delayed
pending development of a new system for setting project priorities in the region (APG
4.12). EPA recognizes that, as a result of missing several such APGs, the Agency may
not be on track for reaching its longer term objective for protecting ecosystems. Despite
these difficulties, EPA and its partners continue to work together to ensure progress in
meeting these goals and achieving the objective.
Improved data can also contribute to missed goals. For example, EPA set a
cumulative goal that by FY 2005 water quality assessed in 80 percent of the water
segments in each of 462 watersheds across the nation would meet water quality
standards (APG 2.12). In fact, however, the number of watersheds meeting these
standards has decreased slightly since FY 2002. EPA attributes this regression to new
data that more accurately reflect watershed condition, including adjustments for fish
consumption advisories and increased environmental stresses on watersheds that not
only impair waters that were once clean, but also further degrade waters already
impaired. As its data improve^ EPA is gaining a more accurate picture of environmental
baseline conditions and progress achieved. Based on this information, the Agency
expects to continue adjusting its performance goals and targets to achieve results.
ajmma-yofFY2005FterformaxeResJtsbyGod
RM& , " <•"
Met
Not Met
DstaAvatote
After November
15,2005
Total
God1
5
0
14
19
God 2
6
2
10
18
Goa13
2
3
2
7
God 4
13
7
6
26
God 5
2
4
1
7
i i
ESP | Tbtd j
i
6
1
0
7
34
17
33
84
MD&A-14
-------
Data Unavailable. Because final end-of-year data were not available when this
report went to press, EPA is not yet able to report on 33 of its 84 APGs, an increase
over the 25 APGs for which data were not available in EPA's FY 2004 report. This
difference is largely due to the Agency's increased focus on achieving longer-term
environmental and human health outcomes, rather than activity-based outputs.
Environmental outcome results may not become apparent within a federal fiscal year,
and assessing environmental improvement often requires multiyear information. As a
result, EPA may not yet have the data required to determine whether an FY 2005 APG
such as improving water quality to reduce contaminates in fish, leading to higher
consumption of safe fish (APG 2.8), has been met. Many variables are involved in
evaluating progress toward this goal, including the bioaccumulative nature of mercury,
which affects the time it takes fish to rid their bodies of this contaminant.
In many cases, reporting cycles—including some which are legislatively
mandated—do not correspond with the federal fiscal year on which this report is based.
Data reported biennially or on a calendar year basis, for example, are not yet available
for this report. In some cases, such as for certain compliance and enforcement
information, the Agency has adjusted data collection and QA/QC processes to meet the
November 15 date for submitting this report. To provide as much information as
possible on its progress toward achieving its goals, however, EPA continues to present
the most current data available.
Furthermore, EPA obtains performance data from local, state, and tribal
agencies, all of which require time to collect the 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. The Agency is working to reduce such delays in
reporting, however, by capitalizing on new information technologies to exchange and
integrate electronic data and information, improve data quality and reliability, and
reduce the burden on its partners.
Dafa Now Available. The Agency is now able, however, to report data from
previous years that became available in FY 2005. Final performance results data
became available for 20 of the 25 FY 2004 APGs on which the Agency did not report in
its FY 2004 Annual Report. Of these 20 FY 2004 APGs, EPA met 14. For example, the
Agency met its FY 2004 goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and SO2
emissions, as well as sulfur and nitrogen deposition and ambient concentrations. EPA
can now report achieving 56 (76 percent) of the 79 FY 2004 APGs for which it has data.
For FY 2003, EPA can now report achieving 45 (79 percent) of the 64 APGs for which it
has performance data. Delays in reporting cycles and targets set beyond the fiscal year
continue to affect one APG in FY 2003, FY 2002, and FY 1999.
MD&A-15
-------
fflVs Updaed Performance Results
(Annual ftrtunaxeGcdsforWhr* Find DaaAreAiaa*:!
100 -i
iuit«r of APGs from prior >ea^ 20 for FY 2094, Ihree for FY20CS,G
one far FY 2002, one for FY2O01,twofcr FYZOOO.aid one for FV 19ea
Improving Measures and Adjusting Targets. EPA is continuing to develop better
and more meaningful measures of its performance. In FY 2005, for example, the
Agency introduced more than 30 new or improved performance measures. Equipped
with better data, EPA is also adjusting performance targets to reflect an improved
understanding of current conditions and the outcomes to be achieved. For example, the
Agency is adjusting its target for the improvement in air quality over time for the fine
particle (PM2.s) standard (APG 1.3). This goal was established in FY 2004 using initial
targets while the Agency collected baseline data. Based on the FY 2004 results which
significantly exceed the target, however, the Agency will adjust its target for FY 2006.
Similarly, in FY 2006 EPA will be adjusting targets for reducing exposure to unhealthy
levels of ozone (APG 1.6). EPA will continue to benefit from improved data, revising
annual performance measures and adjusting targets to provide a more useful
assessment of its progress.
IMPROVING RESULTS
EPA is continuing its efforts to focus more clearly on the results it wants to
achieve, orient its programs around environmental outcomes, and develop better
measures for assessing performance. Building on previous years' work, the Agency
strengthened its collaboration with states and tribes to improve joint planning and
priority-setting; develop innovative, effective approaches to environmental problems;
and track and assess progress. In addition, EPA is working to expand its use of
program evaluation; address data gaps and other information issues; strengthen its
strategic planning; and resolve its management challenges reported by the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office.
Strengthening Collaboration with Partners
Protecting human health and the environment is a shared responsibility. In
FY 2005, EPA continued important work with its partners in environmental protection
states, tribes, and other federal agencies - to ensure a national focus on the most
important problems and the most efficient and effective use of scarce resources.
MD&A -16
-------
In FY 2005, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (EGOS)
established a "Partnership and Performance Workgroup" to continue the
Agency's work to improve joint state-EPA planning and priority-setting. The
workgroup explored ways to support state strategic planning, expand the use of
Performance Partnership Grants as a planning and management tool, and
improve states' and EPA regional offices' dialogue on regional planning and
priority-setting.
Enhancing Tribal Environmental Management
• EPA is providing funding to enhance tribal
capacity for environmental management
Strengthening tribal programs improves the
Agency's program implementation and
enables tribes to develop holistic multimedia
programs that reflect their traditional use of
natural resources.
• As of FY 2005,96 percent of tribes (549
tribes) have access to EPA funds for hiring
environmental program staff, managing
environmental activities, and Implementing
multimedia environmental programs In Indian
country.1" This represents an increase of
approximately 7 percent a year since 1996,
when 36 percent of tribes had access.
EPA also funded a second Cooperative
Agreement with ECOS for conducting pilot
projects in 15 states to strengthen states'
capabilities to manage for results and
improve joint regional-state planning. For
example, an Illinois pilot project is
developing a stakeholder consultation
process for considering innovative
environmental programs.
The Agency enhanced its Annual
Commitment System (ACS), launched in
FY 2004 to assist EPA managers in
engaging states and tribes in setting annual
regional performance goals. In FY 2005, the Agency improved the system to
track actual regional performance against agreed-upon program measures and
commitments. EPA's regional offices are also able to use the ACS to track state
and tribal contributions to regional performance.
On September 26,2005, EPA Administrator Steven Johnson reaffirmed the
Agency's formal Indian Policy, established in 1984. By this action, EPA
recognized that the United States has a unique legal relationship with tribal
governments based on the Constitution, treaties, statues, Executive Orders, and
court decisions. This relationship includes recognition of the right of tribes as
sovereign governments to self-determination, and an acknowledgment of the
federal government's trust responsibility to tribes.
In FY 2005 EPA continued to work with tribes on a govemment-to-government
basis to protect the land, air, and water in Indian country. In June, the Grand
Traverse Band of Chippewa Indians hosted the seventh National Tribal
Environmental Conference for Environmental Management, attended by more
than 750 tribal, federal, and state officials to share solutions on ongoing
environmental and public health problems in Indian country.
MD&A-17
-------
Achieving Results Through Grant Programs
Grants are a key tool for achieving EPA's mission. Each year EPA awards approximately one-half of its budget in
grants to state, tribal, and local governments; educational institutions; and nonprofit organizations. The Agency has
been working to ensure the grants EPA awards support its strategic goals, and that results achieved through grants are
closely tracked and monitored.
In FY 2005, EPA issued a policy for awarding grants (EPA Order No.: 5700.7) that requires EPA offices to:
• Link results to EPA's Strategic Plan.
• Describe expected outputs and outcomes in grant announcements, work plans, and performance reports.
• Consider how the results from completed grant projects contribute to the Agency's programmatic goals and
objectives.
In addition, for the first time, this report lists specific grants that contributed to the achievement of EPA's FY 2005 annual
performance goals (see Section II).
Using Program Evaluation and the PART
EPA uses the results of program assessments, audits, and evaluations to adjust
approaches, improve results, allocate resources, and ensure the most effective and
efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In recent budget processes, for example, EPA senior
managers used the results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments to
identify opportunities for program improvement, justify resource requests, and guide
decisionmaking.
The PART is a series of diagnostic questions used to assess and evaluate
programs across a set of performance-related criteria, including program design and
purpose, strategic planning, program management and results. To date, EPA and OMB
have conducted PART reviews for 43 of the Agency's programs. PART reviews in 2005
included both new assessments of the indoor air, lead, oceans, surface water
protection, oil spill and other programs, and reassessments from previous years.
The PART assessment was first used in 2002 in developing EPA's FY 2004
budget. During that year, only 1 of EPA's 11 assessed programs was rated able to
demonstrate results. In EPA's third year of PART assessments (2004 for the FY 2006
budget) 24 of 32 programs were rated "adequate or "moderately effective." This
improvement in PART ratings shows EPA's commitment to designing and implementing
programs that maximize resource efficiency and deliver environmental results. Section
II of this report lists PART assessments conducted under each of the Agency's five
strategic goals, identifies performance measures associated with the PART, and reports
FY 2005 results for the measures where data are currently available. Future PART
measures are listed in a separate table in Section II, along with the year EPA expects to
begin reporting data against them. Ratings for programs assessed during 2005 for the
FY 2007 budget will be available in February 2006. Additional information on PART
assessments and EPA's progress in making program improvements will be available in
February 2006 at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.
EPA and its OIG also conducted other types of program evaluations and audits
(Appendix B contains a list by strategic goal of program evaluations and audits
completed in FY 2005). For example, working with the Compliance Committee of
ECOS and representatives from state agencies, EPA completed an evaluation of an
MD&A-18
-------
enforcement tool—the State Review Framework—which the Agency developed to
assess state enforcement performance. The evaluation found that, overall, the
framework is effective as a tool for evaluating state enforcement and compliance
assurance programs on a nationwide basis. The evaluation also recommended ways to
improve data collection and state performance interpretation under the framework. EPA
intends to make the recommended improvements and apply the framework across all
50 states to: (1) evaluate whether state enforcement and compliance assurance
programs are providing a consistent level of environmental and public health protection
across states; and, (2) work collaboratively with states to ensure that authorized state
agencies meet agreed-upon enforcement performance goals.
The Agency's OIG contributes to EPA's mission to improve human health and
environmental protection by assessing the effectiveness of EPA's program
management and results, developing recommendations for improvement, and ensuring
that Agency resources are used as intended. In FY 2005, an OIG report found that air
toxic monitoring was conducted in only ten percent of areas with the estimated highest
health risks from exposure to toxic air pollutants. EPA has since begun using the
National Air Toxics Assessment to identify and prioritize high-risk areas to be monitored.
The Agency also modified its air toxics grant criteria to better address high-risk areas
and emphasize methods for analyzing ambient air toxics conditions.
Improving Environmental Indicators. Performance Measurement, and Data Quality
In June 2003, EPA's Draft Report on
the Environment established baseline
information on environmental conditions in the
United States and their potential effects on
human health. Since then, the Agency has
been working to improve the indicator
information, fill key gaps in environmental
data, and make the information more
accessible to the public.
Data in
FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
Are Complete and Reliable
EPA determined that the performance
information in this report is complete and reliable
and no material inadequacies are present, as
defined by OMB Circular A-11.20 For more
information on the data sources used in FY 2005
performance measures, see Section II of this
report Appendix C contains additional
information on the quality of the data in this
report
In FY 2005, EPA issued for public comment a set of indicators for the Agency's
next Report on the Environment, to be released in 2006. A scientific peer-review
conducted in July elicited expert opinion on whether the indicators are supported by
data that are technically sound, meet the established indicator definition and criteria,
and help answer key questions on the current state of the environment. Over the next
year, EPA plans to use these indicators in developing the Agency's long-term measures
of success for its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. More information on the Agency's
"Indicators Initiative" is available at www.eDa.gov/indicators.
MD&A-19
-------
EPA also continued to focus annual performance goals and measures on
environmental outcomes and program efficiencies, instead of on activity-based outputs.
In EPA's FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan, approximately 65 percent of the annual
performance goals track environmental or intermediate outcomes.
In addition, the Agency
worked to align its annual
performance measures with
new performance and efficiency
measures developed during
OMB's 2005 PART process. In
FY 2005, EPA developed a
strategy for implementing new
PART measures while reporting
on the goals and measures in
the Agency's FY 2005 Annual
Plan. This process is another
step in EPA's ongoing efforts to
establish a set of measures that
clearly defines environmental
outcomes and achieves EPA's
Budget and Performance
Integration goals under the
PMA.
Improved Performance Measures
Developed In FY 2005
These new measures will help EPA describe trends over time, and
demonstrate the results of specific environmental programs.
• Tribal Access to Safe Drinking Water EPA will measure the
number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe
drinking water.
• Water Pollutant Loadings Per Program Dollar Spent: EPA
will estimate loadings of water pollutants removed per
program dollar spent, including discharges to surface water
such as municipal storm water and combined sewer
overflows.
• Contamination Levels at Suoerfund Sites: EPA will determine
whether contamination levels at a Superfund site fall within
the levels specified by EPA as safe, or if they do not, whether
adequate controls are in place to prevent unacceptable
human exposure to contamination.
In FY 2005, EPA continued to improve its ability to collect and use reliable and
complete performance and financial data. EPA worked to detect and correct errors in
environmental data, standardize reporting, and exchange and integrate electronic data
and data quality information among its federal, state, and local data-sharing partners.
Over the past year, the Agency completed all corrective actions for an Agency-level
weakness in data management practices. Recent efforts include ensuring that data
management policies and procedures are planned, maintained, and revised as
appropriate. For example, the-Agency changed the structure and operating procedures
of its Quality Information Council to better fulfill its role as the information policymaking
body.
Considering Future Trends and Looking Ahead
As EPA looks to the future, Agency managers are focusing on several priorities.
First, the Agency is striving to accelerate the pace of environmental progress by looking
beyond rules and regulations to consider other solutions. Effective legislation, such as
Clear Skies, puts mechanisms in place to achieve large-scale national protections. The
Agency is committed to working cooperatively with its partners to support legislation
over regulation, results over methods, and partnerships over conflicts to accelerate
progress and usher in a new area of environmental protection.
EPA is also working to foster a culture of environmental stewardship through
partnerships and innovative approaches to environmental, issues. In the coming years,
the Agency will promote collaboration, voluntary programs, and outreach as tools for
MD&A-20
-------
strengthening stewardship. EPA will also focus on opportunities to leverage
environmental protection actions to create opportunities for economic growth. Efforts
such as Brownfields, for example, not only reduce pollution, but revitalize valuable land
and strengthen local economies. In the coming years, while the Agency will maintain its
vigilance in enforcing existing laws and regulations, it will also strive to approach new
challenges with flexibility and enthusiasm.
To meet these challenges and make informed decisions in a rapidly changing,
complex world, EPA leaders need to be aware of the environmental consequences of
future social, economic, and technological change. Several years ago, the Agency
began conducting "futures analysis" to help its leaders anticipate future environmental
challenges and plan strategically to avoid problems.
In FY 2005, EPA continued to identify significant environmental and industrial
trends, demographic issues, and transformative technologies that have implications for
environmental protection. EPA senior managers and staff identified areas for increased
focus under each of the Agency's five strategic goals—for example: (1) international
increases in transboundary pollution, especially participate matter; (2) water scarcity
and its impact on water quality; (3) increased levels of Pharmaceuticals in the waste
stream due to the nation's aging population; and, (4) the environmental implications of
genomics. In the spring of 2005, the Agency sought input on future issues from state
environmental commissioners at an ECOS meeting and from tribal environmental
professionals at the Seventh National Tribal Conference on Environmental
Management All of this input will be vital as the Agency considers the most significant
future issues and develops its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
INTERNAL CONTROLS, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, AND
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This section discusses EPA's progress in strengthening its management
practices and the internal controls the Agency relies on to assure the integrity of its
programs and operations. It includes the Administrator's unqualified Statement of
Assurance for FY 2005.
Federal Managers* Financial Integrity Act
The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires agencies to
establish and maintain management controls and financial systems that provide
reasonable assurance that federal programs and operations are protected from fraud,
waste, abuse, and misappropriation of federal funds. FMFIA holds agency heads
accountable for correcting deficiencies and requires them annually to identify and report
internal control and accounting systems problems and planned remedies.
MD&A-21
-------
Fiscal Year 2005
Annual Assurance Statement
I am pleased to give an unqualified statement of
assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) programs and resources are protected from fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement Based on EPA's
annual self-assessment of its internal controls, I can
reasonably assure that there are no material weaknesses
in the Agency's control
StephenL. Johnson
Administrator
October 28.2005
Date
Based on EPA's self-
assessment of its internal controls and
financial systems, Agency managers
have determined that the Agency's
controls are achieving their intended
objectives. The Administrator's
unqualified Statement of Assurance for
FY 2005 follows.
To identify management issues
and monitor progress in addressing
them, EPA's senior leaders use a
system of internal program evaluations
and independent audit reviews
conducted by the Government Accountability Office, EPA's OIG, and other oversight
organizations to assess program effectiveness. In FY 2005, for the 4th year, EPA has
no material weaknesses to report under FMFIA. Material weaknesses are reportable
conditions that could significantly impair or threaten fulfillment of the Agency's mission
and must be reported to the President and Congress. While the Agency reported no
new material weaknesses, EPA currently has a
number of less severe, internal Agency-level
weaknesses for which it is tracking progress.
During the year, EPA added two new Agency-
level weaknesses to its list and closed two of
its existing Agency-level weaknesses in the
areas of data management and water
permitting. Half of the Key Management
Challenges identified by OIG are also current
Agency-level weaknesses. The Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the
Inspector General to identify, briefly assess,
and report annually the most serious
management and performance challenges
facing the Agency (see Section III of this
report).
EPA's Key Management Challenges
Reported by
the Office of Inspector General
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unking Mission and Management
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland
Security
Superfund Evaluation and Policy
Identification
Information Resources Management and
Data Quality
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to
Accomplish Its Mission
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics
Programs
Human Capital Management
Information Systems Security
Section III of this report provides more
detailed information on OIG's Key
Management Challenges and EPA's
response.
OMB has recognized EPA's efforts to maintain effective and efficient internal
controls. Since September 2003, EPA has maintained a green status score for
Improved Financial Performance under the President's Management Agenda. EPA has
also received a progress score of green for Budget and Performance Integration for all
but one consecutive quarter since June 2002.
MD&A-22
-------
5-Year Trend of Material and Agency Weaknesses
20
18
14-
la,
* 10
*:
-
2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
The Inspector General (IG) Act Amendments require federal agencies to report to
Congress on their progress in carrying out audit recommendations.
EPA's Audit Follow-up Activities: In FY 2005, EPA was responsible for
addressing OIG recommendations and tracking follow-up activities on 396 audits. The
Agency achieved final action (completing all corrective actions associated with an audit)
on 248 audits, including Program Evaluation/Program Performance, Assistance
Agreement, Contracts, and Single audits. EPA's FY 2005 audit management activities
are summarized below.
• Final Corrective Action Taken. EPA completed final corrective actions on 55
audits with disallowed and better use dollars. Of these 55 audits, OIG
questioned costs of more than $14.8 million. After careful review, OIG and the
Agency agreed to disallow approximately $7.9 million of these questioned costs.
In addition, the Agency also completed final corrective action on 193 audits.
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken. At the end of FY 2005, 148 audits were
without final action and not yet fully resolved. (This total excludes audits with
management decisions under administrative appeal by the grantee.)
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken Beyond One Year. Of the 148 audits, EPA
officials had not completed final action on 30 audits within 1 year after the
management decision (the point at which OIG and the Action Official reach
agreement on the corrective action plan). Because the issues to be addressed
may be complex, Agency managers often require more than 1 year after
management decisions are reached with OIG to complete the agreed-upon
corrective actions.
• Audits Awaiting Decision on Appeal. EPA regulations allow grantees to appeal
management decisions on financial assistance audits that seek monetary
reimbursement from the recipient. In the case of an appeal, EPA must not take
action to collect the account receivable until the Agency issues a decision on the
appeal. In FY 2005, 33 audits were in administrative appeal.
MD&A -23
-------
EPA Audits Involving Disallowed Costs and Funds Put to Better Use: As
required by the IG Act Amendments, the following table presents information on audits
that involve disallowed costs and funds put to better use.
DISALLOWED COSTS & FUNDS RJT TO Ben
October 1,20-04 - September 30,2005
A. AUKS witn manggamur • decisions out wunou fiiia action a
thsbetfnringof FYJDOS.
aAirfifftfrviuMiifnninvrvrt rfcviwmswyn nYvtarfcrvYiFY
2005:
WHfaMMiMj rfcriawiUflth dsftxMrl rr«*<: Mfil
(i) MatgBiert decisions with no ifeflowed costs (192)
C. 1bUlajdRspandnoCnalactionduriix)FY2005. (A+B)
a Bref action taken AringFY 2005:
(1) Racowries
a) Offsets
b) Collections
c) VHueofRoperty
d) Other
(i) Writeoffs
P) R*^ed through panteeapped
(iv) Vcfcie ui recomnennaionscoiTVKXuii
(v) \^bjeofreoxnrenddions management decided
^lould/cotrid not b8QMnpl6t6(l
E AuarBportsneednoindactkxidtheendofFY2005L (C-D)
67 $74329,390
237 $ 4/188,195
304 $78317,585
245 $ 7,560083
$ 939346
$ 3349.707
$ 0
$ 1J526025
$ 388228
$ 856,277
59 $71257502 ,
0 $ 0
4 $2368344
4 $2368344
3 $ 866J548
$ 0
. $ 0
1 $2X02296
EPA uses audit management as a tool in assessing its progress and its ability to
meet its strategic objectives. The Agency is continuing to strengthen its audit
management practices and is working to address issues and complete corrective
actions in a timely manner.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) requires
that agencies' financial management systems substantially comply with federal financial
management system requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the
U.S. Government Standard General Ledger. In response to the FY 1999 financial
statement audit, EPA implemented an FFMIA remediation plan to improve the Agency's
financial management systems in order to comply with federal financial system
requirements. Currently, EPA has completed all but two corrective actions: security
certification policy for contractor personnel, and security certification policy for grantee
personnel. EPA anticipates completing these actions by the first quarter of FY 2007.
The Agency continues to improve cost accounting and reconciliation of
intragovemmental transactions. EPA has no substantial noncompliance findings.
The Agency is in the process of developing a modem financial system
infrastructure to help EPA better manage the resources that support our environmental
mission, more accurately measure the true costs of environmental programs, and better
inform the public. The new system will be implemented in FY 2008. Detailed plans for
this project are available at www.epa.aov/ocfo/modernization/index.htm.
MD&A-24
-------
Federal Information Security Management Act
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) directs federal agencies
to conduct annual evaluations of information security programs and practices. It
provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information
security controls over information resources that support Federal operations and assets.
Agencies must report annually to OMB on the effectiveness of their information security
programs, which includes an independent evaluation by the Inspector General.
Agencies also report quarterly to OMB on the status of remediation of weaknesses
found.
EPA's FISMA Report for FY 2005, dated October 7,2005, highlights the results
of the Agency's annual security program reviews and was completed by EPA's Chief
Information Officer, senior agency program officials, and Inspector General. The report
reflects EPA's continued efforts to ensure that information assets are protected and
secured in a manner consistent with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from
the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of information. In FY 2005,
EPA reported no significant deficiencies in its information security systems under
FISMA.
Government Management Reform Act - Audited Financial Statements
The Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994 amended the
requirements of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 by requiring the annual
preparation and audit of agency-wide financial statements. EPA's statements are
audited by the Inspector General, who issues an audit report on the principal financial
statements, internal controls, and compliance with laws and regulations.
For six consecutive years, the Agency submitted timely financial statements with
a clean audit opinion—another important aspect of accountability. These statements
(presented in Section IV of this report) provide a snapshot of the Agency's financial
position at the end of fiscal year.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
EPA's financial management strategy
focuses on running environmental programs in a
fiscally responsible manner to assure that
resources are used wisely and effectively to
protect human health and the environment. In
FY 2005, the Agency continued its efforts to
improve its financial management systems and
processes, data quality and accessibility, and
accountability. These improvements strengthen
EPA managers' ability to use financial analyses
as well as performance information to make
MD&A-25
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Maintained green status score for Improved
Financial Performance PMA initiative.
Maintained 'green' progress score for
Budget/Performance Integration and Eliminating
Improper Payments PMA initiatives.
Maintained a less than one percent erroneous
payment rate.
Made progress integrating budget and
performance data.
Supported E-Govemment and Human Capital
PMA initiatives.
Earned an unqualified audit opinion on the FY
2005 financial statements.
-------
priority-setting decisions that influence resource planning and environmental results.
(See Section IV for more detailed information on financial strategies and initiatives.)
Measuring Financial Management Results
The Agency measures its financial management effectiveness against external
and internal standards. External standards include the President's Management
Agenda (PMA) initiatives, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), audited
financial statements, and Government-wide Financial Performance Metrics. Internally,
the Agency tracks its performance in key financial management areas: processing
payments and reconciling cash, as well as managing accounts receivable, obligations,
budgets, contracts, Superfund billings, and property.
EPA has maintained its green score for the PMA Improved Financial
Performance initiative by continuously setting and meeting higher performance goals.
In FY 2005, EPA produced accurate and timely accelerated interim quarterly financial
statements, completed Quality Assurance Reviews to ensure the accuracy of Agency
financial data, and automated preparation of the Statement of Net Costs by Goal.
The PMA initiative on Eliminating Improper Payments is focused on identifying,
preventing, and eliminating erroneous payments. As required by the Improper
Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Memorandum M-03-07, EPA samples and annually reports on improper
payments in the two State Revolving Funds (SRFs) previously covered under OMB
Circular A-11, Section 57. For FY 2005, the Agency assessed a statistical sample of
direct state payments and judgemental sub-recipient payments. EPA's samples
identified a less than 1 percent error rate in payments. The chart below provides 2
years of actual performance as well as planned reduction targets.
ueaiwov
andDrinMrg
Water SA
$2,182
.47%
$1OT
$1#8
ActudO.16%
TarsBt.45%
$3.1
.40%
35%
30%
•Approximately $10 million of the $10.3 million identified as erroneous payments was attributable to states prematurely
drawing down funds for allowable expenses.
In FY 2005, the Agency met or exceeded the standard for four of the
government-wide performance metrics and has an action plan to improve performance
for the other five metrics. Additionally, EPA generally met or exceeded internal
performance goals. Over 99.9 percent of the Agency's contracts were paid on time and
EPA received $330 thousand in purchase card rebates from the purchase card
contractor. The chart below presents results for three internal Agency performance
measures that support the EPA's E-govemment and improved financial performance
priorities. To further improve efficiency and consistency, EPA is realigning major
accounting functions and customer service responsibilities from 14 locations to four
Finance Centers of Excellence. The Agency reached the 50 percent mark in the
consolidation this year and plans to complete it by December 2006.
MD&A-26
-------
ao-
ro-
Fnrn* Marogsmrt ftrtbnrenoe Moves
3001 206
2004 2005
Resources and Outlays
In FY 2005 EPA received $8.03 billion in Congressional appropriations.21 EPA
Financial Trends22 (shown belowj shows a 5-year snapshot of the Agency's used
resources. The Statement of Budgetary Resources, included in Section IV, presents
additional information on the Agency's resources. The next chart below shows EPA's
FY 2005 obligations by Congressional appropriation.
(Dutam SMH or Bi«Uy Mnnaaof t VKKB)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FY 2005 Obligi ions by Appropriation (Dollars in Millions)
(Oaalromaaemert olBjOgOay Fteurceasor 1VKVD5)
Sate&TribalAsHstant Grants
SUperfund
All Other
Total
$3.608.5 (35.6^
$1,544.9(15.3°^
$4,971.0(49.196)
$10,124.4 (100°/o)
EPA works with its partners in the public and private sectors to accomplish its
mission and uses a variety of funding mechanisms—including grants, contracts,
innovative financing, and collaborative networks—to protect human health and the
environment. The chart below depicts EPA's costs (expenses for services rendered or
activities performed) by spending category.23
FY 2005 Co* Catapries
(Duarf'VKXS
riMCM)
MD&A -27
-------
The majority of EPA's costs are for grant programs (see chart below). The Clean
Water and Drinking Water SRF grants supporting the Agency's Clean and Safe Water
goal account for 43 percent of EPA's grant awards. Other major environmental grant
programs include assistance to states and tribes, consistent with EPA's authorizing
statutes, and research grants to universities and nonprofit institutions.
FY 2005 Mqor Grant Cdeprte
Innovative Financing: Partnerships and the Environmental Finance Program
EPA leverages federal funds through several innovative environmental financing
efforts, mutually beneficial public-private partnerships, such as SRFs and the
Environmental Finance Program, and Superfund program cost recoveries.
EPA uses collaboration and partnerships with the states to wisely manage its
resources for keeping the nation's water clean and safe. As of early FY 2006, the Clean
Water SRF had leveraged nearly $23 billion in federal capitalization grants into more
than $52 billion in assistance to municipalities and other entities for wastewater projects.
As of early FY 2006, the Drinking Water SRF had leveraged $6.5 billion in federal
capitalization grants into more than $11 billion in assistance for drinking water
infrastructure. (Note: The current FY 2005 Drinking Water SRF data includes
information from 50 DWSRF Programs, including partial data from New York. The
remaining data for New York is expected at the end of November 2005).
S3
The Environmental Finance Program helps regulated parties find ways to pay for
environmental activities. The program works to lower costs, increase investments, and
build financial capacity. It provides leveraged financial outreach to governments and
the private sector via an Environmental Financial Advisory Board, an online database,
and a network of nine university-based Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs). To
date, this network has provided educational, technical, and analytic support in 48 states.
For every dollar that EPA has invested in it, the network has invested 3.67 dollars in
project work (see chart below). Additional information on the program is available at
www.epa.gov/efinDaae.
MD&A -28
-------
One of the Agency's compliance and enforcement success stories is its
Superfund program, which leverages funding to increase cleanup of contaminated sites.
Under Superfund, EPA may recover the cost of cleanups. Since 1980, EPA has
collected $3.34 billion in cost recoveries ($63 million collected in FY 2005). EPA also
retains and uses the proceeds received under settlement agreements to conduct
cleanup activities, placing these funds in interest-bearing, site-specific special accounts.
With careful management, EPA uses and leverages these resources to the fullest extent
possible. As of September 30,2005, EPA had established 540 special accounts with
$1.5 billion in receipts. These accounts have earned $206 million in cumulative
interest.24
accurate information critical for
New Financial Management Initiatives
Committed to providing managers with timely,
managing resources wisely, the Agency
leverages technology and updates its systems
to produce the information needed to make
sound decisions. In the near term, the
enhanced internal control requirements in OMB
Circular A-123 will strengthen EPA's existing
management integrity efforts and provide a
platform to broaden our scope and expand our
focus on programmatic efficiency and
effectiveness. This activity will complement
efforts planned or underway to achieve
economies of scale and develop and enhance
financial information tools to meet the
decisionmaking needs of EPA managers.
Additionally, the Agency is expanding the use of financial information by
integrating additional financial information into EPA's decisionmaking processes, with
an initial focus on grants data. EPA also successfully conducted the first Competitive
Sourcing "Standard Competition" for vendor payment services. The Agency's Research
Triangle Park Finance Center bested the private sector contractors' bids for providing
these services, resulting in savings to the Agency of $3.5 million over 5 years.
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY
E-government - leveraging technology to
gain efficiencies across government
Financial accountability - integrating
budget and performance data, providing more
precise information about program costs, and
identifying areas for improvement
Modern resource management systems -
implementing 21st century tools to manage
Agency resources
Data warehousing and reporting -
searching data for latent correlations and
providing easy access to useful data
Security- protecting data against today's
threats
MD&A-29
-------
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 EPA Announces Landmark Clean Air Interstate Rule (Agency Press Release, 3/10/05).
3 EPA Announces First-Even Rule to Reduce Mercury Emissions from Power Plans (3/15/05).
4 For more information on the toxics program see www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/urban/urbanpg.html.
5 Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures. ISBN 0-309-06496. January 2000.
6 A copy of the report can be found at www.eDa.QOV/owow/oceans/nccr2.
7 More information on EPA's Superfund Program can be found at www.epa.aov/suDerfund/index.htm.
8 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-
10, June 2,2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity Report."
9 Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks, November 9,
•2005.
10 Additional information about EPA's recycling programs can be found at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncDl/recvcle.htm.
11 For additional information on EPA authorities for conducting work under the Food Quality Protection Act
go to www.epa.qov/pesticides/regulatinq/tolerances.htm.
For additional information on pesticide registration and assessment go to
www.epa.gov/oesticides/index.htm.
13 For additional information on the high production chemical program go to
www.epa.qov/chemrtk/volchaH.htm.
14 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey: 1999-2002: May 2005. More information is available at
www.cdc.qov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
15 More information can be found at www.epa.qov/compliance/resources/cases/civil.
16 More information can be found at www.epa.qov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal.
17 More information on PCS is available at www.epa.qov/compliance/data/svstems/water/pcssvs.html.
10 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regularly releases an executive scorecard which rates
each federal agency's overall status and progress in implementing the PMA initiatives. The scorecard
ratings use a color-coded system based on criteria determined by OMB.
19 US EPA, American Indian Environmental Office. Target 1 Program Performance Report." Goal 5,
Objective 5.3 Reporting System.
20 It is important to note that the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) has been identified as
an Agency-level Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, with corrective action to
be completed in 2007. The data are not considered materially inadequate, however, per OMB's definition.
The Verification and Validation section of the Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
has details on data limitations associated with SDWIS.
21 Public Law 108-447 H.R. 4818.
22 Section IV, FY 2005 Statement of Budgetary Resources.
^Section IV, FY 2005 Statement of Net Costs.
24 EPA's Integrated Financial Management System.
MD&A-30
-------
Section II
Performance Results
Introduction to Performance Section
Goal 1 - Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Annual Performance Goals
Goal 1 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water
Annual Performance Goals
Goal 2 PART Measures Without Corresponding FY 2005 Goals
Goal 2 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
Goal 3 - Land Preservation and Restoration
Annual Performance Goals
Goal 3 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
Goal 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Annual Performance Goals
Goal 4 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
Goal 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Annual Performance Goals
Goal 5 PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
Enabling and Support Programs
Annual Performance Goals
November 15, 2005
-------
INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION
EPA's Performance Framework
EPA is committed to using the taxpayer funds it receives from Congress to produce meaningful
environmental results. The Agency has established five long-term strategic goals that describe
the results it is striving to achieve: (1) Clean Air and Global Climate Change, (2) Clean and Safe
Water, (3) Land Preservation and Restoration, (4) Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and
(5) Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. These goals are supported by a planning and
budgeting framework, or "architecture," of long-term objectives and annual performance goals
and measures.
The strategic "architecture" serves as a framework for EPA's annual planning, budgeting and
accountability work. By integrating these activities under one framework, the Agency has been
better able to assess its performance, evaluate its programs, and use that information to make
budget and program improvement decisions. EPA's strategic planning and budgeting
architecture comprises strategic goals, objectives, annual performance goals, and annual
performance measures.
About the Performance Section
The Performance Section of this report provides performance information for each of EPA's five
strategic goals and enabling and support programs. Each goal chapter looks at EPA's FY 2005
performance from three perspectives: at the goal, objective, and annual performance goal
(APG) levels. The more general information provided at the goal and objective levels enables
the reader to get a sense of how EPA is performing in the goal area. Those who wish to learn
more can "drill down" into the more complete and detailed information provided for each APG.
The Performance Section also lists Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments
conducted under each of the strategic goals. It identifies performance measures associated
with the PART and reports FY 2005 results for the measures for which data are currently
available. Future PART measures are listed in a separate table for each strategic goal, along
with the year EPA expects to begin reporting data against them. Ratings for programs
assessed during 2005 for the FY 2007 budget will be available in February 2006. EPA is
currently working to integrate GPRA and PART measures to meet standards for performance
measurement established by bothJEPA and OMB. This integration is another step in EPA's
ongoing efforts to establish a set of measures that clearly defines environmental outcomes and
achieves EPA's Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) goals. Additional information on
PART assessments and EPA's progress in making program improvements will be available in
February 2006 at ExpectMore.gov.
Each goal chapter is organized as follows:
Sub-Section
Goal
Objective
APG
Purpose
Provides a general overview of EPA's efforts under the goal.
Discusses the Agency's progress toward meeting the objective and lists
each of the supporting APGs, noting which have been met, missed, or
are awaiting data. Also discusses future challenges EPA faces in
achieving the objective.
The most detailed discussion of EPA's FY 2005 performance. Provides
results for each annual performance goal. Includes trend data,
information on relevant program evaluation and management integrity
issues, and plans for addressing performance issues. Also includes
performance measures developed as a result of Program Assessment
and Rating Tool (PART) assessments.
-------
EFA's Performance Framework
FY2005 Costs and Obligations Are Resented for Each 3rategc Goal (in Thousands of Dollars) *
Strategic Goals
Clean Air &
Global Climate
Change
Cost $990.489
. Obligation $987,796
Clean&
SsfeWater
Cost S3-507201
Obiigtfoo SSSTBjSJS
Healthy
Communities
& Ecosystems
Cost 51272,652
Obiiglion 51.387,964
Compliances
;•. Bwonmental
Stewardship
Cost 5714,178
Out door Air
(8AFG$
Cost: 62.7%
Oblivion: 623%
Indoor Air
(3APGs)
Cost: 53%
ObBgaion: 50%
The Ozone Layer
(1APG)
Cost 24%
Oa&tim: 1.8%
Radiation
(3APGi$
Cos: 4.1%
ObSgabn: 4.0°.
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
(2ATC9
Cost 113%
Obfigetion: 113%
^'pfv^p A Rprrarrh
(2ATC9
Cost 142%
Obfgafon: 145%
Contamination in i_!
DrinkingWeter,
Shellfish, and
Recreational Waters
(11APG$
Cost 332%
OHigiion: 35.7%
Water Quality
(6APG3
Cod:6a8%
OUigaion: 603%
Sbience& Research
(1APG)
Cost:4D%
ObBgabn: 4fl%
Strategic Objectives
Reserved Land
(2APG3
Cost 1Z1%
Obligptbn: 6B%
Restored Land
(4AFG$
Cosl: 845%
ObCgetion: 90.4%
Stience & Ftesearch
(1AR3)
Cost: a4%
Ottigaion: 3fl%
Chemics), Organism!
&R=st icicle Hsks
(10APG^
Cost 34.4%
ObSgSfon: 33.4%
Communities
(SAFGs)
Cost 18.8%
ObSgaton: 21 B%
Exisystems
(6AFG^
Cost: 13fl%
OUigalion: 13X)%
Science & Research
(7APQ$
Cost: 33B%
Obligaion: 32£%
Irnprowsd CorrpliaxB
(3APG^
Cost 61.1%
ObigBtion: 593%
Improved
BTvironmentd
Rsrformance t hrougi
R2 and Imovstion
(2APG^
Cod: 16.7%
Obligaton: 163%
Tribal Capacity
to Implement
Environments!
Programs
(1AFBJ
Cost: 10X3%
ObSgeton: 10B%
Science & Research '
(1APG)
Cost 122%
ObigBtion: 13.0%
Note: SBe Performance Resdts for each Goal and Srategic Objective for presentation of dollars associated with FY 2005 costs and obligations.
' Reconciles with SF133, Lines 8a and 8b—Obligations.
Data and Information Quality
The performance information in this report is reliable and, as defined by OMB, no material
inadequacies are present.1 Each of EPA's program offices has certified that the information it
submitted for this report is accurate, reliable and unbiased; is transparent and reproducible to an
acceptable degree of imprecision; and complies with EPA's Information Quality Guidelines
(http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines). The certifications, signed by senior EPA managers,
are archived by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
' It is important to note that the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) has been identified as
an Agency-level Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, with corrective action to
be completed in 2007. The data are not considered materially inadequate, however, per OMB's definition.
The Verification and Validation section of the Annual Performance Plan and CongressionalJustification
has details on data limitations associated with SDWIS.
-------
This section of the report presents actual end-of-year performance information, or the date
when it will become available. Where a date is provided, preliminary performance may be
reported as estimates, projections, or extrapolations of partial year data. Based on OMB's
definition of completeness, therefore, the performance data are considered complete. The
report references data sources, including those external to EPA.
Note that EPA reports more detailed information on sources of performance data error, data
quality reviews, and data improvements for each annual performance measure in the
"Verification and Validation" section of its Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification. For the 2006 version, see "Program and Performance Assessment," pages 162-
355, at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budaet/2006/ppa.Ddf.
STRATEGIC GOAL
Performance t.
~ Goal ,
AmuelL
ftrtormanceL
Goal ,
Annual L
Fterformanoe L
Goal
Fterforrence.
.Measures
fterfonrence:
Maaares ,
Fferfor marcel
.. Meeaies'
Strategic Goal: Identifies the overall environmental result that EPA is working to achieve in carrying out its mission to
protect human health and the environment.
Objective: Supports EPA's strategic goals by identifying more specific environmental outcomes or results the Agency
intends to achieve within a given time frame, using available resources. EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes 20
objectives.
Annual Performance Goal (APG): Specific results EPA intends to achieve in a given fiscal year. APGs represent the
year-by-year accomplishments that EPA believes are needed to achieve its objectives. APGs generally include a target to
be achieved (relative to a baseline) and performance measure. Some of EPA's APGs, however, are specific
environmental outcomes or results that may take longer than a year to realize and quantify. As a result, data for a number
of EPA's FY 2005 APGs will not be available until FY 2006 or beyond.
•w
Performance Measure (PM): The metric that EPA uses to evaluate its success in meeting an annual performance goal.
In many cases, the APG is itself the measure.
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 1 - CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe, and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships
with businesses and other sectors.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS
Acid Rain Program, AirNow, Air Toxics, Best Workplaces for Commuters, Clean Automotive
Technology Program, Climate Leaders Partnership, Combined Heat and Power, National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Implementation, Energy Star Programs, Green Power
Partnership, High GWPGas Programs, Indoor Air Quality, International Programs, Methane,
Mobile Sources, NOX Budget Program, Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection Program,
Pollution Prevention, Radiation Programs, SmartWay New Source Review, Transport Program,
Sunwise Schools Program, Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Programs.
OVERVIEW OF GOAL
Since 1970, EPA has been working with its partners and stakeholders to implement the Clean
Air Act and other environmental laws and approaches to achieve cleaner, healthier air for all
Americans. The Agency's strategy for protecting public health relies on national regulatory,
voluntary, and market-based programs carried out in combination with state, tribal, and local
efforts. By phasing out lead in gasoline, setting tougher standards for vehicle emissions, and
using allowance trading to reduce acid rain precursors, national programs have contributed to
reducing overall emission of air pollutants by 48 percent since 1970; at the same time,
economic growth has increased by more than 160 percent.1 Every year, state and federal
criteria air pollutant programs established pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
significantly benefit human health and the economy.
Outdoor Air Pollution
A better understanding by government and industry of fine particle pollution—including the role
of sulfur dioxide (SOjj) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in forming fine particulate matter—and recent
advances in diesel engine and power plant technologies are furthering EPA's progress in
addressing outdoor air pollution. In FY 2005, the Agency issued two rules expected to achieve
sizable improvements in air quality.
The new Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is expected to dramatically reduce pollution in the
eastern United States, cutting power plant emissions of SO2 by more than 70 percent and NOX
by more than 60 percent and permanently capping emissions that lead to smog and soot. When
fully implemented, CAIR is expected to provide nearly $2 billion in visibility benefits, significantly
reducing haze in eastern national parks. Most importantly, EPA estimates suggest that CAIR
will result in significant health benefits.2
The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is designed to reduce mercury emissions from power
plants. Working with CAIR, it provides a flexible multipollutant approach to air toxics, reducing
SO2, NOX, and mercury emissions. Like CAIR, CAMR limits emissions by using a market-based,
1 See www.epa.gov/airtrends/reports.html. Air pollutants include lead, CO, S02, NOX, ozone, and PM.
2 EPA Announces Landmark Clean Air Interstate Rule (Agency Press Release, 3/10/05).
GOAL 1-1
-------
cap and trade program that will permanently cap utility mercury emissions. The United States is
now the only country regulating mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.3
In FY 2005, EPA also launched the Clean Diesel Campaign, which relies on regulatory and
voluntary efforts to reduce emissions from new and existing diesel engines by 2014. Under this
campaign, EPA is developing and implementing stringent emissions standards for new engines
and fuel. The Agency is addressing the country's existing fleet by promoting such voluntary
pollution-cutting measures as retrofits, use of cleaner fuels, replacement, and reduced idling.
EPA's Acid Rain Program and NOX Budget Program employ market-based allowance trading to
reduce SO2 and NOXemissions from the power industry. Now in its 10th year, the Acid Rain
Program posted a cumulative reduction in SO2 emissions of 7 million tons, a more than 40
percent reduction from the 1980 baseline. EPA has measured improvements in acid deposition
and other environmental indicators, including an approximately 40 percent reduction in sulfate
deposition in some regions of the country.4
S02 Bnissions Under the Add Rain FVogram
j
18-H'J-
-130 —13.1-
I Phase I sources
I Phase II sources
I All sources
i 12
I 10
f 8
S 6
S 4
:
10.6
.
r i
Ii i i i i i i
i i i i i i i
! I i I I I
J53 54 55 | 5.3 49 P I $ I I I
I I 1 I III
1980 1965 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Yea-
Indoor Air Pollution
EPA's indoor air programs focus primarily on environmental management of asthma triggers,
improving indoor air quality in schools, and reducing risks from radon. For example, the
Agency's popular public service Goldfish Campaign, which highlights childhood asthma, has
garnered close to $150 million in donated media time, generated nearly 50,000 calls to the
"Asthma Hotline," and sparked more than 1 million Web site visits. During FY 2005, EPA trained
more than 500 tribal environmental professionals, school nurses, school administrators, local
housing authorities, respiratory health therapists, and council members servicing tribal nations
on indoor air quality and techniques for reducing asthma risks. Under its schools program, EPA
recruited an estimated 2,500 additional schools to use approaches promoted by the Agency's
Tools for Schools Program. EPA also collaborated with five national school organizations on
training, speaking engagements, mailings, articles, and other activities to make indoor air quality
a key priority within the school community.
EPA Announces First-Ever Rule to Reduce Mercury Emissions from Power Plants.
www.epa.gov/mercurvrule/.
More information is available in National Acid Precipitation Assessment Report to Congress: Integrated
Assessment, August 2005. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) is a
legislatively mandated cooperative effort among federal agencies to coordinate acid rain research and
assessment.
GOAL 1-2
-------
Climate Change
Most global climate change is attributed the buildup of greenhouse gases—primarily CO2,
methane, and nitrous oxide—in the atmosphere. These gases trap heat in the Earth's
atmosphere, decreasing snow cover and floating ice, increasing precipitation over land, and
causing other climate changes. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases could
accelerate the rate of climate change.
EPA's climate protection efforts are centered on reducing emissions of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases such as methane and perfluorocarbons and reducing energy consumption.
When consumers and businesses use less energy, power plants need generate less electricity,
thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. Energy efficient products
and practices also benefit the economy by saving consumers and businesses money on their
utility bills. EPA programs work to address the most potent greenhouse gases emitted from
industrial and waste management processes; challenge businesses, public institutions, and
households to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and other climate-friendly technologies; and provide information, technical assistance,
and recognition to organizations taking measurable steps to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions.
Energy Goals and Achievements for Climate Protection Programs
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
In addition, EPA's climate protection programs have secured substantial energy conservation
and environmental benefits for the next decade. Because many of the investments the Agency
has promoted involve energy-efficient equipment with 10-year or longer lifetimes, investments
made to date are expected to deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2014 and
beyond. EPA estimates that organizations and consumers will net savings of more than $115
billion and reduce greenhouse emissions by more than 700 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) over the next 10 years. These programs continue to be cost-effective: EPA
estimates that every dollar it spent deploying technology reduced greenhouse gas emissions by
more than 1 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.67 tons of CO2) and saved more than $75 in
energy bills.5
Investing in Our Future: Energy Star® and Other Voluntary Program. 2004 Annual Report
www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual report2004.pdf.
GOAL 1-3
-------
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
EPA also implements programs to protect the ozone layer, meeting requirements of the
Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The Agency reviews substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances and develops voluntary programs to reduce emissions of gases that
contribute to global climate change. If reduction targets are met on schedule, the Stratospheric
Ozone Depletion program could help to prevent 6 million skin-cancer deaths over the next 100
years.
Radiation
EPA is responsible for protecting the public and environment from radiation. The Radiation
Monitoring Network (RadNet) provides data that federal agencies use to assess responses to
nuclear emergencies, provides data on ambient levels of radiation in the environment for
baseline and trend analysis, and informs decisionmakers and the public in the event of a
nuclear incident. In FY 2005, EPA enhanced RadNet by acquiring state-of-the-art fixed and
deployable radiation monitors. The Agency also met its FY 2005 responsibilities for reviewing
and recertifying the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA oversees radiation waste shipped
to the WIPP from sites throughout the United States.
Research
EPA's 2005 research findings support the association between exposure to particulate matter
(PM), illness, and even death. Susceptible groups, including asthmatic children, suffered such
adverse effects as impaired health and hospitalization. People with heart disease were found
more prone to fatal cardiac events as a result of acute PM exposure. Scientists also found that
PM2.5, the component of PM smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, easily penetrates indoor
environments, where people spend much of their time. EPA's Office of Research and
Development continues to investigate various hypotheses on how PM causes disease and
death and will use the results to help the Agency and its partners develop targeted control
strategies to reduce human exposure. In addition, EPA will continue research to help implement
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), using modeling and monitoring data to
determine which states and regions are out of compliance and developing new analytical tools
to help them meet the standards.
Summary of FY 2005 Performance^
EPA is confident that, based on results through 2004 and preliminary FY 2005 information and
trends, all six strategic objectives are on track. EPA works toward a set of strategic targets and
annual goals that support the strategic objectives and help us estimate progress toward the
stated long-term objectives.
GOAL 1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Total APGs
19
Met
5
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands}:
EPA Total: $10,125,982.6
Goal 1: $987,795.9
Goal 1 Share of Total: 9.8%
Not Met Data Available
November 15,
After
2005
0 14
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $8,500,594.0
GoaM: $990.489.0
Goal 1 Share of Total: 11.6%
GOAL 1-4
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $621,548.8 (62.9% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $621.259.9 (62.7% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
~ABGT* *
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
"* ~" f. &f -*~'*-Xf>r±r * * **"" * T^f^ ^mt ^'"n.'-i * »• K i *•
. ir«wJr^s&-8,\«.6. «. *~ ^APG Title ^ .., , ,
Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, and Lead
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM10
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM2.5
Reduce SO2 Emissions
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8-hour
Acid Rain - Reduce Sulfur Deposition
Acid Rain - Reduce Nitrogen Deposition
Statusof APG ,
Data available in FY 2006
Not Met for FY 2004
Data available in FY 2006
Not Met for FY 2004
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available in 2015
Not met for FY 2001
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available late in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available late in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA continues to make progress in improving air quality and is on track to meet its long-term
objective of healthier outdoor air. The Agency's clean air rules provide tools for attaining and
maintaining health-based standards and reducing risk from toxic air pollutants:
• The new Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will help 28 eastern states meet national
health-based air quality standards and reduce pollution that moves across state
boundaries. When fully implemented, CAIR is expected to reduce power plant
emissions of SO2 by more than 70 percent and NOX by more than 60 percent.
• The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) will reduce mercury emissions from electric utilities.
CAMR limits mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and
creates a market-based cap and trade program that will permanently cap utility mercury
emissions, initially at 38 tons beginning in 2010 and finally at 15 tons beginning in 2018.
• The Clean Air Fine Particle Rule designated areas where air does not meet the health-
based standards for fine-particulate pollution. States are required to submit plans for
reducing the levels of particulate pollution in these designated areas.
• The Clean Air Ozone Rules (dealing with 8-hour ground-level ozone designation and
implementation) designate areas where air does not meet the health-based standards
for ground-level ozone. The ozone rules classify the seriousness of the problem and
require states to submit plans for reducing ozone levels in designated areas.
CHALLENGES: CAIR, CAMR, the Clean Air Ozone and Particulate Matter Rules, and the Non-
Road Diesel and Tier 2 Rules lay the groundwork for meeting health-based air standards and
GOAL 1-5
-------
reducing exposure to harmful pollutants. Progress requires effort at all levels of government.
Delays in the development of states' clean air plans, for example, could lead to delays in
meeting the standards.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes,
schools, and office buildings.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $49,064.9 (5.0% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $52,739.0 (5.3% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
1.9
1.10
1.11
NEW IN
FY05
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
LData available FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA is on track to achieve its objective for healthier air inside homes, schools, and office
buildings. EPA estimates that as of 2003, people suffering from asthma avoided 42,000
emergency room visits because they took action to reduce their exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers. The Agency expects that by 2007, 64,000 ER visits will be
avoided annually as a result of reduced exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.6 In
addition, EPA estimates that radon mitigations and radon-resistant new construction through
2005 will help save 580 lives annually. The Agency projects an additional 100,000 new homes
built with radon resistant construction and more than 70,000 new working mitigation systems in
2005.
As of 2002, more than 25,000 schools (22 percent of U.S. schools) had Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
management plans meeting EPA's standard for effectiveness.7 EPA expects that in 2007, an
additional 1,100 schools will implement effective indoor air quality management plans, for a total
of more than 35,000 schools implementing plans nationwide.
CHALLENGES: EPA's non-regulatory Indoor Environments program is designed to promote
voluntary actions by the general public to improve indoor air quality. While the program has
been effective using education and outreach to change behavior, in the future, increased
authority in some areas could improve program results.
Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. The World Health Organization
(WHO) estimates that radon could cause up to 15 percent of lung cancers globally. To address
this concern, WHO is collaborating with EPA and participating countries on an International
Radon Project to increase public awareness about this invisible health threat and actions that
can be taken to reduce risks. For additional information on the initiative, visit
www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np15/en/index.html.
6 2003 National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
www.epa.gov/asthma/pdfs/survev fact sheet.pdf.
7 "IAQ Practices in Schools Survey," July 10, 2003. Prepared by Indoor Environments Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 60 Wells Ave., Newton,
MA 02459-3210. IAQ Practices in Schools Survey, Office of Management and Budget Control No.: 2060-
0436.
GOAL 1-6
-------
Healthier Indoor Air
Grant Projects
Through an EPA grant, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) worked with health plans to
encourage the reduction of exposure to indoor air asthma triggers. To date, AHIP has
educated approximately 200 health plans on evidence-based environmental asthma
management; increased by 20 percent the number of health plans that integrate
environmental management; and trained approximately 200 case managers who can actively
demonstrate increased knowledge of indoor triggers and mitigation solutions.
In FY 2005, more than 4,000 school nurses through a grant to the National Association of
School Nurses were educated about ways to encourage approximately 65,000 children with
asthma and their families on how to reduce exposures of indoor air asthma triggers.
In FY 2005, Habitat for Humanity International, a national leader in the building construction
industry, continued to include healthy indoor air quality (IAQ) principles as part of its building
ethic. IAQ factors become integrated into Habitat builder training. At least 10 IAQ specific
trainings occurred increasing the numbers of Habitat affiliates build homes radon-resistant
allowing improved IAQ in residences.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped
declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and the risk to human health from overexposure to
ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $17,407.8 (1.8% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $23,251.8 (2.4% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
1.12
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Met for FY 2003
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer has reduced global
production and use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Developed countries stopped
producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride in 1996,
preventing emission of 400,000 metric tons of ODS. Developing countries are ahead of
schedule in reducing their production, use, and emissions of ODS. As a result of these prudent
international actions, the rate of increase of atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting
chemicals has slowed, and in some cases, declined.
Through the Multilateral Fund, the United States helped more than 120 developing countries
reduce their use of ozone-depleting chemicals, preventing emission of more than 150,000
metric tons of ODS. The fund has reached long-term agreements to eliminate more than two-
thirds of developing countries' capacity for producing CFC and virtually all of their capacity for
producing halon.
U.S. industry is benefiting from American leadership in this international arena. In 2004, U.S.
firms exported ozone-friendly chemical alternatives, generating $80 million in revenue. In
addition, the United States is supplying recycling technology, equipment, and technical
assistance to support developing countries' phase-out activities.
GOAL 1-7
-------
CHALLENGES: To further progress in protecting and restoring the ozone layer, EPA must
continue its efforts to phase out ODS, while ensuring that ODS remain available for specific
uses when no alternatives exist. In particular, with minor, limited exceptions, EPA must phase
out the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b) by January 1, 2010, a
development that is expected to provide largest economic and technical impact since the bulk of
CFCs were phased out in 1996. Because these chemicals are so widely used, minimizing the
impact on manufacturers and users will be extremely challenging. This effort will require in-
depth research and analysis and close consultation with stakeholders around the world,
including other governments.
A second challenge is continuing to phase out methyl bromide. Developing an appropriate
critical use exemption, which allows production and import of this important agricultural chemical
while alternatives are developed, is extremely difficult. EPA will need to conduct thorough
technical analyses and carefully consider the views of methyl bromide users, state and local
officials, other federal agencies, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, and
the international community. Moreover, the window of opportunity to assist methyl bromide
•users in identifying and adopting practical, effective alternatives is extremely narrow. Farmers
will need relevant, timely information to help them produce, ship, and store crops without using
methyl bromide.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - RADIATION
Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation, and be prepared to
minimize impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $39,996.1 (4.0% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $40,532.4 (4.1% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
1.13
1.14
1.15
NEW IN
FY05
Ensure WIPP Safety
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
Homeland Security - Readiness and Response
Met
Met
Data available in FY 2006
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA is making steady progress toward its 2008 objective of minimizing unnecessary releases of
radiation and impacts to human health and the environment. The Agency has conducted regular
radiological emergency response exercises; recertified the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP);
drafted guidance on acceptable levels of radiation exposure (Federal Radiation Guidance for
the General Public) and upgraded and enhanced the radiation monitoring system.
In FY 2005, EPA continued its work with other agencies to ensure the nation's security and
readiness from terrorist incidents. The Agency purchased monitors for the Radiation Monitoring
Network (RadNet) and will site the initial group of monitors in FY 2006. The initial RadNet plan
had called for the full monitoring system to be in place by 2009. However, given the
complexities of the system and technology, the date for implementing the monitoring system
has been pushed back. Nonetheless, EPA expects to substantially meet its original target by
providing radiation monitoring coverage to approximately 65 percent of the U.S. population by
2009. EPA worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure that the deliveries of
radiation waste to WIPP were fully certified according to EPA standards. DOE did not ship as
many drums as it had planned this year; however, due to over-shipments in the past, EPA
remains on track to meet its long-term goal.
GOAL 1-8
-------
CHALLENGES: Ensuring the safety of Americans in the event of a terrorist event or other
emergency is an ongoing concern. Many agencies contribute to this effort, making coordination
complicated. EPA's role is critical but limited. Given the real and perceived danger from
radiation, the range of radiation sources, and the expertise needed for cleanup, factoring
radiation issues into all plans will be an ongoing challenge. Led by the Department of Homeland
Security, EPA will work with other agencies to ensure the nation's safety in nuclear incidents as
outlined in the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5 - REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18% greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by
2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in the climate programs are
reflected in the administrations' business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $1 16,956.5 (1 1.8% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $1 12,261 .3 (1 1 .3% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
1.16
1.17
Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Reduce Energy Consumption
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data available in FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA's voluntary climate protection programs have made progress in reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
These reductions contribute to progress on the President's goal to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity by 18 percent by 2012.
ENERGY STAR, EPA's flagship program, realized substantial economic and environmental
benefits through 2004. National awareness of the ENERGY STAR program has grown from 40
to 64 percent. More than 40 types of products now carry the ENERGY STAR label, and 30
percent of U.S. households knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-qualified product. In all,
consumers have purchased more than 1.5 billion ENERGY STAR-qualified products. In the
residential sector, more than 2,000 builders have constructed more 360,000 ENERGY STAR-
qualified homes, providing $200 million in savings for homeowners annually.
Since 2002, the Agency has offered leading organizations the opportunity to be Climate
Leaders, partners who take aggressive steps to reduce their impact on the global environment.
They inventory their greenhouse gas emissions, set aggressive long-term reduction goals,
report their progress to EPA, and are recognized for their achievements. EPA also provides
technical assistance to help them assess the environmental and economic benefits of clean
energy policies and programs, including those that advance energy efficiency, combined heat
and power, and renewable sources of energy.
CHALLENGES: EPA's climate change programs include both domestic and international
programs. The domestic programs support the Administration's goal of reducing greenhouse
gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. The Administration has also introduced a number of
international initiatives, such as Methane to Markets, in which EPA participates. EPA will
continue to work with its voluntary program partners to ensure adequate progress on domestic
programs and with other agencies and international partners to support international programs.
GOAL 1-9
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6 - ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support EPA's goal of Clean Air by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 1 .
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $142,821.8 (14.5% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $140,444.6 (14.2% of FY 2005 Goal 1 Total Costs)
1.18
1.19
NEW IN
FY05
Clean Automotive Technology
PM Effects Research
Met
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA is on track for meeting this objective. The work being done under the Clean Automotive
Technology program supports the Agency's climate program's goal to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through significantly improving fuel efficiency of vehicles such as passenger cars,
large sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, urban delivery trucks, school buses, shuttle buses, and
refuse trucks.
Additionally, in the area of PM research, EPA developed data on the chemical and physical
characteristics of significant primary PM sources. These data will help states and others
distinguish these from other sources of PM contributing to ambient PM burden, thereby enabling
the development of effective State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Harvard School of Public Health PM Center Study:
Susceptibility to Particulate Air Pollution
Convincing evidence exists that particulate air pollution exacerbates heart and lung disease, which
can lead to increased morbidity and mortality risks. However, scientists have been uncertain about
which populations are most susceptible to these exposures. An understanding of susceptibility is
essential for effectively reducing the adverse public health effects on those at greatest risk.
Under a grant from EPA, researchers at the Harvard PM Center have conducted several studies on
susceptibility, using data from multiple cities. Study results show that:
• The risk of heart attacks from PM exposure is double in subjects with a secondary diagnosis
of pneumonia or a previous admission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
• Elevated levels of particulate ait pollution are associated with an increase in the rate of
hospital admissions for exacerbation of congestive heart failure.
• Elevations in ambient particles can transiently increase the risk of ischemic, but not
hemorrhagic, stroke.
CHALLENGES: The emphasis of Clean Automotive Technology program work for the next five
to 10 years will be research and collaboration with the automotive, trucking, and fleet industries.
Through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA), EPA's unique
hydraulic hybrid technology and advanced clean-engine technologies will be demonstrated in
vehicles such as large sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, urban delivery trucks, school buses,
shuttle buses, and refuse trucks. The intent of these real world demonstrations is to lead to the
initial commercial introduction of significant elements of EPA's technologies by vehicle
manufacturers.
GOAL 1-10
-------
GOAL 1 - CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air Through 2010, working with partners, protect human
health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing
the risk from toxic air pollutants. __
1ARG
me^UcggExposureMUrihealthy?CO
-(Pb)fytnpfes^»
'Planned
'Actual
1.1
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, S02, N02,
and Pb concentrations below the NAAQS will increase by less than 1%
(relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1992).
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb concentrations below the
level the NAAQS as compared to 1992.
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 1992.
> Total number of people who live in areas measuring clean air for
CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.
> Areas measuring clean air for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.
> Additional people living in new areas measuring clean air for CO,
SO2, NO2l and Pb.
> Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
FY 2004: Same goal, different targets of 4% relative to 2003 and a
cumulative total of 53% relative to 1992. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient CO, SO2l NO2, or Pb concentrations below the
level the NAAQS as compared to 1992.
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
CO, SO2, NO2l or Pb concentrations below the level of the NAAQS
as compared to 1992.
> Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment
of the Clean Air Standards for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb.
> Areas newly designated to attainment for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb
standards.
> Additional people living in newly designated areas with
demonstrated attainment of the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb standards.
> Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Data Source(s): The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). AQS stores ambient air
quality data used to evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Findings and
Required Elements Data System (FREDS) is used to track the progress of
states and regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of
the State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are clean air plans that define
what actions a state will take to improve the air quality in areas that do not
meet NAAQS. National Emissions Inventory Database contains information
53%
108%
174.2 m
10 areas
4.1m
-841,971
tons
Data
avail
2006
53%
87%
174 M
19 areas
6.2 M
12.6 M
49%
99%
173.3 M
14 areas
5.4 M
12.6M
GOAL 1-11
-------
about reductions from mobile sources. Also see
www.eDa.qov/ebtDaaes/air.html.
PERFORMANCE
Under this annual goal, EPA measures improvements in air quality overtime associated with
the CO, SO2, Pb, and NOX area standards. The Agency assesses progress in terms both of
population and sources of air emissions reduced. (Note: No areas currently are designated as in
non-attainment for the NOX standard.)
Available data indicate that EPA did not meet its FY 2004 goal. EPA maintained healthy air
quality for 173 million people living in 122 monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2 or Pb
standards, falling slightly short of its 174 million goal. Out of 24 non-attainment areas that
remain, EPA certified 14, five short of its FY 2004 goal of 19. As a result, the number of people
living in areas with healthy air increased by 5.4 million fewer than EPA's target of 6.2 million.
CHALLENGES: In reviewing these performance results, EPA recognizes that an area may
monitor ambient air at a level meeting the standard, yet not update its clean air plan (a requisite
for designation to attainment). Therefore, to more accurately assess progress in meeting health-
based standards, EPA has changed this goal/measure for FY 2006 to measure areas that are
monitoring clean air.
EPA is working with states on other, unique areas that are not monitoring clean air for one of
these standards to assist them in developing local solutions that reflect local geographic and
economic considerations.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Mobile Source
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received a moderately
effective rating. OMB is assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Clean Air Act Section 105
grants fund state and local development of control strategies and clean air plans for
demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the standards. The grants also support the
ambient monitoring networks that measure atmospheric concentrations of these pollutants.
GOAL 1-12
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
PM Levels-PMib
Planned ?
Actual
1.2
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM
concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM10 standard will increase by
less than 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to
1992).
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient PM10 concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 1992.
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM10 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as compared
to 1992.
> * Total number of people who live in areas measuring clean air for
PM10.
> Areas measuring clean air for PMi0.
> Additional people living in new areas measuring clean air for
PM10.
> Tons ofPM10 reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
FY 2004: Same goal, target of 1% relative to 2003 and cumulative total of
6% relative to 1992. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> 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
PM10 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as compared
to 1992.
> Total number of people who live in areas designated attainment
of the Clean Air Standards for PM10.
> Additional people living in newly designated areas with
demonstrated attainment of the PM10 standard.
> Areas newly designated to attainment.
> Percent of areas with improving ambient PM10 concentrations.
> Tons of PMio reduced from mobile sources. (PART
> Tons ofPMzs reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Data Source(s): The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). See full writeup in
APG 1.1. Alsoseewww.epa.gov/ebtpages/air.html.
7%
74%
120.8 M
10
453 K
62,161
tons
6%
40%
120 M
380 K
9 areas
76%
18,100
13,500
Data
avail
2006
6%
54%
120.5M
126 K
6 areas
62%
18,100
13,500
GOAL 1-13
-------
PERFORMANCE
Acute exposure to particles can lead to various serious health effects. Coarse and fine particles
pose the greatest problems. Many scientific studies link breathing particulate matter (PM) to
aggravated asthma, respiratory symptoms like coughing and difficult or painful breathing,
chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death. Coarse particles (PM10) come
from such sources as wind-blown dust and unpaved roads and can contribute to respiratory
problems such as asthma and bronchitis. Under this annual goal, EPA measures the
improvement in air quality over time in meeting the health-based standard for PM10.
In 1991, EPA designated 87 areas in the United States as not meeting the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) established for PM10. Under the Clean Air Act, states were required
to develop and implement control programs to reduce the emissions of PMio in order to achieve
the standard. As a result of state PMio control programs, 64 of the original 87 areas designated
as non-attainment (75 percent) are now measuring clean air with respect to PM10.
EPA did not meet its FY 2004 goal. Although EPA made significant progress in maintaining air
quality in FY 2004, it did not fully meet this goal, in part because it was also working with states
to meet the newly established goal for particles less than 2.5 micros in diameter. The Agency
met its goal of maintaining healthy air quality for 120.5 million people living in 31 areas
designated as attaining the PMio standard, EPA certified only six (rather than nine) of the
remaining 54 non-attainment areas as attaining the NAAQS, increased the number of people
living in areas with healthy air by 126,000, rather than the targeted increase of 380,000.
Additional people are living in areas that are monitoring clean air for PM10 although these areas
were not designated. EPA will continue to work with areas to ensure that progress is made on
reducing ambient PM10. For FY 2005, EPA dropped the measure for the number of areas
designated in favor of the number of areas monitoring clean air to emphasize the progress in
the ambient air monitoring.
CHALLENGES: EPA provides annual air quality reports to states and works with them to
address areas where violations of the PM10 NAAQS are recorded. States are responsible for
developing action plans to address the violations and provide their plans to EPA. Challenges
include working with states to update their clean air plans.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Mobile Source
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received a moderately
effective rating. OMB is assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Clean Air Act Section 103
and105 grants support state, tribal, and local government development of control strategies and
clean air plans for demonstrating attainment and maintaining the standards. The grants also
support state ambient monitoring networks.
GOAL 1-14
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducina the risk from toxic air pollutants.
iAEG*
1.3
^educe:E5^isuifi»OnnealthvPM:Levels A -*:.*«'* r^
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM
concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM2.5 standard will increase by 1%
(relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient 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.
> Tons of PM2.s reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
FY 2004: Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent Increase in the number of people who live in
ambient PM2.s concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 2001.
> Cumulative percent Increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM2 5 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as compared to
2001.
Data Source(s): The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). See full writeup in APG
1 .1 . Also see www.epa.aov/ebtDacies/air.html.
Planned??
1%
1%
61,217
tons
**•!
<1 .
^
-------
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: The Inspector General report: "EPA Needs to Direct More
Attention, Efforts, and Funding to Enhance Its Speciation Monitoring Program for Measuring
Fine Particulate Matter" (Report No. 2005-P-00004). Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Clean Air Act Section 103 and
105 grants fund state, tribal, and local government development of control strategies and clean
air plans for demonstrating attainment of the standards.
GOAL 1-16
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
APG
Reduce SO2 Emissions
Planned
Actual
1.4
Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and
make progress toward achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9 million tons from the 1980
baseline.
Performance Measures
> SO2 emissions reduced. (PART)
FY 2004: Maintain or increase annual S02 emission reduction of
approximately 5 M tons from the 1980 baseline. Keep annual emissions
below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress toward
achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for utilities. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Acid Rain Emissions Tracking System. Also see
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/.
6.9 M
tons
5M
Data
avail
2006
7.1M
PERFORMANCE
Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid rain, occurs when emissions of SO2 and NOX
react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form various acidic compounds.
These acid compounds (including small particles such as sulfates and nitrates) can impair air
quality and damage public health; acidify lakes and streams; harm sensitive forest and coastal
ecosystems; degrade visibility; and accelerate the decay of building materials, paints, and
cultural artifacts, such as buildings, statues and sculptures. Under this annual goal, EPA
measures the progress of the acid rain allowance cap and trade program in reducing SO2
emissions from electric utilities.
EPA met this goal for FY 2004, reducing SO2 emissions by 7.1 million tons. SO2 emissions have
been reduced by approximately 41 percent from the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons, and the
Agency is approaching its goal of a 50 percent reduction by 2010. In FY 2004, some acid rain
program sources voluntarily reduced their SO2 emissions below the level of their allowance
allocation in order to bank the allowance for use in future years or to sell them. EPA exceeded
the annual goal of 5 million tons because of these voluntary over-reductions.
Annual 332 Reduction
2001
2004
2002 2003
fiscal Yea-
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Acid Rain program
related to this APG in the 2003 PART process. The program received a rating of moderately
effective.
GOAL 1-17
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
ARC
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
Planned
Actual
1.5
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources
combined will be reduced by an additional 1% of the updated 1993 baseline
of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 38%.
Performance Measures
> Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Major stationary source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
FY 2004: Same goal, cumulative target of 37% reduction from the 1993
level. Data will be available in 2012.
> Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Major stationary source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
FY 2003: Same goal, cumulative target of 35% reduction from the 1993
level. Data will be available in 2009.
> Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Major stationary source air toxics emissions reduced.
> Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
FY 2002: Same goal, cumulative target of 40% reduction from the 1993
level.
FY 2001: Same goal, cumulative target of 35% reduction from the 1993
level. Goal Not Met.
FY 2000: Same goal, cumulative target of 30% reduction from the 1993
level. Goal Not Met.
Data Source(s): National Toxics Inventory (NTI) and National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Also see
www.epa.Qov/ebtpaqes/airairpohazardousairpollutantshaps.html.
80 M
tons
1.59 M
tons
+.14M
tons
2%
.71 M
tons
1.59 M
tons
+.13 M
tons
1%
.68 tons
1.57
tons
+.12
tons
5%
5%
3%
Data
avail
20151
Data
avail
2012
Data
avail
2009
Data
avail
2006
17%
1.7%
1 Approximately 3 years (from the end of the inventory) is required to compile/QA the inventory. The
inventory is compiled on a 3-year cycle (2002, 2005, and 2008).
GOAL 1-18
-------
PERFORMANCE
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA identified 187 compounds as hazardous air
pollutants. Over 10 years, EPA has issued maximum available control technology (MACT)
standards to reduce or eliminate emissions of these pollutants from specific source categories.
By calculating the theoretical, expected emission reductions associated with meeting various
MACT standards, EPA plans its reduction targets.
In 2001, EPA did not meet its goal of reducing air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary
and mobile sources combined by an additional 5 percent of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0
million tons for a cumulative reduction of 37 percent. Although there are annual slippages,
projections developed through 2010 show that EPA will still achieve the estimated cumulative
reductions in 2010.
One factor contributing to these results is that, since establishing its 2001 targets, EPA has
updated and expanded the inventory of emission sources on which the original projections were
based. EPA continues to refine its tools for analyzing emissions to provide better data with
which to assess the impact of the MACT standards. Further, to address toxics emissions, EPA
is required to re-examine its MACT standards to determine if any residual risk remains after that
compliance period has passed. Finally, with EPA's assistance, states are operating and
maintaining an air toxics monitoring network that includes 22 sites, strategically located and
designed to measure long-range trends in ambient toxics levels.
CHALLENGES: EPA issued technology-based standards and has developed a strategy for
addressing concerns about assessing and implementing residual risk standards and issues
regarding the accuracy of air toxics data used to measure progress. The Agency issued 96
MACT standards that apply to 174 industrial categories. This effort has already resulted in
estimated annual reductions of 1.5 million tons of toxic emissions and will achieve even greater
reductions by 2007, when all sources come into compliance. To date, EPA has completed 15
area source standards and is working to develop standards for an additional 25 area source
categories projected for completion in 2008. When completed, these 40 standards will address
more than 90 percent of the 1990 baseline emissions from area sources.
Plans for further improvement include developing an innovative approach to assessing low-risk
facilities quickly and assessing impacts from entire facilities, thereby grouping several source
categories. EPA also plans to use ambient monitoring data from the air toxic monitoring
network as a more direct measure of predicting exposure and risk.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Air Toxics program
related to this APG most recently in the 2002 PART process. The program received a rating of
adequate.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: The Inspector General report: "Progress Made in Monitoring
Ambient Air Toxics, But Further Improvements Can Increase Effectiveness" (Report No. 2005-
P-00008). Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B.
GOAL 1-19
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
ARG
1.6
Reduce: Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels --^8-hour ,
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone
concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour standard will increase by
4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001 ).
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations below the level of
the NAAQS as compared to 2001 .
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient 8-
hour ozone concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 2001 .
> Millions of tons of VOCs reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
> Millions of tons of NOX reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
FY 2004: Same goal, target of 4% relative to 2003. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient 8-hour concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 2001 .
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient 8-
hour concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as compared to
2001.
Data Source(s): The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). See full writeup in APG
1.1. Also see www.eDa.qov/ebtDaaes/air.html.
Planned
<1%
<1%
0.86 M
1.69M
<1%
<1%
Actual
Data
avail
2006
19%
31%
PERFORMANCE
Ozone is formed from motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical
solvents, and natural sources that emit NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Sunlight
and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations. Ozone can irritate
lung airways, causing inflammation, wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and
breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities. In 1997, EPA revised the air quality
standards for ozone to reflect scientific studies showing that longer-term exposures to moderate
levels of ozone may cause irreversible changes in the lungs. Under this annual goal, EPA
measures the improvement in air quality over time for the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA met its goal for FY 2004. Based upon designations EPA made in April 2004, 126 areas of
the United States—encompassing 159.3 million people—were determined to be in non-
attainment for the ozone standard. This goal was implemented for the first time in FY 2004 with
GOAL 1-20
-------
initial targets while the program collected baseline data. Based on the FY 2004 results, which
significantly exceed the target, the program is working to adjust the annual targets for FY 2006.
Ozone Concentration Levelsat Lowest Level SnceBBO
o
012
0.10
006
006
004
002
0.00
JOBS .086 D87 1086 D86
t i i i i t i i < i i I t < t
i t
Year
MIMIC «nmaui>u*
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Mobile Source
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received a moderately
effective rating. OMB is assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: EPA's Clean Air Act Section
103,105, and 106 grants support state, tribal, and local government air programs in developing
control strategies and clean air plans for demonstrating attainment with the standards.
GOAL 1-21
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
APQt
1.7
JAcid Rain - Reduce s Sulfur Deposition
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate
concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through
2010 is 1990 monitored levels. (PART)
FY 2004: Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient
sulfate concentrations 25% from baseline. (PART) Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) and
National Acid Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring networks. Also see
www.epa.aov/airmarkets/arD/.
Planned .••
27%
25%
Actual
Data
avail
2006
31%
PERFORMANCE
Acid deposition, or acid rain, occurs when emissions of SO2 and NOX react with water, oxygen
and oxidants in the atmosphere to form various acidic compounds. These acidic compounds
(including small particles such as sulfates and nitrates) contribute to unhealthy air and
respiratory problems in humans, particularly in children and other sensitive populations. Sulfur
and nitrogen deposition can also acidify lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish
and other aquatic life. This goal was met for FY 2004.
CHALLENGES: Implementation of the Acid Rain Program has substantially reduced emissions
of SO2 and NOX from power generation sources. However, the NAPAP 2005 Report to
Congress, recent modeling, and many published articles indicate that SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions achieved under Title IV are insufficient to achieve full recovery or to prevent further
acidification in some regions. Additional emissions reductions will be achieved through
implementation of existing or future regulations to address transport of ozone and fine particles.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Acid Rain Program
related to this APG in the 2003 PART process. The program received a rating of moderately
effective.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Grants made under CAA
Sections 103 and 105 contribute to the achievement of this goal. EPA has established an
interagency agreement with National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, for the operation
of 30 CASTNET monitoring sites (approximately one-third of the network). EPA has also
entered into an interagency agreement with Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to support National Acid Deposition Program
(NADP) monitoring network operations.
GOAL 1-22
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2010, working with partners, protect
human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and
reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
^APGI:
1.8
*Acid Ralff^Reauce^NittogeffiDeDbsition , . „ - ,
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate
concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through
2010 is 1990 monitored levels. (PART)
FY 2004: Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient
nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. (PART) Goal Met
Data Source(s): Clean Air Status and trends Network (CASTNet) and
National Acid Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring networks. Also see
www.eDa.aov/airmarkets/arD/.
Planned •;
5%
5%
Actual
Data
avail
2006
7%
PERFORMANCE
EPA added this measure in 2003, when the Acid Rain Program was evaluated under the PART
process. The new measure more accurately tracks progress toward EPA's environmental
objectives than did the previous program measure of reduction in NOX emissions from coal-fired
utilities, which was discontinued in 2003.
Reductions in nitrogen deposition recorded since the early 1990s have been less dramatic than
those of sulfur. Emission trends from source categories other than the acid rain program
sources significantly affect air concentrations and deposition of nitrogen.
CHALLENGES: In many areas, emissions of nitrogen oxides from on- and off-road vehicles,
industrial processes, and other sources not controlled under the Acid Rain Program, along with
the use of fertilizers, contribute to nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations.
Reductions in NOX emissions achieved through the Acid Rain Program, therefore, may not
result in improvements under this measure.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Acid Rain Program
related to this APG in the 2003 PART process. The program received a rating of moderately
effective.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Grants made under CAA
Sections 103 and 105 contribute to the achievement of this goal. An interagency agreement
with National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, has been established to support the
operation of 30 CASTNET monitoring sites (approximately one-third of the network). EPA has
also entered into an interagency agreement with Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to support NADP monitoring network
operations.
GOAL 1-23
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Healthier Indoor Air: By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in
1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
APG
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
Planned;
Actual
1.9
843,300 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
FY 2004: Same goal, different target. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): An external survey produced by National Association of
Home Builders Research Center and reviewed by EPA to estimate the
percentage of homes that are built radon resistant; Manufactures report
their radon fan sales to the Agency (EPA assumes one fan per radon
mitigated home and then multiplies it by the assumed average of 2.67
people per household); EPA-developed telephone survey (National
Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma), which seeks
information about the measures taken to minimize exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers and how many people permit smoking in
their home. Also see www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.
843,300
834,000
Data
avail
2006
834,000
PERFORMANCE
To improve air inside America's homes, EPA is focusing its efforts on reducing radon and
asthma triggers related to indoor environments. Radon, a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, is
a significant indoor air problem in homes and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in
America. In 1992, EPA estimated that nearly one out of every 15 homes had radon
concentrations above the EPA recommended action level.2 Asthma afflicts about 20 million
Americans, including 6.3 million children. Since 1980, the largest growth in asthma cases has
been in children under five. In 2000 there were nearly 2 million emergency room visits and
nearly half a million hospitalizations due to asthma, at a cost of almost $2 billion, and causing 14
million school days missed each year.
Under this annual goal, EPA measures incremental changes in the number of people with
improved indoor air in their homes, schools, and workplaces from actions they took as a result
of EPA's radon and asthma programs. EPA met the annual target for FY 2004; FY 2005results
for radon will not be available until late 2006, and asthma results are not available until several
months after the close of the fiscal year. However, EPA believes it is on track to achieve its
2005 goals.
National Residential Radon Survey, 1992 and U.S. Surgeon General Health Advisory on Radon,
January 13, 2005, http://www.surgeonqeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg01132005.html. Reiterates 1988 U.S.
Surgeon General Health Advisory recommending that all homes be tested below the third floor for radon.
Also recommends fixing homes with radon levels at or above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), EPA's National
Voluntary Action Level.
GOAL 1-24
-------
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
2001
2002 2003
Rscal Yea-
2004
Based on historical trends, EPA estimates that 90,000 to 100,000 radon-resistant homes were
built in FY 2004, for a total of 1.3 million homes with radon-resistant new construction. Data
suggest that the number of active mitigations increased to more than 575,000. Together, all
houses with radon-reducing features led to more than 520 future premature cancer deaths
prevented annually.
Results of EPA's 2003 National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke indicate that approximately 3 million
people with asthma have taken the essential actions recommended by EPA to reduce exposure
to indoor triggers. These actions result in an estimated 42,000 emergency room visits avoided
on an annual basis.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Indoor Air program
related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
GOAL 1-25
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Healthier Indoor Air: By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in
1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
APG
1.10
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
1,312,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air
quality in their schools.
FY2004: Same goal, different target. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): EPA-developed survey. See
www.epa.qov/iaq/schools/index.html.
Planned
1.3 M
1.5 M
Actual
Data
avail
2006
1.63
PERFORMANCE
In 1999, indoor air quality was reported to be unsatisfactory in about one in five U.S. schools;
ventilation was reported as unsatisfactory in about one-quarter of the nation's public schools.
These figures translate to more than 11 million public school students experiencing
unsatisfactory indoor air quality and about 14 million attending schools with unsatisfactory
ventilation.3 EPA's Tools for Schools Program is helping school districts evaluate indoor air
problems and develop strategies to address them. Under this goal, EPA tracks increases in the
school-based populations with better indoor air in their schools as a result of EPA programs.
In recent years, 12 of the 15 largest U.S. school districts—including the Los Angeles, Miami,
and Dallas districts—implemented indoor air quality management plans. EPA estimates that
2,000 schools established indoor air quality Tools for Schools Programs in 2003, and an
additional 3,000 schools established programs in 2004.
EPA estimates that it met its FY 2004 goal: approximately 1.63 million students, faculty, and
staff experienced improved indoor air quality in their schools. While data for FY 2005
achievements will be not be available until late 2006, the Agency is on track to achieve its FY
2005 target of reaching approximately 1.3 million students and school staff in approximately
2,500 schools.
Improved Indoor Air Quality in Schools
2001
20M
2002 2003
RscdYea-
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Indoor Air program
related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
3 Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, NCES2000-032, June 2000.
GOAL 1-26
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Healthier Indoor Air: By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994
will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
•Healthier IndooWAirliit^Vbrkiplaces
Planned
Actual
1.11
NEW
IN
FY05
150,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in
their workplaces.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): The performance database consists of two sources, copies
of building indoor air quality guidance documents, (e.g. Building Air Quality,
l-Beam, and related guidance Mold Remediation in Schools and
Commercial Buildings) and training conducted through cooperative
agreements or other government agencies (GSA) using our documents. In
addition, EPA conducted a voluntary, pilot survey of building owners and
managers in 2001 to determine the use of indoor air quality (IAQ)
management practices in U.S. office buildings. Also see
www.epa.aov/iaa/larqebldgs/index.html.
150,000
150,000
PERFORMANCE
Indoor air pollution can pose high risks to human health, especially to sensitive populations. The
national cost of poor indoor air quality, including lost worker productivity, direct medical costs for
those whose health is adversely affected, and damage to equipment and materials, runs to tens
of billions of dollars per year. EPA is helping owners and managers of office buildings
understand and achieve the benefits of good indoor air quality, thereby improving the health and
productivity of office workers.
In FY 2005, EPA met the target for this measure, estimating that approximately 150,000 office
workers experienced improved air quality in their workplaces.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Indoor Air program
related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
GOAL 1-27
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer: By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone
concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery,
and the risk to human health from overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible
subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
APG
1.12
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tons (OOP MTs) and restrict
domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons below 10,000 OOP MTs.
FY 2004: Same goal, same targets. Goal Met.
FY 2003: Same goal, same targets. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption
of Class I CFCs and halons is tracked by monitoring industry reports of
compliance with EPA's CAA phase out regulations and U.S. obligations
under the Montreal Protocol. Data are provided by U.S. companies
producing, importing, and exporting Ozone Depleting Substances. Also see
www.epa.qov/ozone/index.html.
Planned
< 9,906
< 10.000
<9,906
<10,000
<9,906
<1 0,000
Actual
Data
avail
2006
5,500
1,225
7,110
2,049
PERFORMANCE
When gases containing chlorine and bromine, routinely emitted through human activities, are
transported to the stratosphere, they can participate in reactions that destroy ozone. The Clean
Air Act regulates ozone-depleting compounds based on their ozone depleting potential. Ozone-
depleting compounds include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). commonly used as refrigerants,
solvents, and foam blowing agents; halons, used as fire extinguishing agents; and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), a class of chemicals being used to replace CFCs because
they deplete stratospheric ozone to a much lesser extent. (The United States stopped producing
halons on December 21, 1993, due to their ozone-depleting potential.) Under this annual goal,
EPA measures the annual consumption and production of these ozone-depleting compounds.
EPA met both its FY 2003 and FY 2004 goals, verifying that domestic consumption of Class II
HCFCs was less than the target amounts. Progress on restricting domestic exempted
consumption of Class I CFCs and halons for FY 2004 was tracked by monitoring industry
reports of compliance with EPA's Clean Air Act phase-out regulations and U.S. obligations
under the Montreal Protocol. As a result of excellent implementation of the program and long-
term, effective communications with industry, EPA exceeded its annual performance goals.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Stratospheric Ozone
program in the 2004 PART process. The program received a score of adequate.
GOAL 1-28
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Radiation: Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary
releases of radiation, and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should
unwanted releases occur.
APG
1.13
Ensure WIPP Safety
Certify that 40,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing
approximately 120,000 curies) shipped by the Department of Energy (DOE)
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and
according to EPA standards.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): The performance data used by EPA are collected and
maintained by the Department of Energy. EPA ensures the safe
characterization and disposal of drums of transuranic waste. Also see
www.epa.qov/radiation/wipp/index.htnnl and www.epa.qov/radiation/.
Planned
40,000
drums
Actual
35,000
PERFORMANCE
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act requires EPA to issue final
regulations for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and transuranic
waste, and it gives the Agency authority to develop criteria for implementing final radioactive
waste disposal standards for the WIPP. EPA is required to recertify the site every 5 years and
oversee the wastes shipped to the WIPP from sites throughout the country. This measure tracks
the progress of the Department of Energy (DOE) in meeting the criteria set by EPA and sending
waste to WIPP.
EPA expects to complete its current review of the DOE Recertification Request in late winter
2006. During FY 2005, EPA held WIPP stakeholder meetings in New Mexico to discuss the first
WIPP recertification application.
In FY 2005, DOE shipped approximately 35,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste
(containing approximately 108,000 curies) to the WIPP, and EPA certified that all were
permanently disposed of safely and accordance with EPA standards. Because DOE did not ship
as many containers it had originally planned, EPA's target was unachievable, but the Agency
considers this goal to have been met since EPA took action on all the drums provided. EPA
does expect DOE to meet the long-term disposal goal, however, and the Agency to meet its
inspection and certification goals. Having consulted with DOE, EPA is already prepared to
inspect an additional 10,000 drums of waste over the original target of 45,000 drums set for FY
2006.
Ensure Waste Isolation Riot Rait Safety
50,000-
2003
:. :
2004
2005
fiscal Year
GOAL 1-29
-------
CHALLENGES: This performance goal is structured such that DOE must meet its estimated
shipments for EPA to meet its performance target. Consequently, the Agency may miss or far
exceed its performance goal, depending on DOE shipments. In preparation for the assessment
of this program, EPA is developing additional measures to track the radiation program's
progress.
GOAL 1-30
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Radiation: Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary
releases of radiation, and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should
unwanted releases occur
IAPGS
1.14
•Build:NationaI Radiation Monitoring System _• - ^ , "
EPA will purchase 51 additional state of the art monitoring units and
initiate deployment to sites selected based on populations and
geographical coverage.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Output measure; internal performance tracking database.
Also see www.epa.aov/narelweb/radnet/ and www.epa.qov/radiation/.
Planned S
51 units
[Actual
52
PERFORMANCE
EPA consolidated a number of existing radiation monitoring activities to establish the Radiation
Monitoring Network (RadNet, formerly ERAMS). The RadNet program has three objectives: to
provide data for nuclear emergency response assessments; to provide data on ambient levels
of radiation in the environment for baseline and trend analysis; and to inform decision-makers
and the public in the event of a nuclear incident. Measures under this annual goal track EPA's
progress in expanding the network.
In FY 2005, EPA purchased 52 state-of-the-art monitors and initiated the deployment to sites.
The first of the monitors will not be delivered until the first quarter of FY 2006. Most will be sited
in FY 2006. Additional monitors will be delivered in FY 2006 and sited in FY 2006 and
subsequent years. EPA will update its annual goals for FY 2006 and beyond to reflect the delay
in obtaining the monitors. Based on EPA's current estimates, the full network will not be
completed until 2012.
CHALLENGES: The RadNet plan initially called for the full monitoring system to be in place by
2009. Given the complexities of the system and the technology, however, and the delay in
selecting a contractor and making an award, the plan has been pushed out to future years.
Nonetheless, EPA expects to substantially meet its original target by providing radiation
monitoring coverage to approximately 65 percent of the U.S. population by 2009.
GOAL 1-31
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4- Radiation: Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary
releases of radiation, and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should
unwanted releases occur.
APG
Homeland Security - Readiness and Response
Planned
Actual
1.15
NEW
IN
FY05
Verify that 50% of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT)
members meet scenario-based response criteria.
Data Source(s): The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is
responsible for assuring that all Federal Emergency Response assets
maintain an adequate level of readiness (Homeland Security Act of 2002).
EPA assumes that DHS will maintain a data system to evaluate and assess
the readiness of assets across the federal government. EPA will perform
evaluations of its own assets and report results under this measure, but
must rely on the DHS data source for key information. Also see
www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/index.html and www.epa.gov/radiation/.
50%
Data
avail
2006
PERFORMANCE
In the event of a radiological emergency, EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team
(RERT) works with other federal agencies, states, and international organizations to track,
contain, and clean up the releases, while protecting people and the environment from harmful
exposure to radiation. Under this annual goal, EPA tracks progress in training RERT members
and implementing updated response procedures. Performance data will be available in late
2006.
CHALLENGES: While EPA has not identified specific challenges to meeting its goal for FY
2005, emergency response preparedness continues to pose unique issues. While the Agency
measures its performance based on meeting scenario-based response criteria, the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) has not yet finalized those criteria. EPA is developing standardized
criteria based on the functional requirements identified in the National Response Plan's
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan.
GOAL 1-32
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity: Through EPA's voluntary climate
protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18% greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE
to result from the sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the administrations' business-
as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG); Emissions
Planned
Actual
1.16
GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 90
MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state
and local governments, and other organizations. •
Performance Measures (all are MMTCE)
> Annual GHG reductions - all EPA programs.
> GHG reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs (ENERGY
STAR). (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste
Management Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach
Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's HFC/PFC Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs.
FY 2004: Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Annual GHG reductions - all EPA programs data available.
> GHG reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs (ENERG Y
STAR). (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste
Management Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach
Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Industrial HFC/PFC Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART)
> GHG reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs.
Data Source(s): EPA maintains a "tracking system" for emissions reductions
relative to appropriate baselines. Baseline data for carbon emissions related
to energy use come from the Energy Information Agency (EIA). Baseline
data for non-carbon dioxide emissions, including nitrous oxide and other
global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. The non-carbon
dioxide emissions data are compiled with input from industry and also
independently from partners' information. EPA develops methane
emissions baselines and reductions using information from industry
partners, including the natural gas, coal, and landfill gas development
industries. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as update
methodologies as new information becomes available. Also see
www.energvstar.gov.
90.2
23.8
8
19.1
34.4
2.9
2.0
Data
avail
2006
81.0
21.4
7.3
18.1
29.6
2.6
2.0
87.9
26.2
9
19.9
28.2
2.6
2.0
GOAL 1-33
-------
PERFORMANCE
EPA and its partners continue to achieve reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, which
contribute to meeting the President's greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal for 2012.
Measures under this annual goal track greenhouse gas emissions (measured in million metric
tons of carbon equivalent, or MMTCE) that have been avoided as a result of EPA programs.
In FY 2004, through EPA's partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments,
and other organizations, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced from projected levels by
approximately 87.9 MMCTE per year. FY 2005 performance data for this goal will be available
in October 2006, after EPA assesses the data it receives from companies.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Climate Change
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received an adequate
rating.
GOAL 1-34
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity: Through EPA's voluntary climate
protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18% greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An additional 75
MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the administrations'
business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
APG
1.17
Reduce Energy Consumption
Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 120 billion
kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to more than $8.5 billion in energy
savings to consumers and businesses.
FY 2004: Same goal, different target. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on
facility specific improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kWh reduced), national
market data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering
measurements of equipment power levels and usage patterns. Also see
www.enerqystar.qov.
Planned
120
110B
Actual
Data
avail
2006
145 B
PERFORMANCE
As a result of the ENERGY STAR program alone, Americans saved a significant amount of
energy in 2004: 125 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) and 25 gigawatts (GW) of peak energy required
for about 25 million homes. Voluntary efforts also prevented greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those from 20 million vehicles and saved approximately $10 billion in energy bills.
In FY 2004, as a result of all climate change programs, EPA reduced energy consumption from
the projected level by 145 billion kWh, contributing to over $10 billion in energy savings for
consumers and businesses.
FY 2005 data for this performance goal will be available in October 2006.
Reduce Energy Consumption
2001 2002 2003
RscalYear
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Climate Change
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received an adequate
rating.
GOAL 1-35
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6 - Enhance Science and Research: Through 2010, provide and apply
sound science to support EPA's goal of Clean Air by conducting leading-edge research and developing
a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
=APG
1.18
Clean Automotive Technology -
Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger
car applications, to meet size, performance, durability, and towing
requirements of sport utility vehicle (SUV) and urban delivery vehicle
applications with an average fuel economy improvement of 30% over the
baseline.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Powertrain components were subjected to EPA fuel
economy tests at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL), Ann Arbor, Michigan. Performance and towing performance data
are based on EPA modeling of optimal vehicle configuration. For more
information on modeling results, see www.eDa.qov/otaq/technoloqv/.
= Planned
26.3
mpg
Actual
26.3
mpg
PERFORMANCE
EPA's goal was to adapt technology originally developed for passenger vehicles for use in
SUV's and urban delivery vehicles that would achieve 30 percent improvement in fuel economy,
while also meeting the size, performance and durability requirements of these vehicles. The
Agency demonstrated through vehicle testing that its hybrid powertrain could meet the fuel
economy improvement goal for FY 2005. However, the towing performance requirement was
verified through modeling, as a high-performance configuration was not operationally tested.
EPA modeling results, combined with vehicle testing, projects that the average fuel economy of
the typical SUV with EPA-developed hybrid technology would represent at least a 30 percent
increase over the baseline of 20.2 mpg.4
EPA anticipates that its work to facilitate industry's use of innovative clean automotive
technology will lead to consumer benefits, increasing consumers' ability to recoup higher initial
vehicle costs with lower operating costs. Continued success is evidenced by the International
Truck and Engine Corporation's and Ford Motor Company's licensing of EPA's hybrid
technology. EPA is also working with Autocar, to transfer this technology to refuse trucks, and
with the Army, to demonstrate the feasibility of hydraulic hybrid technology on heavy vehicles.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Climate Change
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received an adequate
rating.
4 The average fuel economy for a typical SUV is derived from EPA's Annual Fuel Economy Trends report.
GOAL 1-36
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6 - Enhance Science and Research: Through 2010, provide and apply
sound science to support EPA's goat of Clean Air by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
APGi
PJVlEfTictsi Research
Planned
Actual^
1.19
NEW
IN
FY05
By FY 2005, deliver and transfer improved receptor models and data on
chemical compounds emitted from sources so that by 2006, EPA's Office of
Air and Radiation and the states have the necessary new data and tools to
predict, measure, and reduce ambient PM and PM emissions to attain the
existing PM NAAQS for the protection of public health.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
Improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from
sources.
09/30/05
models/
data
09/30/05
models/
data
PERFORMANCE
When ambient air PM concentrations exceed the PM NAAQS, states are required to develop
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve PM goals. Under this annual goal, EPA develops
data on the chemical and physical characteristics of significant primary sources of PM. States
will use this information to help distinguish primary from other sources of PM, enabling them to
develop more effective SIPs.
For example, EPA has characterized the chemical and physical properties of emissions from
automobiles, aircraft engines, oil-fired boilers, and residential appliances. These
characterizations allowed scientists to profile the combustion sources of PM2.s that need to be
developed or improved—information that states can use develop effective PM emission
reduction strategies in their SIPs. These emissions profiles will be incorporated into EPA's
SPECIATE database as part of an incremental process to upgrade emissions profiles for a wide
variety of air pollution sources.
By the end of FY 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development delivered improved
receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from sources so that, by 2006, EPA
and states will have the new data and tools needed to predict, measure, and reduce ambient
PM and PM emissions to attain the existing PM NAAQS.
CHALLENGES: EPA encountered the usual research challenges in accomplishing this work.
The Agency anticipated and overcame quality assurance and data analysis issues.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the NAAQS Research
program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: The Board of Science Counselors Report: "Managerial and
Scientific Review of the Particulate Matter (PM)/Ozone (Oz) Program." Additional information
on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 1-37
-------
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
WITHOUT CORRRESPONDING FY 2005 GOALS
(Actual performance data available in FY 2004 and beyond)
APG
Planned:
Actual
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone
concentrations below the NAAQS for the 1-hour ozone standard will increase
by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 47% (relative to 1992). Goal
Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas
with ambient 1-hour ozone concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 1992.
> Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient 1-
hour ozone concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as compared
to 1992.
> Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of
the Clean Air Standards for ozone.
> Areas newly designated to attainment for the ozone standards.
> Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated
attainment of ozone standards.
> Millions of tons of VOCs reduced from mobile sources.
> Millions of tons ofNOx reduced from mobile sources.
47%
55%
167.3 M
5 areas
5.8 M
2.0 M
1.65M
44%
96%
165.4M
3 areas
3.9 M
2.0 M
1.65M
PERFORMANCE
Ozone is formed from motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical
solvents, and natural sources that emit NOX and VOCs. Sunlight and hot weather cause
ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations. Ozone can irritate lung airways, causing
inflammation, wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties
during exercise or outdoor activities. In 1997, EPA revised the air quality standards for ozone to
reflect scientific studies showing that longer-term exposures to moderate levels of ozone may
cause irreversible changes in the lungs.
Goal Not Met. Under this annual goal, EPA measured the improvement in air quality over time
for the 1-hour ozone standard. However, the 1-hour standard has been revoked in areas
following designation of 8-hour ozone non-attainment areas. Because it now tracks progress on
the 8-hour standard, EPA will not tracking this annual goal and associated measures in FY 2006
and beyond.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Mobile Source
program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received a moderately
effective rating. OMB is assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GOAL 1-38
-------
GOAL 1 - PART MEASURES WITH DATA AVAILABILITY BEYOND FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA documents, including
the PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current
estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
'.-, -sVV?.:
r \ f -5-W
", PART.Progranv
-* * +^
Air Toxics
Air Toxics
Air Toxics
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Mobile Sources
Mobile Sources
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection
^ X ~ ^ "~ I~* ^ ' -. ^ 3
PART Measure* "
- r „>>/ , - , 1 - -—a"-
« ~*~ - * 1 -J r """
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of
air toxics.
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions
of air toxics.
Tons of toxicity-weighted emissions (for cancer
and + noncancer risk) per total cost (EPA and
industry dollars).
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE)
prevented per dollar spent- Industry.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE)
prevented per dollar spent - Transportation
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE)
prevented per dollar spent - Buildings.
Cumulative reduction in tons of pollution from
mobile sources per dollar spent by EPA and
industry.
Percentage reduction in time (days) per
certificate approval for large engines (Nonroad
Cl, Heavy duty gas and diesel engines).
Remaining US consumption of HCFCs,
measured in tons of ozone depleting potential
(OOP).
~ Status
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Data Available
\
FY 2008
FY 2008
TBD
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY2010
FY 2012
TBD
GOAL 1-39
-------
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.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS
Analytical Methods, Beach Program, Coastal and Ocean Programs, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, Drinking Water and Ground Water Protection Programs, Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund, Effluent Guidelines, Fish Consumption Advisories, Great Lakes
National Program, Gulf of Mexico Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Pollutant Load Allocation, Targeted
Watersheds, Wastewater Management, Water Efficiency, Water Quality Standards,
Criteria, and Methods, Watershed Information Network, Watershed Management,
Wetlands Program.
Safe Drinking Water:
Hoopa Valley Tribe
The Hoopa Valley Tribe's microfiltration surface water treatment plant was constructed in 2005
as part of a $4.3 million dollar project jointly funded by the Indian Health Service and the EPA
Drinking Water Tribal Set-Aside Program (S3.5 million). The project provides access to safe
drinking water for 719 tribal households on the reservation. The project included construction
of the treatment plant, the Trinity River intake, and a transmission line that included a highway
crossing. [REGION 9, HOOPA PICTURE INCLUDED]
OVERVIEW OF GOAL
In recent years, EPA and its federal, state, and tribal partners have made significant
progress in protecting and restoring the nation's waters. Today, more Americans have
safe and reliable drinking water, and people can fish and swim safely in rivers that were
once polluted. Challenges remain, however, and EPA is using a variety of strategies to
address them.
Protecting Human Health
Thirty years ago, many of the nation's drinking water systems provided water to the tap
with very little treatment (usually disinfection) or no treatment at all. Drinking water was
too often the cause of acute illnesses linked to microbiological contaminants or of longer
term health problems resulting from exposure to low levels of toxins and other
contaminants.
Today, drinking water systems monitor the quality of the water they provide and treat
water to ensure that it complies with standards covering a wide range of contaminants.
EPA has established health-based drinking water standards for more than 90
contaminants.1 To help drinking water systems implement the standards, EPA, states,
tribes, and key stakeholders work together to provide water systems with extensive
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. List of Contaminants and Their MCLs. Available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl. htnnlffmcls.
GOAL 2-1
-------
technical assistance and training. Today, approximately 902 percent of the population
served by community water systems is receiving drinking water meeting drinking water
standards.
The importance of safe drinking water supplies for protecting public health has never
been more evident than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which occurred late in FY
2005. EPA, state and local officials, systems operators, and volunteers worked around
the clock to assist communities in repairing the infrastructure of drinking water systems
and restore sources of safe drinking water for all people in the affected region.
In addition to ensuring the safety of drinking water, EPA works with states, tribes, and
local governments to protect and restore waters for fishing, swimming, and recreation.
The Agency's work under Goal 1 to reduce mercury releases to the air should ultimately
help to reduce unhealthy levels of mercury in fish. Under Goal 2, EPA's efforts to reduce
discharges from storm water systems, combined sewer overflows, and concentrated
animal feeding operations are improving water and sediment quality, making more
waters safe for swimming and more fish safe to eat. EPA is expanding the amount and
type of information about fish safety and making this information available to the public.
EPA is also working to protect and restore the quality of beaches and other recreational
waters. The Agency places high priority on monitoring waters and beaches and
providing the public with current information on their safety.
Monitoring Coastal Water Quality
EPA promulgated water quality standards for those states and territories bordering Great
Lakes or ocean waters that have not yet adopted more protective health-based bacteria
standards in accordance with the BEACH Act of 2000 (69 FR 67217). This rule provides
greater assurance that American families will be informed when pathogen levels at beaches
are unsafe. Americans take 910 million trips to coastal areas each year and spend about $44
billion at those beach locations. Better indicators will provide decisionmakers with better
information for making decisions about health risks in coastal recreation waters. Improved
data are also likely to spur investigations into upstream pollution sources, preventing future
contamination.
Protecting Water Quality
To protect water quality and restore impaired waters, EPA, states, interstate agencies,
and tribes employ a watershed approach, which enables them to collaborate, share
information, and leverage resources more effectively. For example, EPA works with its
partners to help them establish state water quality standards and monitoring strategies.
They are also increasing efficiencies and achieving better results by using a watershed
perspective to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and set permitting
priorities. EPA is working with its partners to upgrade and increase water quality
onitoring, allowing states and tribes to provide better information on water conditions and
sources of impairment.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water
Statistics for 2004." EPA 816-K-05-001 Washington, D.C. May 2005. Available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2004.pdf.
GOAL 2-2
-------
Managing Wastewater:
Block Island-Green Hill Pond
Under EPA's Block. Island-Green Hill Pond Demonstration Project to protect coastal waters,
EPA's New England office is working with three Rhode Island south shore coastal
communities to comprehensively manage all onsite sewage treatment systems (such as septic
systems, cesspools, and community treatment facilities discharging to groundwater). Under
recently enacted ordinances to restore and protect water quality, Charlestown, South
Kingstown, and Block Island now permanently employ onsite wastewater managers and
require that all systems be inspected on a recurring three- to five-year basis. All cesspools are
banned and, if discovered, must be replaced within five years of the inspection. More than
8,125 systems have been inspected, and more than 700 cesspools and 220 failed or
substandard systems identified. Towns will enact treatment standards for advanced systems
to reduce bacteria and nitrogen loadings to the Green Hill Pond embayment and Rhode Island
Sound.
EPA is working with states to evaluate the impact on water quality of key point source
programs, like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program. In
collaboration with industry and others, EPA is implementing a strategy to help ensure
that the nation's water infrastructure is sustainable in the future. This strategy is
constructed around four key pillars—better management of utility operations, effective
pricing of water and wastewater services, improvements in water efficiency, and
watershed-based approaches to solving water quality and water quantity problems.
EPA works with a variety of partners to improve the condition of our nation's valuable
coastal and ocean waters. In FY 2005, EPA focused its efforts on implementing the
National Estuary Program (see Goal 4), reducing vessel discharges, managing dredged
material, and managing non-indigenous invasive species.
Enhancing Science and Research
Finally, EPA's research programs under Goal 2 continue to supply the information
needed to set and implement drinking water and water quality criteria. EPA provides
scientific information about contaminants and identifies innovative approaches to
develop criteria to support states and tribes in adopting standards that will protect water
for swimming, public use, and fish and wildlife.
Summary of FY 2005 Performance
GOAL 2 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Total APGs
18
Met
6
FY 2005 Obliaations (in thousands):
EPA Total: $10,125,982.6
Goal 2: $3,578,976.0
Goal 2 Share of Total: 35.3%
Not Met
2
Data Available After
November 15, 2005
10
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $8,500,594.0
Goal 2: $3,507,201.0
Goal 2 Share of Total: 41.3%
GOAL 2-3
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters),
in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $1 ,277,371.8 (35.7% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $1,162,788.3 (33.2% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Costs)
APG#
2.1
2.2
NEW IN
FY05
2.3
NEW IN
FY05
2.4
NEW IN
FY05
2.5
NEW IN
FY05
2.6
NEW IN
FY05
2.7
NEW IN
FY05
2.8
NEW IN
FY05
2.9
NEW IN
FY05
2.10
NEW IN
FY05
2.11
NEW IN
FY05
-- , - _•-'• V.-- •--_. '.. -• APG.*TJtte., - ---
Safe Drinking Water Meeting All Standards - Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards -
Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards - Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards - Systems
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards - Systems
Safe Drinking Water - Tribal Communities
Safe Drinking Water - Source Water Protection
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Fish
Consumption
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Shellfish
Consumption
Improve Water Quality to Allow Increased Safe Swimming
Increase Beach Safety
-Status of APG
Data avail FY 2006
Not Met for FY 2004
Data avail FY 2006
Data avail FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
Data avail FY 2006
Data avail FY 2006
Data avail FY 2006
Data avail FY 2006
Not Met
Data not available
Data avail FY 2006
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
In collaboration with states, tribes, and local governments, EPA is working to protect
human health by reducing contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and
recreational waters. Despite the serious problems in the Gulf Coast resulting from
Hurricane Katrina, EPA and the drinking water community at large continue to make
steady progress in meeting the 2008 national goal of providing safe drinking water to 95
percent of the approximately 268 million people in the United States served by 54,000
community water systems. Although final 2005 data will not be available until January
2006, EPA has worked diligently in 2005 to sustain the 2004 level of 90 percent, an 11
percent increase in population from the 1993 level of 79 percent3.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water
Statistics for 2004,' EPA 816-K-05-001 Washington, D.C. May 2005. Available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2004.pdf.
GOAL 2-4
-------
Improving Tribal Drinking Water
Grants to Tribes
Until FY 2003, only about 60 percent of the tribal population in EPA Region 6 was receiving
water meeting all drinking water health-based standards. Most violations of health-based
standards involved the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). In 2002, EPA directed significant
resources—including more than $1.1 million in drinking water infrastructure, TCR training, and
direct technical assistance through EPA-funded circuit riders—toward tribes with the most
violations. Discussions with tribal leaders secured their commitment to address Compliance
Agreement milestones, which significantly improved tribal drinking water. Further compliance
assistance efforts through the Region 6 tribal operator training and certification program and
performance-based training approach resulted in a dramatic 30-percent improvement in
compliance, to just more than 90 percent in FY 2005.
EPA also continues to provide the public with information about fish consumption and
the quality of recreational waters. In FY 2005, EPA improved the database for reporting
fish consumption advisories.
Beach Water Monitoring:
Grants to States
As part of the Bush Administration's Clean Beach Plan, EPA awarded approximately $10 million
in BEACH Act grants to all 35 eligible coastal and Great Lakes states and territories for
implementing beach monitoring and notification programs. The grants support beach water
monitoring, which helps provide people with information they can use to protect their health when
visiting beaches. For example, officials use beach water monitoring results to issue warnings and
closures if bacteria levels are unsafe and help identify actions needed to reduce pollution. The
data for the 2004 swimming season show that only 4 percent of beach days were lost due to
advisories or closures triggered by monitoring. Of the 3,574 beaches that were monitored in
2004, 942, or 26 percent, had a least one advisory or closing during the 2004 season.4
EPA continues to monitor improvements in water quality in waters used for swimming.
The Agency and its partners are making progress toward the goal of reducing the risk of
exposure to disease-causing bacteria at recreational beaches. Calendar year 2004
data, reportable in FY 2005, show that the percentage of days during the beach season
that beaches were open and safe for swimming increased from 94 percent in 2003 to 96
percent in 2004, allowing EPA to exceed its FY 2005 goal by 2 percent5.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Toward the end of FY 2005, Hurricane Katrina
rendered many drinking water systems in the Gulf States non-operational. In early
September, more than 895 public water systems in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi
had no water available to their customers or had boil water advisories in place6. EPA,
state and local officials, systems operators, and volunteers worked around the clock to
assist in repairing drinking water system infrastructure so that sources of drinking water
could be filtered, treated, and declared safe to drink for all people in the affected region.
4 U.S. EPA. "EPA's Beach Program: 2004 Swimming Season Update." EPA-823-F-05-006.
Washington, DC, July 2005. Available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/2004fs.html.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS).. Available at www.epa.gov/safewater/data/aetdata.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hurricane Response 2005: Week 2." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Website. Available at
www.epa.gov/katrina/activities/week2.html.
GOAL 2-5
-------
By the end of October, less than 200 systems were still inoperable or operating under
boil water advisories7. In FY 2006, EPA will assess the impact of Katrina on the
Agency's progress towards achieving the 2008 drinking water protection goal. EPA is
committed to providing safe drinking water nationally and restoring safe drinking water
access to communities affected by Katrina.
In its 2004 performance report, EPA predicted that it would not meet its 2005 target of 93
percent of the population receiving drinking water meeting all standards because of the
number of standards and regulations that have been implemented over the past 7 years.
EPA does not expect progress toward its FY 2008 goal of 95 percent to be evident as a
straight line increase. As new regulations are implemented, not all systems will be able
to gear up to meet health-based standards in the same time frame. In fact, a significant
decrease may occur in 2006, when the arsenic rule is implemented. Many small
systems with insufficient managerial, technical, and financial capacity may be out of
compliance with the arsenic in drinking water standard every day in 2006. EPA, states,
and major stakeholders are providing extensive technical assistance and training to
drinking water systems operators on arsenic, as well as on the next suite of pathogens
that will be regulated in the near future. Through this continuing effort, the gap between
the ideal target and actual results should decrease, and the Agency expects to meet its
2008 goal.
Increased monitoring of recreational waters may identify more problems, potentially
leading to more beach closures. While a higher number of beach closures may slow
progress toward the goal, the public exposure to contaminated beach water will be
reduced.
Most fish consumption advisories are attributable to mercury and/or polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), both of which are bioaccumulative toxins. Thus, even once the
source of the mercury or PCBs has been lessened or eliminated, fish will continue to
retain these contaminants in their systems for years. Consequently, EPA's actions to
reduce mercury air—emissions, the primary cause of mercury in fish—may not show
results for several more years.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $2,156,736.7 (60.3% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $2,202,896.0 (62.8% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Costs)
2.12
2.13
NEW IN
FY05 •
2.14
NEW IN
FY05
2.15
NEW IN
FY05
Watershed Protection
Watershed Protection - Waterbodies
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards - Monitoring
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards - Sanitation Access
Not Met
Met
Data avail FY 2006
Met
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hurricane Response 2005: Current Activities (October
26,2005)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website. Available at
www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.htmlJitoct26.
GOAL 2-6
-------
2.16
NEW IN
FY05
2.17
NEW IN
FY05
Coastal Aquatic Conditions -
Coastal Aquatic Conditions -
Ecological Health
Use Attainment
Met
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA, states, and tribes continue to use a watershed approach to protect water quality,
including that of coastal waters, nationwide. EPA and states made progress toward
attaining water quality standards in waters previously identified as impaired. EPA's 2006
goal, as presented in its Strategic Plan, is to restore 5 percent of the waters identified by
states as impaired. Current data indicate that 8 percent have been restored8. This
figure represents substantial progress toward the 2012 goal of restoring 25 percent of
impaired waterbodies.
EPA is committed to improving water quality for tribal communities and continues to
expand monitoring of water quality on tribal lands. In FY 2005, EPA exceeded its goal of
providing tribal communities with access to basic sanitation, reducing the cumulative
number of households on tribal lands that lack access by 34 percent9. This figure
represents EPA's FY 2002 through FY 2005 cumulative progress towards the 2015 goal
of reducing the number of households lacking access to sanitation by 50%.
EPA also continues to provide nationally consistent, comparable, quality data to evaluate
various indicators of estuarine condition in each U.S. coastal region and across the
nation. Comparing data presented in the 1990-1996 National Costal Condition Report
(NCCR) with data reported in the 1997-2001 NCCR indicates that, while water clarity
declined (a result of episodic, catastrophic events and increased pollution), the overall
ecological health of coastal waters has improved. These data reflect monitoring results
against multiple indicators, including water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands
loss, eutrophic conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue
contamination. Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes showed the greatest
improvement10.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Because many years of monitoring are required,
and data are often limited, documenting progress in complying with water quality
standards is challenging. For example, a state might identify a stream as impaired due
to elevated temperatures which prevent it from supporting its designated use as a
coldwater fishery. An appropriate restoration action may be to replant the stream's
banks with trees which, when mature, will provide shade and restore stream
temperatures. In this case, while the correct restoration action may have been
implemented, monitoring data will not demonstrate full restoration results for 10 or 20
years. Other challenges include limited resources such that, on average, over a 2-year
period, states monitor and assess only about 20 percent of their stream miles and 40
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National TMDL [total maximum daily load] Tracking
System (NTTS) and Assessment Data Base (ADB) within Watershed Assessment, Tracking and
Environmental Results (WATERS).
9 Indian Health Service Sanitation Deficiency System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
program records for Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program.
" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report II, December 2004.
More information available at www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
GOAL 2-7
-------
percent of their lakes11. Thus progress made in areas not assessed during that 2-year
period is not reported. Limited monitoring information also makes it difficult to
aggregate data on individual stream segments into a meaningful watershed scale
assessment that can be used for efficient restoration planning and targeting response
actions.
EPA is working to develop better measures for documenting environmental improvement
on a watershed basis, such as measures to track incremental progress toward full
restoration and document the results of the considerable effort EPA and its partners
devote to maintaining water quality. EPA expects to include some improved measures
in the 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan and may present plans for other potential measures
that will take longer to develop.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and safe water by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal 2.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $144,867.6 (4.0% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $141,516.7 (4.0% of FY 2005 Goal 2 Total Costs)
2.18
NEW IN
FY05
Water Quality Research
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA continues to provide crucial research for developing effective water quality criteria.
The demonstration of a population-based methodology for water quality criteria for
aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife has been developed. In 2005 ORD is providing
methods for developing water quality criteria so that, by 2008, approaches and methods
are available to states and tribes for their use in developing and applying criteria for
habitat alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic
chemicals that will support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the
scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act.
For many of the waters listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of CWA, the
impairments result from a number of stressors, including chemicals, nutrients,
sediments, and loss of habitat. Maintaining healthy populations of aquatic life and
aquatic dependant wildlife is the objective of the water quality criteria. APG 2.18 reports
on the development of a population-based approach for a data rich case study, namely
loons in the Northeast. The evaluation and adoption of such an approach will ultimately
be applicable to development of criteria for a wide range of aquatic systems that may be
impacted by a combination of chemical and non-chemical stressors.
EPA has conducted research and developed a methodology to assess the cumulative
impact of a number of stressors (e.g. loss of habitat and exposure to mercury through
fish consumption) on loon populations in order to develop criteria supporting designated
uses of waterbodies. The method includes approaches for extrapolating mercury toxicity
across wildlife species, predicting population-level responses to mercury exposure and
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory Report, August
2002. More information available at wyyw.epa.qov/305b/200Qreport/toc.pdf.
GOAL 2-8
-------
habitat alteration, and projecting risks to loon population at spatial scales ranging from
watersheds to biogeographic regions.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA is making progress toward meeting this
strategic objective and does not foresee significant challenges.
GOAL 2-9
-------
GOAL 2 - CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
APG
2.1
2.2
NEW
IN
pros
2.3
NEW
IN
FY05
Safe Drinking Water Meeting All Standards - Population
Percent population served by community water systems in compliance with
health-based drinking water systems in compliance with health-based
drinking water standards. (PART)
FY 2004: Population served by community water systems will receive
drinking water meeting all health-based standards, up from 83% in 1994.
Goal Not Met.
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards - Population
94% of the population served by community water systems will receive
drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need
to comply as of December 2001 .
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards - Population
75% of the population served by community water systems will receive
drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compliance date
of January 2002 or later.
FY 2004: Population served by community water systems will receive
drinking water meeting health-based standards promulgated in 1998. Goal
Met.
Data Source(s): Primacy agency (states, tribes, and EPA regions) data
supplied through the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
Also see www.epa.qov/safewater.
Planned
93%
92%
94%
75%
85%
Actual
Data
avail
2006
90%
Data
avail
2006
Data
avail
2006
97%
PERFORMANCE
This group of APGs measures the percent of the population that receive safe drinking water
from community water systems (CWSs) in compliance with health-based standards.
APG 2.1 includes all standards; APG 2.2 does not include standards that were implemented
from the 1996 SDWA Amendments; and APG 2.3 tracks compliance with the new standards
that went into effect January 2002 or later.
Fbpddion Sfeived by Comrrxriity Wster ^sternsWill Receiw Drinking
Water Meeting All Health-Based Sandards, Up from 83%in 1994
1 100
i
.1 "'
?f 60
Q.
£ 40
"5
1 20
91
91
91
94
90
90
I
Panned
• Actid
1999 2000
2001 2002
fiscal Year
2003 2004
axrce USB* SBfeDrrtorgWater rtormdion EySem (SDWIS)
GOAL 2-10
-------
The FY 2005 data for these APGs will be available in January 2006. It is not possible to
determine the results before January because they are based on a cumulative, annual count of
water systems reporting at least one health-based violation during the year. Primacy agencies
(states) historically report more than a third of all such violations in the last quarter of the
calendar year (regulations allow primacy agencies 90 days for reporting data). In addition,
primacy agencies are required to annually update water systems information by the end of
December.
In FY 2005, the target of 75 percent for APG 2.3 was set to reflect challenges associated with
compliance with newer standards, though EPA anticipates a higher compliance level. Even
though newer standards are a sub-set of all standards captured in APG 2.1, the target for APG
2.1 was not adjusted as low as the target for APG 2.3. The target for APG 2.1 was kept at a
level consistent with previous years to encourage states and regions to strive for better
compliance.
In FY 2004, APG 2.1 was not met. Although the vast majority of the nation's community water
systems supplied drinking water that met all health-based standards, some very large systems
serving a large number of people (e.g., Los Angeles and Phoenix) reported short-term non-
compliance violations during the year. The Agency is pursuing ways to account for these short-
term non-compliance events to more comprehensively and accurately reflect the public health
benefits over the entire year.
In FY 2004, APG 2.3 was significantly exceeded with 97 percent of the population served by
community water systems receiving drinking water that met health-based standards with a
compliance date of 1998 or later. The APG was changed for 2005 to track with newer
standards (e.g., "Crytosporidium Rule"), with compliance dates of January 2002 or later.
APG 2.1 is based on a baseline of 94 percent of the population in FY 2002 received drinking
water from CWSs in compliance with all applicable health-based standards. APG 2.2's baseline
is the same except compliance is based on standards issued before January 2002.
CHALLENGES: Data for APGs 2.1 and 2.2 can fluctuate significantly year-to-year if a single
large population system has even a short-term violation. Violation frequency, duration, and
other exposure and risk factors (e.g., extent of distribution system affected, acute versus chronic
contaminants, exceedence levels) are not reflected in this measure. Despite the limitations,
these are widely recognized measures that reflect program progress.
Newer standards are generally based on tailored approaches that allow for different
circumstances among localities rather than "one-size-fits-all." It takes time at the outset to
determine the needs of each particular system to be in compliance with the rule. In addition,
new standards are very complex to implement and are a challenging workload for states and
systems.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Public Water System
Supervision Grant program and reassessed the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program
related to these APGs in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
• Inspector General report: "Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection Efforts'1 (Report
No. 2005-P-00021). Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 2-11
-------
• Government Accountability Office report: "District of Columbia's Drinking Water: Agencies
Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from
Elevated Lead Levels." (GAO-05-344)
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund and Public Water System Supervision Grant Program.
GOAL 2-12
-------
STRA"
water
iAPGI
2.4
NEW
IN
FY05
1-*
2.5
NEW
IN
FY05
-*^*g, ~,
2.6
NEW
IN
FY05
FEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
{Safe Drihkihg WaterMeetihg Existing Standards — Systems
94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of
December 2001 .
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards— Systems .
75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
Safe Drinking Water -Tribal Communities ;-
90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian
country will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards.
Data Source(s): Primacy agency (tribes and EPA regions) data supplied
through the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Also see
www.epa.aov/safewater.
^Planned i
94%
75%
90%
Actual i
Data
avail
2006
»
Data
avail
2006
Data
avail
2006
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.4 and 2.5, water system-based goals, provide an important counter-balance to the
population-based measures, which are highly sensitive to changes in compliance for large
population centers, but are less reflective of small communities. For FY 2007, the Agency will
be reporting on a measure which combines the current APGs 2.4 and 2.5. It measures the
percent of community water systems in compliance with all drinking water standards. This
measure arose from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund PART.
These APGs are weighted more towards small communities. Although most of the U.S.
population lives in large cities, most CWSs serve fewer than 10,000 people. Measuring only the
percent of the population served by CWSs that meet all applicable health standards does not
give a full picture of public health protection through safe drinking water. Approximately 8,000
medium and large systems (those serving no fewer than 3,301 people up to more than 100,000)
provide drinking water to more than 246 million people, and the remaining 44,800 small systems
(those serving 3,300 or less people) supply drinking water to about 27 million people.
APG 2.4 measures the percent of CWSs that are providing drinking water that meets health-
based standards with a compliance date before January 2002. APG 2.5 tracks the percent of
CWSs that are providing drinking water that meets newer health-based standards with a
compliance date of January 2002 or later. APG 2.6 covers all health-based standards for tribal
communities.
The FY 2005 data for these APGs will be available in January 2006. It is not possible to
calculate it before then because it is based on a cumulative, annual count of water systems
reporting at least one health-based violation during the year. Primacy agencies historically
report more than a third of all such violations between October and the end of December 2005
(regulations allow primacy agencies 90 days for reporting data). In addition, primacy agencies
are required to update water systems information annually, by the end of December.
APG 2.4 is based on a baseline of 92 percent of the community water systems in FY 2002 that
supplied drinking water in compliance with all applicable health-based standards issued before
January 2002.
GOAL 2-13
-------
APG 2.6 is based on a baseline of 91 percent of the population in Indian country in FY 2002 that
received drinking water from CWSs in compliance with all applicable health-based standards.
CHALLENGES: Small drinking water systems, including those supplying drinking water to
Indian tribes, often do not have the resources to obtain needed infrastructure improvement and
capacity to meet existing standards and they face an even larger obstacle in meeting the new
standards. Specific challenges include the following:
• Smaller customer base means fewer opportunities for scale economies.
• Competing priorities, such as historic under-pricing versus affordable service, which
means establishing rates at an appropriate level to allow systems to fully recover their
total cost. The total cost of business for water utilities includes not only ongoing
operations and management expenses and debt service but also estimates of future
infrastructure needs and investment.
• Rising costs of drinking water infrastructure.
• Difficulty in gaining outside access to capital.
To strengthen and enhance technical, managerial, and financial capacities of small water
systems, EPA and the states are implementing the capacity development program, which
provides a wide range of tools to help owners and operators of small water systems to
understand Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) regulatory requirements. States and water
systems played major roles in shaping this program, widely recognized as a model for
cooperative and collaborative efforts under SDWA.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Public Water System
Supervision Grant program and reassessed the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program
related to these APGs in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
• Inspector General report: "Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection Efforts" (Report
No. 2005-P-00021). Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
• Government Accountability Office report: "District of Columbia's Drinking Water: Agencies
Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from
Elevated Lead Levels." (GAO-05-344)
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Public Water System
Supervision Grant Program and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
GOAL 2-14
-------
STR/V
water
*APG"i
2.7
NEW
IN
FY05
FEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
Safe Drinking Water -Source Water Protection > •
20% of source water for community water systems will achieve minimized
risk to public health. (PART)
Data Source(s): State data supplied from EPA regions through the
Underground Injection Control (DIG) Well Inventory Reporting System.
Also see www.eoa.qov/safewater.
Planned
20%
Actual
Data
avail
2006
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.7 tracks the percentage of community water systems that have implemented source
water protection plans. The SDWA source water protection program focuses federal, state, and
local resources on protecting CWSs by encouraging the substantial implementation of source
water protection plans. Each of the 52,800 CWSs has completed an initial assessment
consisting of delineating the water supply, inventorying actual and potential sources of
contamination, determining susceptibility, and informing the public. EPA is working with states,
water systems, associations, and nonprofit organizations to improve these protection strategies
for drinking water sources through supporting development and implementation of source water
protection plans. The goal of a protection plan is to prevent contamination of sources of
drinking water and to achieve minimized risk to public health.
A critical component of safeguarding the health of the American public is protecting drinking
water resources. Preventing contaminants from getting into surface and ground waters that are
used, or could be used, as drinking water supplies requires a broad, integrated prevention
approach that relies on participation at the federal, state, and local levels. When implemented,
this approach minimizes the risk of exposure to contaminants in drinking water. An additional
benefit of a contamination prevention approach is that provides opportunities to lower the cost of
drinking water treatment at the local level.
The SDWA also established the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program to protect current
and future ground water-based drinking water resources from unsafe injection practices. This
regulatory program is designed to ensure that none of the more than 800,000 injection wells
impact these drinking water resources. The UIC Program has identified source water areas as
a critical focus of implementation efforts, particularly for shallow injection wells. Source water
areas are targeted for identifying, inspecting, permitting, and closing of injection wells.
Protection of drinking water resources requires a comprehensive, coordinated effort across
numerous EPA and other federal programs. EPA's drinking water program is working actively to
integrate with other federal programs to enhance source water protection at the local level.
APG 2.7 is based on a baseline of 5 percent of source water for community water systems in FY
2002 achieving minimized risk to public health.
CHALLENGES: Since protection activities are voluntary, and consistent funding at the state
and local level is uncertain, states have expressed concern that meeting the national goal of 20
percent will be particularly challenging.
The UIC Program is also facing challenges. Deep well injection technology is being expanded
to new uses such as disposal of drinking water treatment residuals and geologic sequestration
of carbon dioxide to mitigate the effects of climate change. These new needs for injection wells
are putting intense pressure on state programs that already safely manage more than 800,000
injection wells. In addition, states are also increasing their inventories of shallow injection wells
GOAL 2-15
-------
through inspection and compliance assistance efforts. Increases in the number of deep
injection wells and newly identified shallow wells will require UIC Programs to issue more
permits, conduct additional well testing, and ensure compliance with the requirements to protect
underground sources of drinking water. These actions have significant new costs; however,
funding for the program has not increased in more than 15 years.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the UIC Grant program
related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received an adequate rating.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Inspector General report: "Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs Show Initial Promise, But Obstacles Remain" (Report No. 2005-P-00013).
Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
GOAL 2-16
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
JARG5
2.8
NEW
IN
FY05
Jlmprove i Water Quality to Support Increased Fish Consumption
At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having
a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have improved water and sediment
quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.
Goal Not Met.
Data Source(s): 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories, September 2005.
Also see www.eDa.aov/waterscience/fish.
Planned?
1%
Actual
0%
PERFORMANCE
This measure tracks changes in fish consumption advisories in the universe of waters that had
such advisories in 2002. improvements in water quality are expected to reduce the levels of
contaminants in fish, leading to higher safe fish consumption levels. Data are collected on a
calendar year (CY) basis and reported on in the next fiscal year. For example, CY 2004 data
are reported in FY 2005.
In CY 2002, 32.9 percent of lake-acres (13,413,763 lake-acres/94,715 individual lakes), and
15.3 percent of river-miles (544,036 river-miles) were under fish advisories. This is the baseline
against which progress for this APG is being measured. In CY 2004, there was no significant
change at the national level in the percentage of waters under fish consumption advisories.
Goal Not Met: This is a new APG, and the Agency misjudged its ability to meet the target.
Many variables are involved in evaluating mercury deposition in fish, such as the sources of
mercury and the bioaccumulative nature of mercury, which impacts the time that it takes for fish
to rid mercury from their bodies. These factors resulted in the Agency overestimating its ability
to meet the target. EPA is assessing the information received to date to determine a more
realistic future target.
In FY 2005, the Agency improved the database to account for changes in recommended meal
frequencies in state and tribal advisories. This system documents instances where advisories
are modified to allow increased fish consumption. Recording modifications to advisories, as
opposed to only the initial advisories, may lead to an increase in fish consumption, which should
demonstrate progress. This is the first year EPA has collected this information, and it will
provide a baseline for measuring changes in future years.
CHALLENGES: Improving water and sediment quality to allow for increased fish consumption
has been difficult to achieve. Most fish consumption advisories are attributable to mercury
and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), both of which are bioaccumulative toxins. This
situation means that even after the source of the mercury or PCBs has been lessened or
eliminated, the fish continue to retain the contaminants in their systems for years.
Consequently, even though EPA has taken actions to reduce mercury air emissions—the
primary cause of mercury in fish—it will take several more years before the results of these
actions will be seen.
GOAL 2-17
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water
(including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
fARGt
2.9
NEW
IN
FY05
llmProvetiiWaterQUaliteto^uB^ v
80% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or
conditionally approved for use.
Data Source(s): Analysis of Classified Shellfish Waters 1985-2003; June
2004; Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Also see
www.eDa.qov/waterscience/shellfish.
Planned
80%
;:Actaalsfe::?=rtv:-;
Data
Unavailable
PERFORMANCE
Data to support this APG comes from past surveys of states that are members of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). Surveys are conducted at 5-year intervals with periodic
updates requested from the ISSC. The most recent survey containing 2003 data was released
in 2004. However, the ISSC recently decided to stop conducting 5-year surveys because the
agency is in the process of developing a centralized database system, called the Shellfish
Information Management System (SIMS). This will allow shellfish-producing states to directly
enter their shellfish data into the system. Thirteen of the 22 shellfish-producing states have
entered or begun entering their shellfish information into the system.
The data for APG 2.9 are unavailable due to the cessation of the ISSC surveys. Consequently,
EPA cannot determine if the target was achieved due to a lack of data. It is uncertain whether
the surveys will be resumed and whether a determination will be able to be made as to the
achievement status of the APG. The Agency is reviewing the APG to determine the
appropriateness of retaining, changing, or deleting it.
APG 2.9 is tracked with baseline data from the ISSC surveys. According to the ISSC report,
there were a total of 15,273 estuarine shellfish-growing acres, of which 11,268 acres (73.8
percent) were approved or conditionally approved for use in 1995. Data indicate that the
percentage of monitored waters open for use increased to 91 percent in 2003.
CHALLENGES: Because a high percentage (91 percent) of shellfish-growing acres are currently
approved or conditionally approved for use, it will be difficult to show progress in future years.
In addition, states' participation in SIMS is voluntary, and due to state fiscal constraints, some
states may delay or decide not to enter data into SIMS. If this occurs, the Agency will not have
a complete picture of shellfish conditions.
GOAL 2-18
-------
STRA"
water (
WPG»
2.10
NEW
IN
pros
fEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
^Improve Water ; Quality to Allow "Increased Safe:Swimming
Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2% of the
stream-miles and lake-acres identified by states in 2000 as having
water quality unsafe for swimming.
Data Source(s): Section 305b Report/Assessment Data Base (ADB).
Also see www.eDa.aov/waters/305b/index.html.
Planned!
2%
Actual
Data avail
2006
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.10 tracks the percentage of improvement in waters used for swimming via the
Assessment Data Base (ADB), which incorporates water quality data reported by states every 2
years. In 2002, EPA summarized data submitted for individual water bodies to compile national
statistics that could be tied back to the individual waters.
The 2002 water body-specific state data have been posted at
www.eDa.gov/waters/305b/index.html. A national summary of that data, the National Water
Quality Inventory 2002 Report to Congress, will be available in early 2006. The summary of the
2004 state assessments will be available in late 2006 at the earliest.
The 2005 target of 2 percent restoration is based on state data from 2000, which showed that
90,000 stream-miles and 2.6 million lake-acres had water quality unsafe for swimming.
CHALLENGES: State assessments of water quality conditions are due to EPA every 2 years.
Because some states are late in submitting their assessment findings, there can be a significant
gap between the time water monitoring occurs and when states report on water quality.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Clean Water Act Section 106
state program grants.
GOAL 2-19
-------
STR>V
water
sABGi
2.11
NEW
IN
FY05
FEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking
including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
iBcreaseSBeaicfiSafety-^?^^ ..-V*rf3& fc >'., ' ' le^:^- ' .» -*
Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety
programs will be open and safe for swimming in over 94% of the days of
the beach season.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Program: 2004
Swimming Season Update." EPA-823-F-05-006. Washington, DC, July
2005. Available at www.eDa.aov/waterscience/beaches/2004fs.html. Also
see www.eDa.aov/waterscience/beaches.
Planned?
94%
Actual?
96%
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.11 tracks the percentage of days during the beach season that coastal and Great Lake
beaches are open and safe for swimming. As water quality improves, beaches will be closed
fewer days. Data are collected on a calendar year basis and reported on in the next fiscal year.
For example, CY 2004 data are reported in FY 2005.
Data trends are difficult to establish due to the new reporting requirements that began in 2003.
From 1997 to 2002, beach monitoring data were collected and submitted to EPA on a voluntary
basis and included coastal, Great Lakes, and some inland waters. Beginning in 2003, reporting
became mandatory, and inland waters were no longer part of the data set. As a result, the 2003
and 2004 data cannot easily be compared to data compiled from 1997 to 2002.
Baseline information for APG 2.11 indicates that monitored beaches were opened 94 percent of
the days during the beach season in 2001 and 95 percent in 2002. Data for the 2003 beach
season are under quality review and are not currently available.
CHALLENGES: Past experience with other programs has shown that improved monitoring
usually results in the identification of more problems. Consequently, the Agency expects that
more comprehensive monitoring of recreational waters could result in more beach closures,
which will make it difficult to show progress for this measure. The risk of exposure to disease-
causing bacteria at recreational beaches will be reduced, however.
In addition, states use different monitoring methods, making comparisons and tracking difficult.
EPA will encourage more consistent monitoring by working with its national network of state
partners.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Over the past 5 years, EPA has
provided a total of almost $42 million in grants to 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and
territories. These funds support state and local government beach monitoring and notification
programs that provide the public with information on whether the water is safe to swim in. In CY
2004, 3,574 beaches were monitored.
GOAL 2-20
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis,
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
Watershed Protection
Planned
Actual
2.12
462 of the nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least
80% of the assessed water segments.
Goal Not Met.
FY 2004: By 2005, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such
that 500 of the nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80% of
assessed waters meeting all water quality standards.
Data Source(s): Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental
Results (WATERS) and Assessment Data Base (ADB). Also see
National Program Guidance for the Office of Water
www.epa.qov/ow/waterplan/documents/FY06NPGNarrative.pdf (pages 20-
35 are particularly relevant to this APG).
462
500
450
450
PERFORMANCE
EPA works with states to implement pollution prevention and restoration approaches to increase
the number of watersheds where water quality standards are met in at least 80 percent of the
assessed water segments. Achievement of this goal is largely dependent on the efforts of
states to implement "core" CWA programs, including development of water quality standards,
monitoring, development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), issuance of permits for
discharges, and implementation of nonpoint source control programs. EPA is working on
detailed strategies to target and implement core programs with local watershed protection
efforts that will result in increased and more efficient restoration of waters.
Goal Not Met: In FY 2005, the cumulative goal of meeting standards in 462 watersheds was not
met. Although several EPA regions did increase their watershed numbers, many other regions
showed either zero or negative change in water quality, resulting in an FY 2005 national total of
only 450 watersheds meeting water quality standards. This regression and zero change can be
attributed to new data that more accurately reflect watershed condition, including adjustments
for fish consumption advisories and increased environmental stresses on watersheds that not
only impair waters that were once clean, but also further degrade waters already impaired.
In 2002 state reports, 453 watersheds met the criteria that greater than 80 percent of assessed
waters met all water quality standards. For a watershed to be counted toward this goal, at least
25 percent of the segments in the watershed must be assessed within the past 4 years
consistent with assessment guidelines developed pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. The projection for 2005 was lowered from 500 to 462 watersheds following work with
states to develop realistic 2005 targets based on actual workplans. This more detailed analysis
resulted in the estimate that an additional nine watersheds would attain the "80 percent" goal.
CHALLENGES: Showing progress toward attainment of the environmental
improvements described above is challenging because it often requires many years
before implementation of specific program activities (e.g. re-issuing permits, approving
TMDLs) can reduce pollutant discharges, leading to improved water quality. Further,
there is a lag in reporting data that can show progress in meeting this goal.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Surface Water
Protection and State Pollution Control Grants (106) programs related to this APG in the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GOAL 2-21
-------
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: APG 2.12 is supported by Clear
Water Act (CWA) Section 106 grants, which fund the full gamut of state water quality programs.
CWA Section 319 grants also support APG 2.12 by reserving $100 million for developing and
implementing comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore impaired waters on a
watershed basis while protecting healthy waters. Additionally, the Targeted Watershed Grants
(TWG) Program encourages collaborative, community-driven approaches to meet clean water
goals.
GOAL 2-22
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis,
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
m>G^
2.13
NEW
IN
FY05
^Watershed Protection -Waterbodies
Water Quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of
waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of restoring 2% of these waters -
identified in 2000 as not attaining standards by 2005. (PART)
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) and Assessment
Data Base (ADB) within Watershed Assessment, Tracking and
Environmental Results (WATERS). Also see National Program Guidance
for the Office of Water
www.eDa.aov/ow/waterDlan/documents/FY06NPGNarrative.Ddf (paaes 20-
35 are particularly relevant to this APG).
Planned
2%
Actual
8%
PERFORMANCE
In 2000, states identified some 21,632 total waterbodies in the United States as impaired
(i.e., not attaining state water quality standards). APG 2.13 intends to track the
percentage of those waterbodies that are restored (i.e., meet state water quality
standards) at the close of FY 2005. Nationally, EPA has adopted a strategic target of
restoring 25 percent of those 21,632 waterbodies by 2012. APG 2.13 is the single most
revealing indicator of the fundamental goal of the Office of Water's CWA implementation,
including ensuring waters are fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. Interim goals include
restoration of 5 percent of these waters (i.e., 1,082 waterbodies) by the end of FY 2006
and 2 percent (i.e., 432 waterbodies) by the end of FY 2005.
In FY 2005, we significantly exceeded our 2 percent national goal by restoring 8 percent
of impaired waterbodies. This success is partly due to our efforts in improving water
quality assessments. We anticipate that in future years this success rate may not be as
high as reported in FY 2005.
CHALLENGES: Although 2005 data indicate that the waterbodies listed in 2000 are being
quickly removed from the list of impaired waters, we expect waterbodies that are more easily
restored to be removed from the list first. Also, as part of the process of developing a TMDL,
regions and states examine the conditions of waters more closely than at the time of initial
assessment and listing. In some cases regions and states find, upon reviewing more complete
data, that waters listed as impaired based on the best data available in 2000 are in fact meeting
standards and can be removed from the list of impaired waters without lengthy cleanup actions.
We anticipate that delistings due to the availability of better quality data will soon decline, as will
delistings of waters with problems that are relatively easy to address.
As regions and states work to restore the large subset of waters with significant water quality
problems, we anticipate that progress towards the long-term goal will become much more
difficult to achieve. Many of these waterbodies are subject to increasing stress as a result of
population growth and changing land use.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Surface Water
Protection and State Pollution Control Grant (106) programs related to this APG under the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This goal is supported by CWA
Section 106 grants, which fund the full range of state water quality programs. CWA Section 319
GOAL 2-23
-------
Program also support APG 2.13 by reserving $100 million for developing and implementing
comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore impaired waters on a watershed basis
while protecting healthy waters. Additionally the TWG Program encourages collaborative,
community-driven approaches to meet clean water goals.
GOAL 2-24
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis,
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
APG
2.14
NEW
IN
PYni
State/Tribal Water QualitylStaridards - Monitoring
Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less than 35
monitoring stations in tribal waters for which baseline data are available
(i.e. show at least a 10% improvement for each of four key parameters:
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal conforms).
Data Source(s): USGS National Water Information System (NWIS). Also
see www.epa.gov/indian
Planned
35
Stations
Actual
Data avail
2006
PERFORMANCE
All of the monitoring stations originally included in the baseline for APG 2.14 (900) are U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stations with USGS station identification numbers. Since the 900
sites were originally identified, additional monitoring stations on tribal lands have been located.
The water quality monitoring results for the additional stations on tribal lands are recorded in the
USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) and EPA's Storage and Retrieval database
(STORET). Through STORET and NWIS, EPA and USGS have established standardized
formats for reporting water quality data and information.
CHALLENGES: Monitoring activities at the sampling stations included in APG 2.14 are not
conducted or reported by tribes. Sampling is performed at these monitoring stations by a
variety of entities, for a variety of purposes and with differing frequencies. The proximity of
these stations to watersheds undergoing restoration/protection activities may not be included as
part of the information included in the STORET database or NWIS. The use of these monitoring
stations for APG 2.14 is opportunistic, and thus sampling results may not necessarily reflect the
impacts of restoration activities performed as part of the implementation of CWA programs by
tribes.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: CWA Section 106, Tribal
General Assistance Program (GAP) Grants.
GOAL 2-25
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis,
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
APGS
2.15
NEW
IN
FY05
IStateTTTiballWatefeQual^ V "• ' ^
In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 11%, households on
tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation between 2002 and 2005.
Goal Met
Data Source(s): Sanitation Deficiency System (Indian Health Service);
Program records for Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program. Also see
www.eDa.aov/owm/mab/indian/index.htm.
Planned
11%
Actual f
34%
PERFORMANCE
In August, 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South
Africa, the United States was a signatory to the plan of implementation. This plan established a
goal of reducing by half the proportion of people in developing countries who lack access to safe
drinking water and basic sanitation. The target date for achieving this goal is 2015.
Access to water and wastewater services is one of the strongest barometers of public health
and environmental conditions, and represents one of the most fundamental needs for
populations at risk. In the United States, the Native American population lacks access to water
and wastewater services at a rate seven times higher than the population as a whole (7 percent
of the tribal population vs. 1 percent of the U.S. population).1 For this reason, EPA adopted in
its 2003-2008 Strategic Plan the goal of meeting the Johannesburg commitment for the tribal
segment of the U.S. population.
APG 2.15 tracks the reduction in the number of households on tribal lands that lack access to
basic sanitation. The baseline of 71,000 households was established in 2002 and is based
upon 2000 data. The long-term goal, with other federal partners, is to reduce the number of
households on tribal lands that lack access to basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015. The 34
percent represents EPA's cumulative accomplishments in FY 2002 through FY 2005 against the
50 percent goal.
The Agency has significantly exceeded its target because this is a new measure and the
Agency did not know how many households would qualify for assistance when it established the
initial target for 2005, it proved to be a low estimate. Based on this year's results, the target will
be adjusted accordingly.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of American Indian Environmental Office. "Measures of
Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation Facilities for American Indians and Alaska Natives." 2003.
GOAL 2-26
-------
80,000
-
Househol
D
|
Z
70,000 4
60,000 -|
50,000 -j
40,000 4
30,000 -j
20,000 4
10,000 -4
o 4
Access to Basic Sanitation in Households on
Tribal Lands Is Increasing
Baseline 71,000
2001
2002
2003
RscalYear
2004
2005
N ote The baseline, established in 200Q is 71,000 and represents the rxmber of
households on tribal lands lliat lack arras to base sa-irtaSon.
axxce USffft R-og-a-n Records for Clean Water hdian Set-Aide Rogram
and Man Hearth Service Sa-rtaion Deficiency ^Sem
CHALLENGES: Deficiencies in the administration and implementation of the Alaska Native
Village and Rural Community Infrastructure Program were identified in an audit conducted by
the Office of Inspector General last year ("EPA Oversight for the Alaska Village Safe Water
Program Needs Improvement," Report No. 2004-P-00029, September 21, 2004). These
deficiencies are being addressed by EPA through the implementation of a series of steps under
the plan of action, which was cooperatively developed by EPA's Office of Wastewater
Management and Region 10. Region 10 also anticipates executing a memorandum of
understanding with Alaska in November 2005, to formalize program requirements that address
the weaknesses.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: The Office of Inspector General report: "Region 10's Grant for
Alaska Village Safe Water Program Did Not Meet EPA Guidelines" (Report No. 2005-P-00015).
Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Alaska
Native Village program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program received a
rating of ineffective due to the systemic management of deficiencies.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG:
• Northern Arizona University - Tribal Wastewater Professional Training Center (builds
capacity for tribes to effectively operate and maintain wastewater facilities).
• Clean Water Indian Set Aside Grant Program (1.5 percent set-aside from the CWSRF,
for the purpose of planning, design and construction of wastewater facilities for tribal
populations).
• Alaska Native Village and Rural Community Infrastructure Grant Program (this matching
grant program supports the Alaska Village Safe Water Program, which provides grants
to rural and Native villages in Alaska to plan, design and construct both drinking water
and wastewater facilities).
GOAL 2-27
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis,
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
mm
2.16
NEW
IN
FY05
^APG*
2.17
NEW
IN
FY05
ICdastil^QUaticsejohditi6h's1SE(*lc-aical Health r. , . . ? -;5 = •***» --
Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in
each coastal region, is improved on the good/fair/poor scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally,
and in each coastal region, is improved (cumulative).
> Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the
national levels reported in the 2002 National Coastal Condition
Report.
Data Source(s): National Coastal Condition Report 2, EPA Office of
Water/Office of Research and Development, December 2004. Also see
www.epa.qov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
^Coastal Aquatic Conditions— Use-Attainment j^ssr,-. -i-,. .***• •- ^ - , ,- -'.
Improve ratings reported on the national good/fair/poor scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 point;
contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.1 point; benthic
quality by at least 0.1 point; and eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 point.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale for
the National Coastal Condition Report for coastal wetlands loss.
> Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale for
the National Coastal Condition Report for contamination of
sediments in coastal waters.
> Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale for
the National Coastal Condition Report for benthic quality.
> Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale for
the National Coastal Condition Report for eutrophic condition.
Data Source(s): National Coastal Condition Report 2, EPA Office of
Water/Office of Research and Development, December 2004. Also see
www.epa.qov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
Planned
2.5
Scale
score
4.3/4.5
Scale
score
.Planned
1.5
Scale
score
1.4
Scale
score
1.5
Scale
score
1.8
Scale
score
Actual
2.7
2.6/
4.6
Actual
1.7
2.1
2.0
3.0
GOAL 2-28
-------
PERFORMANCE
The National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) provides a comprehensive, national
assessment of ecological condition of 100 percent of U.S. coastal waters, exclusive of Alaska
and Hawaii. NCCR I was published in 2001; NCCR II was published in 2005 and is based on
data collected from 1997 through 2000. The NCCR ratings are based on comprehensive,
comparable, and nationally consistent data used to evaluate various indicators of estuarine
condition in each U.S. coastal region. The national rating of "fair/poor" is based on a 5-point
system where 1 is poor and 5 is good. The scores are weighted to take into account the relative
number of estuaries in a region and the portion of the regions to the nation using the NCCR
indicators of water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic conditions,
sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue contamination. The baseline values
from the NCCR I are: 4.3 for water clarity; 4.5 for dissolved oxygen; 1.4 for coastal wetlands
loss; 1.4 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1.4 for benthic quality; and, 1.7 for
eutrophic condition.
APG 2.16 measures the overall ecological health of U.S. coastal waters and two indicators of
water quality condition, dissolved oxygen and water clarity. APG 2.17 measures the ecological
health of our coastal waters for the various aquatic life that spend all or part of their life cycles in
these waters. The four indicators (wetlands loss, sediment quality, benthic quality, and
eutrophic condition) are used to assess aquatic life use attainment.
There was a significant decline in water clarity between the publication of the NCCR I and the
NCCR II. Instead of maintaining the 4.3 rating, water clarity declined to 2.6. The causes for this
decline could be episodic (e.g., floods, landslides) or catastrophic (e.g., hurricanes, tropical
storms) events, or it could reflect increased pollution during the index period (1997-2000).
Overall National Coastal Condition
Source:US5t> Naiond Coastal Condition feport II,December 2004.More nformation aalatte A http//wwwepagoWowow/oceas/nco2
CHALLENGES: The NCCR is a valuable tool providing the general public with understandable,
scientifically based, quantified information about the health of our coastal and ocean waters.
The broad baseline overview of coastal condition contained in the NCCR does not relate to
particular federal and state ocean/coastal and broader water quality programs and their effect
on the indicators measured by the NCCR, however.
GOAL 2-29
-------
In addition, the nature of the NCCR's rating scale (1 - 5, where 1 is poor and 5 is good) does
not provide much opportunity for incremental progress. This also contributes to the challenge of
setting annual targets for the various NCCR indicators.
As stated above, episodic (e.g., floods, landslides) or catastrophic (e.g., hurricanes, tropical
storms) events or increased pollution during the index period (1997-2000) may have contributed
to the decline in water clarity. Future monitoring and trend analyses will enable us to determine
if this is a trend or a temporary aberration.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RATING TOOL (PART): OMB and EPA are currently
assessing the Oceans and Coastal Protection program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE APGs: The National Estuary Grant
Program (CFDA 66.456).
GOAL 2-30
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and
safe water by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and
characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal 2.
APG
2.18
NEW
IN
FY05
Water Quality Research , - ! " >: • , -
By 2005 provide methods for developing water quality criteria so that, by
2008, approaches and methods are available to states and tribes for their
use in developing and applying criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients,
suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic chemicals that will
support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the scientific
basis for listing and delisting impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act.
Goal Met.
Data Source:_Aquatic Stressors Research.
www.epa.qov/nheerl/research/aquatic stressors. Office of Water Habitat
Framework: Outlines the needs for and applications of research relating
habitat loss to Clean Water Act objectives for fishable waters. ORD Aquatic
Stressors Framework. EPA 600/R-02/074. September 2002.
64.233.161. 104/search?a=cache:aPBNaLVd1 IJ:www.eDa.aov/nheerl/Dubli
cations/files/aqstrsfinal 121302.Ddf+ORD+Aquatic+Stressors+Framework&
hl=en. USEPA. 2004. Draft Document. Use of Biological information to Tier
Designated Aquatic Life Uses in State and Tribal Water Quality Standards.
Planned
9/30/05
Actual
9/30/05
PERFORMANCE
For many of the waters listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of CWA, the impairments result
from a number of stressors, including chemicals, nutrients, sediments and loss of habitat.
Maintaining healthy populations of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife is the objective of
water quality criteria. APG 2.18 reports on the development of a population-based approach for
a data rich case study, namely loons in the Northeast. The evaluation and adoption of such an
approach will ultimately be applicable to development of criteria for a wide range of aquatic
systems that may be impacted by a combination of chemical and non-chemical stressors.
EPA has conducted research and developed a methodology to assess the cumulative impact of
a number of stressors (e.g. loss of habitat and exposure to mercury through fish consumption)
on loon populations in order to develop criteria supporting designated uses of waterbodies. The
method includes approaches for extrapolating mercury toxicity across wildlife species, predicting
population-level responses to mercury exposure and habitat alteration, and projecting risks to
loon populations at spatial scales ranging from watersheds to biogeographic regions.
In FY 2005, EPA made progress toward developing water quality criteria by 2008. This work is
on track to deliver a methodology in support of water quality criteria for aquatic life and aquatic-
dependent wildlife. The described methodology was an element of the review of Aquatic Life
Criteria Guidelines by the Science Advisory Board (September 21, 2005:
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SAB/2005/August/Dav-30/sab17198.htm). The results will inform
Office of Water's first revision of the Aquatic Life Guidelines since 1985.
This work contributes to the long-term objectives of protecting the quality of rivers, lakes, and
streams on a watershed basis and protects coastal and ocean waters.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: In 2001, EPA's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) Program funded a proposal for the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to conduct research to improve predictions of loon population dynamics in regions
impacted by multiple stressors, including habitat loss, mercury exposures, and human
disturbance in the upper midwest United States (EPA Grant Number: R829085). The STAR
GOAL 2-31
-------
grant was converted to a cooperative agreement to continue work on mercury and loons in New
England. This work constituted databases and models for loon populations across the northern
United States, ultimately strengthening the development of robust water quality criteria
protective of wildlife under a range of ecological and habitat conditions. The project validated a
loon mercury exposure model to calculate a dose for mercury that will be protective of loon
populations subject to a range of stressors. An interim report is available at:
cfpub.epa.gov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/1916/report/
0. A final report will be posted in 2005.
GOAL 2-32
-------
GOAL 2 - PART MEASURES WITHOUT CORRESPONDING FY 2005 GOALS
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. Although data are available to report progress toward the targets for these PART
measures, the measures were not included in the FY2005 budget documents that guide the content for
the performance section of the PAR. These measures have been incorporated into the FY 2007 budget
documents and will be futly integrated into the performance section beginning in the FY 2007 PAR.
,t«^ttn,^\.,i
" PARTPrograrm
•* -C *=»»•. •*- * •*"
••^O^rr-i « ;
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
x_«'S >„• -- "-...^ - , L-
4 * / X ~* — * "" f " -™ „*" "*r=1* £ T *
^^ss'^^rPART Measurer r*-*- =- ~~~~4
?- C*-™iU -« r«'ri«-v r«- ^ - - >.—
, , _ ,
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level
(Sbillion/yr).
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
DWSRF long-term revolving level (S billion per
year).
Number of additional projects initiating
operations.
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project
initiating operations.
4 ~_, k * — - L
C --*x FY 2005 Target* - 1-., *•„ . -
*," *","-•*. •* •*' • " -"* r~-«*
90%
S3.4 Billion
81.9%
S1. 2 billion
415 projects
$1.69 million
Rfl2005 Result
1 * S« ' »•> -- i
•«^- ••*'-.,}
95%
S3.4 Billion
84.4%*
S1. 2 billion*
439 projects*
$1.71 million*
'As of early November 2005, FY 2005 Drinking Water SRF data include data from 50 DWSRF Programs, with partial data from the
State of New York.
GOAL 2 - PART MEASURES WITH DATA AVAILABILITY BEYOND FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA documents, including
the PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current
estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
>-„ ^ ,>,/ --£?•'.-
" PART Prodram'
v - - -• % ^ _ t. •? '
Alaska Native
Villages
Alaska Native
Villages
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
-t i~':-': -1- ~i *•"•> ' "' j. • -'•>.'•> :-
k* '/i-S " , \PART Measure % * ,: '- >-s v"
VtJ'fc-fe s~v^">-^ -,:*- ;tC> _- . -'%." - t -.
Percent of Alaska rural and Native households
with drinking water and wastewater systems.
Number of households served with wastewater
and drinking water systems per million dollars
(EPA and State).
Number of waterbodies protected per million
dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
. "V;,f" - Status . ,>:-',,,•„ x:
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Data Available
••> •*•<-* l» *^ ,
4111 quarter, FY .
2006
4th quarter, FY
2006
4th quarter, FY
2007
GOAL 2-33
-------
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund '
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund & Public
Water Supply
System Grants
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund & Public
Water Supply
System Grants
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Public Water
Supply System
Grants
Underground
Injection Control
Grants
Underground
Injection Control
Grants
Underground
Injection Control
Grants
Number of waterbodies restored or improved
per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided.
Number of waterborne disease outbreaks
attributable to swimming in, or other
recreational contact with, the ocean, rivers,
lakes, or streams measured as a five year
average.
Percentage of all major publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) that comply with
their permitted wastewater discharge
standards.
Percent community water systems in
compliance with drinking water standards
People receiving drinking water in compliance
with health-based drinking water standards per
million of dollars (Federal and State).
Dollars per community water system in
compliance with health-based drinking water
standards.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to
total phosphorus loadings.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to
total nitrogen loadings.
Additional tons of reduction to total sediment
loadings.
Section 319 funds ($million) expended per
partially or fully restored waterbody.
Percent of States conducting sanitary surveys
at community water systems once every three
years.
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back
into compliance.
Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells closed or permitted.
Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-
priority, identified, potentially endangering
Class V wells dosed or permitted in ground
water-based source water areas.
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Targets are under development
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
4* quarter, FY
2007
TBD
4th Quarter, FY
2007
01/2006
01/2006
01/2006
01/2006
01/2006
01/2006
FY 2006
01/2006
12/2005
12/2005
12/2005
GOAL 2-34
-------
Underground
Injection Control
Grants
Percentage of Class I, II, and III wells that
maintain mechanical integrity without a failure
that releases contaminants to underground
sources of drinking water.
Collecting Data
12/2005
GOAL 2-35
-------
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.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS
RCRA Waste Management, RCRA Corrective Action, RCRA Waste Minimization,
Superfund Emergency Preparedness, Superfund Remedial, Superfund Enforcement,
Superfund Removal, Federal Facilities, Oil Spills, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks,
Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Land Science and Research Program,
Homeland Security.
OVERVIEW OF GOAL
Under this goal, EPA works to ensure proper management of hazardous and solid
wastes; promote recycling, waste minimization, and energy recovery; assess and clean
up contaminated sites; revitalize contaminated land and restore it to beneficial use; and
bolster homeland security. The Agency works closely with its state, tribal, and local
government partners, as well as with many stakeholders—nongovernmental
organizations, industry associations, Federal Advisory Committee Act groups, and
others—to implement and oversee these efforts.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
provide the legal authority for most of this work. The Agency and its partners use
Superfund authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites and
return the land to productive use. Under RCRA, EPA works with states and tribes to
address risks associated with leaking underground storage tanks and with the
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated or managed at industrial facilities. EPA
also uses authorities provided under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 to protect against spills and releases of hazardous materials.1
Working with its partners and stakeholders, EPA made progress toward meeting its
hazardous waste cleanup and prevention goals for FY 2005. The Agency's waste
management and emergency response programs are restoring contaminated land to
make it economically productive or available as green space. Like the Brownfields
program discussed under Goal 4, these revitalization efforts complement traditional
cleanup programs and enable affected communities to reuse contaminated lands in
beneficial ways. EPA continues to review how revitalization efforts are measured across
its cleanup programs and exploring opportunities for new or improved ways to capture
these accomplishments.2
1 Statutory authorities can be found in the FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification, www.epa.gov/ocfopaqe/budqet/2005/2005ap/goal3.pdf.
2 General information for the revitalization program is found at
www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/index.htm.
GOAL 3-1
-------
EPA's waste management programs work to reduce the amount of waste generated and
increase recycling. The Agency and its partners are focusing their efforts on large waste
streams that offer the greatest opportunities for increased recycling—such as paper,
organics, and packaging and containers. EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC) is a voluntary program that increases regulatory flexibility, promotes opportunities
for converting waste to economically viable products, and encourages resource
conservation through efficient materials management.3 The RCC encourages
participants to reduce more waste, reuse and recycle more products, buy more recycled
and recyclable products, and reduce toxic chemicals in waste.
Response to Hurricane Katrina
In an ongoing response to the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of EPA's
emergency response personnel have been working virtually nonstop along the Gulf Coast
as an integral part of the federal team implementing the National Response Plan. Many
others have been providing the on-scene responders with 24-hour-a-day support from the
Emergency Operations Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
• EPA teamed with the U.S. Coast Guard to respond to reported spills and releases
of oil and chemicals. By the end of FY 2005, EPA had responded to more than 150
reported spills.
• EPA took hundreds of floodwater samples to determine the kinds and extent of
possible contamination, both biological and chemical. In late September 2005,
EPA's ocean water testing vessel, the Bold, began taking samples of water quality,
benthos, and fish tissues in the Gulf of Mexico in the plume of the Mississippi River.
• Along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA worked on disposing of the
enormous amounts of hazardous waste and other debris left behind by Hurricane
Katrina, establishing several sites for debris collection. During September 2005, the
EPA team collected more than 50,000 unsecured or abandoned containers of
potentially hazardous wastes.
Under Goal 3, EPA also strives to prevent releases of hazardous wastes that could harm
the land and to clean up accidental and intentional releases when they do occur. To help
prevent releases at hazardous waste management facilities, the Agency and its partners
issue RCRA hazardous waste permits that mandate appropriate controls for each site.
EPA met its FY 2005 goal to increase to 80 percent the number of RCRA hazardous
waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls in place, and the
Agency expects to bring 95 percent of its facilities' baseline under approved controls by
FY 2008. To help detect and prevent releases from underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing gasoline and other petroleum or chemical products, EPA is working to
increase tank owners' and operators' compliance with UST leak prevention and
detection requirements. Additionally, EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
program-completed 6,181 cleanups through the end of March 2005,4 and end-of-year
3 General information for the Resource Conservation Challenge is found at
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/index.htm.
4 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA
Regions 1-10, June 2, 2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity Report."
GOAL 3-2
-------
data that are currently undergoing quality assurance/quality control indicate that EPA's
state partners completed 14,583 LIST cleanups, thus meeting the target of 14,500s.
By the end of FY 2005, cleanups have also been completed at 966 Superfund sites on
the National Priority List (NPL). EPA expects to continue completing construction at NPL
sites at the current rate of 40 sites per year. In addition, the Agency conducts and/or
supports removal assessments and emergency responses and completes approximately
195 Superfund-led removal actions every year.
EPA is improving its emergency preparedness and response capabilities, particularly in
terms of homeland security. During FY 2005, for example, EPA supported the
Department of Homeland Security in implementing the National Response Plan, the
National Information Management System, and the National Approach to Response. The
Agency has also enhanced the nation's decontamination capabilities by establishing a
National Decontamination Team and developing and implementing a National
Decontamination Strategy. Finally, EPA's research in support of this goal helps to
accelerate development of scientifically defensible, cost-effective waste management
and remediation methods.
Summary of FY 2005 Performance
GOAL 3 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Total APGs
7
Met
2
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands):
EPA Total: $10,125,982.6
Goal 3: $3,403,711.5
Goal 3 Share of Total: 33.6%
Not Met
3
Data Available After
November 1 5, 2005
2
FY 2005Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $8,500,594.0
Goal 3: $2,01 5,874.0
Goal 3 Share of Total: 23.7%
Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks,
November 9,2005.
GOAL 3-3
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - PRESERVE LAND
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and
ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products and facilities in ways that prevent
releases.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $223,968.2 (6.6% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $243,199.2 (12.1% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Costs)
,APG#
3.1
3.2
.. --rp-,'^->- "-: s APG Title
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products
Properly
Status of APG
Data Avail FY 2009
Not Met in FY 2003
Data Avail FY 2006
Not Met in FY 2004
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
While recycling in the United States has generally increased, recycling of specific
materials has grown even more: 42 percent of all paper, 40 percent of all plastic soft
drink bottles, 55 percent of all aluminum beverage cans, 57 percent of all steel
packaging, and 52 percent of all major appliances are now recycled. To achieve national
recycling goals, the Agency has developed alliances with manufacturers, communities,
and governments to foster a new recycling infrastructure to reclaim valuable materials.
As a result, EPA expects that these collaborative efforts will encourage higher recycling
rates in future years. EPA's waste management programs are focusing on the largest
waste streams offering the greatest opportunities to increase recycling: paper, organics,
and packaging and containers. The Agency expects that the nation will meet the 2008
challenge of recycling 35 percent of municipal solid waste and generating a level of no
more than 4.5 pounds of waste per capita daily.
EPA's primary strategy for preventing hazardous waste releases is issuing hazardous
waste permits, which mandate appropriate controls for each site. EPA exceeded its long-
term 2005 goal of bringing 80 percent of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)-regulated hazardous waste facilities under approved controls.
EPA expects to meet its FY 2005 goal for increasing the combined compliance rate by 1
percent from 64 to 65 percent for significant operational compliance with leak prevention
and leak detection requirements for underground storage tanks, and was on track to
meet this goal at mid-year.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA is developing partnerships with
manufacturers, communities, and governments to address the increasing variety and
volume of obsolete electronic products entering the waste stream and increase
recycling. Also, EPA will initiate a challenge to major industries to encourage the "early
retirement" of devices containing mercury.
GOAL 3-4
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - RESTORE LAND
By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or
intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate
levels.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $3,077,921.0 (90.4% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $1 ,703,458.2 (84.5% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Costs)
.*APG*J
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
r -3.APG Title, ~ I ' f. •,,. .
Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation
Superfund Cost Recovery
Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional
Releases
> . ' - Status'of APG
Not Met
Assessment goal met in FY 2004
Cleanup goal not met in FY 2004
Met
Met in FY 2004
Not Met
Met in FY 2004
Not Met
Met in FY 2004
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
The Superfund Remedial Program and Federal Facilities Response Program manage
the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites
through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, making land available for reuse. The
Superfund program has met or exceeded its FY 2005 goals for which data are available.
Under the RCRA corrective action program, final remedies are the long-term objective.
These will be tracked beginning in FY 2006. Currently the program uses two indicators
to assess the quality of the environment in relation to current human exposures to
contamination and the migration of contaminated ground water. For FY 2005, the
program achieved its annual target for the human exposure indicator, but did not meet
the target for the groundwater migration indicator. However, through the efforts of EPA's
state partners, the program achieved both of its long-term cumulative goals.
The Superfund Enforcement Program's "Enforcement First" strategy allows EPA to focus
limited trust fund resources on sites where potentially responsible parties do not exist or
lack the funds or capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup. The "Smart Enforcement"
strategy focuses resources on the most significant problems and uses the most
appropriate enforcement or compliance tools to achieve the best outcomes. Based on
current data, EPA expects to meet both Superfund enforcement goals for FY 2005.
Oil and chemical accidents can devastate communities and the environment. EPA
continues to improve the capacity of our national responders to plan for and respond to
both accidental and intentional releases.
GOAL 3-5
-------
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA faces challenges in balancing limited
resources between beginning construction at an increasing number of projects and
maintaining an optimal pace of remedial action at several ongoing, large, and complex
sites. In addition, as the Superfund program has matured, the Agency has needed to
devote more resources toward post-construction activities, including long-term remedial
actions and 5-year reviews.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research
and developing a better understanding and characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $101 ,822.3 (3.0% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $69,216.6 (3.4% of FY 2005 Goal 3 Total Costs)
APG#
3.7
V . - • APG Title - . - ' .
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for the Site Cleanup
Status' of APG
Met
Met in FY 2004
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA conducts sound, leading-edge scientific research to provide a foundation for
preserving land quality and remediating contaminated land. The research program
focuses the important issues of contaminated sediments, ground water contaminated
transport and remediation, and site characterization. In addition, the research program
provides site-specific technical support. Research on waste management, resource
conservation, and multimedia modeling supports the Agency's regulatory activities in
areas such as waste-derived products, modeling to support risk assessment activities,
landfill issues, and the Resource Conservation Challenge.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstrations are performed to
independently document innovative remediation technology or monitoring and
measurement approaches so that project managers can more confidently select new
technologies.
Through June 2005, EPA has completed 137 remediation technology demonstrations
and 40 measuring and monitoring demonstrations
(www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/auarterlv/022005/stats.htm). Demonstration reports are posted
on the SITE Web site (www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/). and results from the projects are
incorporated into REACH IT (www.epareachit.org/). a Web-accessible technology
selection tool that provides project managers with information on characterization and
remediation technologies by contaminant type and site type.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: As the Superfund program has matured, innovative
approaches evaluated through the SITE program have become standard tools for
remediation. As a result, the program will conclude demonstrations of innovative
remediation, monitoring, and measurement approaches in FY 2006. The research
program will continue to conduct problem-driven research to produce methods and
models to meet the target for developing or evaluating 40 scientific tools in the FY 2010
long-term goal, established in FY 2003.
GOAL 3-6
-------
GOAL 3 - LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation,
increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products and facilities
in ways that prevent releases.
mpGi
3.1
*MunicipalSolid.Waste Source Reduction - - - , ,::r - .'
Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 35% or 82.7 million tons) of
municipal solid waste from landfilling and combustion, and maintain per
capita generation of RCRA municipal solid wastes at 4.5 pounds per day.
FY 2005 Performance Measures
> Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.
> Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. (PART)
FY 2004: Same goal, different targets.
FY 2003: Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
FY 2002: Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Data are provided via a methodology that utilizes materials
production and consumption data from various industries. This information
is collected by the Department of Commerce. Additional facts and figures
about municipal solid waste (MSW) generation and recycling in the United
States can be found in the following Web sites. Also, information about
specific EPA programs such as WasteWise and environmentally beneficial
landscapes (Greenscapes) is available as follows: www.epa.gov/msw.
www.eDa.qov/eDr. www.eoa.qov/wastewise. www.eDa.qov/qreenscapes.
httD://vosemite.eDa.qov/oar/qlobalwarminq.nsf/content/ActionsWaste.html,
www.epa.qov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
www.eoa.qov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/action-Dlan/act-p1 . htm.
Planned
82.7M
81M
4.5
79 M
4.5 Ibs
74M
4.5 Ibs
69M
4.5 Ibs.
Actual^
Data
avail
2009
Data
avail
2007
Data
avail
2006
72.3
4.4
70M
4.5
PERFORMANCE
APG 3.1 focuses on increasing the nation's recycling efforts to conserve resources,
reduce energy consumption, and reduce greenhouse gases associated with materials
that are disposed of, rather than recycled.
Data reported in FY 2005 show that EPA did not meet its FY 2003 target of 74 million
tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) diverted. EPA exceeded its goal of maintaining the
amount of waste generated to 4.5 pounds per person per day. Recycling, including
composting, diverted 72 million tons of material away from disposal in 2003, up from 15
million tons in 1980, when the recycling rate was just 10 percent and 90 percent of MSW
was being disposed. Furthermore, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced
more than 236 million tons of MSW in 2003, which is approximately 4.4 pounds of waste
per person per day. In response, EPA is directing its efforts toward large quantity waste
streams that present opportunities to increase recycling—paper, organics (yard
GOAL 3-7
-------
trimmings and food scraps), and packaging and containers.1 Furthermore, U.S.
residents, businesses and institutions produced more than 236 million tons of MSW in
2003, which is approximately 4.4 pounds of waster per person per day.
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling. 2000-2003
i
Municipal Solid Waste Generation. 1960-2003
P
|-»- Mi>ji1iTOCc*md-«- CJJJI. IV CifO Onrjt.il | - Di
"I i , , . , , . _ Q
I9ffi 1930 I9BO 1990 1995 1999 XOO 3COI 3002
Year
To implement this strategy, the Agency is: (1) establishing and expanding partnerships
with businesses, industries, states, communities, and consumers; (2) stimulating
infrastructure development, new technologies, and environmentally responsible behavior
by product manufacturers, users, and disposers; and (3) providing education, outreach,
and technical assistance to businesses, government, institutions, and consumers. For
example, EPA is working with communities, industry, and government to make paper
recycling a routine business practice. To address the increasing variety and volume of
obsolete electronic products entering the waste stream and increase recycling, EPA is
allied with manufacturers, communities, and governments to foster a new recycling
infrastructure that will reclaim valuable materials. As a result of these efforts, EPA
anticipates meeting the 2008 challenge of recycling 35 percent of MSW and generating
a level of no more than 4.5 pounds of waste per capita daily.
CHALLENGES: A number of factors influence the national recycling rate, including the
economy, the increase in convenience packaging, and the increase in waste generated
away from the home. EPA achieved a 30.6 percent recycling rate for 2003, an increase
of 0.7 percent over the 2002 recycling rate of 29.9 percent. If the Agency can maintain a
0.7 percent increase each year, it should reach a 32 percent recycling rate in 2005.
However, to reach the goal of 35 percent recycling by 2008, the rate would need to
increase by 1 percent per year. As recycling increases each year, achieving additional
incremental increases becomes more difficult. EPA continues to foster progress through
1 General information for EPA's municipal solid waste program is found at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm.
GOAL 3-8
-------
non-regulatory activities that leverage and mobilize public and private organizations
across the United States.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the RCRA Base
Permits and Grants program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The
program received an adequate rating.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: EPA report: "Evaluation of Three RCRA Regulations
Designed to Foster Increased Recycling." Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B. Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation report: "Evaluation of the Interagency Open Dump Cleanup Program for
Tribes." Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 3-9
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation,
increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products and facilities
in ways that prevent releases.
APG
Manage HazardbusMaste and PetroleurnjProducts Properly
Planned
Actual
3.2
FY 2005: Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous
wastes and petroleum products properly.
Performance Measures
> Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities with permits or other approved controls. (PART)
> Number of confirmed UST releases nationally.
> Percent increase of UST facilities that are in significant
operational compliance with both release detection and
release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection
requirements).
FY 2004: Reduce releases to the environment by managing
hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or
other approved controls. (PART)
> Confirmed UST releases nationally.
> Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance
with leak detection requirements.
> Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance
with spill, 4% overfill and corrosion protection regulations.
Data Source(s): RCRA Info; UST/LUST FY 2004 End-of-Year Activity
Report, November 24, 2004 (updated semiannually). Also see
www.eDa.aov/oust/cat/ca 043 4.pdf.
2.8%
<10,000
+1%from
baseline
of 64%
3.1%
Data
avail FY
2006
2.4%
<10,000
4%
4%
3.7%
7,848
-4%
-6%
PERFORMANCE
EPA's primary approach to preventing releases of hazardous waste is issuing facility
permits that mandate appropriate controls for each site. EPA exceeded its long-term
2005 strategic target of bringing 80 percent of facilities approved controls, primarily due
to focused state efforts to permit backlogged facilities. As appropriate, many of these
facilities were able to "have approved controls to prevent dangerous releases" by means
other than permits. EPA assisted states in identifying solutions for unusual situations
(such as applying the post-closure rule in lieu of a permit) and resolved many data
issues while assessing facilities to bring them under approved controls. The cumulative
status at the end of FY 2005 was 90 percent. During FY 2005 alone, 3.1 percent (or 84)
of 2,751 regulated facilities were brought under approved controls..
EPA is currently on target to have 95 percent of these facilities under approved controls
by the end of 2008. The baseline for this measure has been updated for the FY 2006-
2008 cycle, eliminating double-counting of about 300 facilities that had both operating
units and post-closure units, including facilities that came on the permitting track after
October 1, 1997, and removing facilities that do not fit the criteria. In the future, most
modifications to the baseline will be made at the unit level; however, a few changes at
the facility level are likely due to facilities splitting, data corrections, or other unforeseen
activities.
GOAL 3-10
-------
RCRA Permitting Progress
-Progress Toward the FY 2005 Goals
(NAiond Results: 90%)
: Re^on 8: 88% Regon 7: 92% ftegon 5: Hftgoo t:
89%
To prevent releases from underground storage tanks (USTs), EPA and its partners
ensure that LIST systems are in significant operational compliance with required release
detection and release prevention equipment and that the equipment is used, functioning,
and properly maintained. In FY 2004, the two performance measures for LIST facility
compliance were not met; therefore, the APG was not met. Nationally, the compliance
rate of LIST facilities was 77 percent for release prevention (or 6 percent below the
target rate of 83 percent), and 72 percent for leak detection (or 4 percent below the
target rate of 76 percent). Because these rates represent a snapshot in time such that
some LIST facilities that are compliant 1 year may be out of compliance the following
year, reporting of a new combined significant operational compliance measure began in
FY 2004. The new measure was developed jointly by EPA and the states, setting a
target of increasing the combined leak prevention and leak detection measure for USTs
nationwide by 1 percent each year through FY 2008, using the baseline compliance rate
of 64 percent for that year. End-of-year performance data for the LIST compliance
program will be available in December 2005; however, as of midyear, EPA was on track
to meet the target compliance rate. Additionally, as of March 2005, there were only
1,574 confirmed releases, indicating the continuing decline in releases nationwide.
Confirmed Releases: Nationwide
T . .
1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1996 19992000 2001 2002 20032004
Rscal Year
CHALLENGES: Hazardous waste facilities that remain to be brought under control often
present complex management issues. For example, a relatively large percentage of
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) need to be brought under control, and many have
been waiting for the Hazardous Waste Combustion Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rule to be finalized before they complete permitting. Furthermore,
because BIFs are complex and controversial facilities, more time is required to evaluate
technical information, address risks, and deal with public concerns. Large federal
facilities, particularly those with nontraditional treatment units, also prove difficult to bring
under approved controls. EPA is working with states to develop strategies for addressing
these types of facilities.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the RCRA Base
Program, Permits and Grants program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an adequate rating.
GOAL 3-11
-------
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: 3011 State and Tribal
Grants (STAG) - RCRA authorizes EPA to assist states through the Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance Grants program, which provides for implementing an authorized
hazardous waste management program. These programs authorize permits to industrial
facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes, and
include corrective action to control and clean up releases at facilities that manage
hazardous waste. STAG funding also supports tribes, where appropriate, in conducting
hazardous waste work on tribal lands.
GOAL 3-12
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by
mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated
sites or properties to appropriate levels.
Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land
Planned
Actual
3.3
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.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions. (PART)
> Number of Superfund construction completions. (PART)
> Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures
controlled. (PART)
> Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with ground water
migration controlled. (PART)
> Percentage of Superfund spending obligated site-specifically.
> Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund
sites.
> Number of high priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to
toxins controlled. (PART)
> Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to ground
water controlled. (PART)
> Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed state risk-based
standards for human exposure and ground water migration.
(Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups
completed.) (PART)
> Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed risk-based
standards for human exposure and ground water migration in
Indian country. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground
storage tank cleanups completed in Indian country.) (PART)
FY 2004: Control the risks to human health and the environment at
contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other
action, and make land available for reuse. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Superfund final site assessment decisions. (PART)
> Superfund construction completions. (PART)
> Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled.
(PART)
> Superfund hazardous waste sites with ground water migration
controlled. (PART)
> Final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites.
> High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins
controlled. (PART)
> High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to ground water
controlled. (PART)
> LUST cleanups completed.
Data Source(s): Superfund CERCLIS; LUST FY 2004 End-of-Year Activity
Report, November 24,2004 (updated semiannually). Additional information
about the Superfund Remedial Program may be found at
www.epa.gov/superfund. Additional information on the RCRA Corrective
Action Program can be found at www.epa.gov/correctiveaction. Additional
information about the Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program can
500
40
10
10
56%
20
190
203
14,500
30
551
40
see text
below
23
54.3%
39
209
142
14,583
50
500
40
10
10
20
166
129
21.000
548
40
15
18
31
195
150
14,285
GOAL 3-13
-------
be found at www.epa.gov/fedfac.
Additional information on the LUST program can be found at www.epa.aov/
swerust1/20cleanup.htm and www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm.
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: In FY 2005, the Superfund program met most of its performance
measures. The graph below shows the number of construction completions annually
and final deleted NPL sites by the program since its inception. In FY 2005, 40
construction completions were achieved.
The efficiency measure (percentage of Superfund spending obligated site-specifically)
was not met. During FY 2003, when the measure and targets were developed, the
Agency relied on preliminary, internally generated data that did not use formally
accepted data extraction or calculation methods. As a result, the FY 2003 site-specific
percentage of 55 percent was used as a starting point for future year targets. Since
then, the methodology for determining the Agency site-specific percentage was finalized
and applied to FYs 2004 and 2005 data. Results indicate that EPA increased its
Agency-wide site-specific obligations from 53.6 percent in FY 2004 to 54.3 percent in FY
2005, but did not meet the target of 56 percent. However, formal data extraction
methods were not developed until FY 2005 and could not be applied to prior year
(neither FY 2003 nor FY 2004) data. Consequently, EPA recommends establishing a
new baseline of 54.3 percent and is working with OMB to establish new out-year targets.
EPA also conducted a comprehensive reassessment of the data used to determine the
number of Superfund sites with human exposures controlled in order to improve how
actual conditions are accounted for at these sites. Because the reassessment process
continued through November 2005, no end of year result for this measure is available.
The program expects to revise the definition of the performance measure to include
achieving more permanent, long-term control and protection at these sites, and set a
new baseline by the end of calendar year 2005.
Number of Construction Completions
and Final/Deleted
1.600
»1,400
S 1.200
PEPFFFPF
- SS
,S>?*V; -;
Fiscal Year
I Construction Completions
Final/Deleted NPL Sites
The RCRA Corrective Action Program uses two indicators to assess the quality of the
environment in relation to current human exposures to contamination and the migration
of contaminated ground water. In FY 1998, the program set long-term cumulative goals
for these two indicators to be achieved by the end of FY 2005. These goals are to
control human exposures at 95 percent of the 1,714 highest priority facilities and to
GOAL 3-14
-------
control the migration of contaminated ground water at 70 percent of these facilities. For
FY 2005, the program achieved its annual target for the human exposure indicator, but
did not meet the target for the ground water migration indicator. However, through the
efforts of our state partners, the program achieved both of its long-term cumulative
goals.
In FY 2006, the program will expand its focus to stabilizing only the highest priority
facilities (as measured by the two environmental indicators) to putting final remedies in
place. The program's goals for FY 2008 are to have final remedies selected at 30
percent of the 1,968 highest priority facilities (represents new baseline) and final
remedies constructed at 20 percent of these facilities.
RCRA BivirtxiitTental Indicators
Human Exposure
Grojxwaer Micraion
J"'
I-
5
"* 100
Z 50
• Ra-ned
• Actual | 205
230
195
172 J
I II I I I
I I I I I I
II I I I I I
1001
2002 2003
RxslYea-
2004
2005
-
RscdYea-
For FY 2005, data currently undergoing quality assurance/quality control indicate that
EPA's state partners completed 14,583 UST cleanups, thus meeting the target of
14.500.2 The Agency has been working with state partners to evaluate cleanup targets
for future years in light of new pressures that have slowed the pace of cleanups in recent
years, including a backlog of more complex sites, the more frequent discovery of methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination, and increased administrative and legal
burdens associated with site cleanup. In FY 2004, EPA's state partners completed
14,285 of the targeted 21,000 UST cleanups; therefore the APG was not met. Through
March 2005, 6,181 UST cleanups had been completed, thereby decreasing the UST
national cleanup backlog to 125,221.3
Decraoing UST N aiond Cle^up Backlog
W7 '968 19SS 2000 2B1 3C2 2003 3X4 305
2 Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks,
November 9, 2005.
3 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA
Regions 1-10, June 2, 2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity Report.."
GOAL 3-15
-------
CHALLENGES: While the Superfund program met most of its FY 2005 performance
targets, it faced significant challenges. EPA must address a large and increasing number
of projects ready to begin construction while maintaining the pace of ongoing cleanups
at several large, complex sites. In addition, as the program has matured, it has been
required to increase post-construction activities, including long-term remedial actions
and 5-year reviews. To meet these challenges, the Agency has proposed to focus
additional resources toward construction beginning in FY 2007 by redirecting resources
from other response and response-support activities in earlier phases of the Superfund
cleanup process into construction.
The RCRA Corrective Action Program also faced complexities in addressing remaining
facilities. During FY 2005, many of the facilities posed difficult challenges to controlling
human exposures such as addressing wide-spread contamination, intrusion of toxic
vapors, ingestion of contaminated fish, and bankrupt or nonexistent owners. As a result,
EPA and authorized states shifted their resources from controlling migration of
contaminated ground water to ensuring that humans were not exposed to contamination
at as many facilities as possible.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Superfund
Remedial program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process. The program
received an adequate rating. OMB is assessing the Superfund Federal Facilities
program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the
FY 2007 President's Budget. OMB assessed the RCRA Corrective Action program
related to this APG in the 2003 PART process. The program received an adequate
rating. OMB reassessed the LUST program related to this APG most recently in the
2004 PART process. The program received an adequate rating.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Details on the following evaluations completed during FY
2005 are available in Appendix B - Program Evaluations:
• The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report: "EPA Can Better Manage
Superfund Resources."
• OIG report: "Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Needs
Improvement."
• OIG report: "EPA Practices for Identifying and Inventorying Hazardous Sites Could
Assist in Similar Department of the Interior Efforts."
• OIG report: "The Role of Superfund NPL: State Cleanup Program."
• GAO evaluation: "Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect
the Public."
• Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation evaluation: "An Internal
Review of Procedures for Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments."
• Superfund's Federal Facilities Response Program completed an evaluation entitled
"Measuring EPA's Value-Added to the Department of Defense (DoD) Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Program."
Additional program evaluation information:
• EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation conducted an
evaluation entitled "Superfund Community Involvement Impact Assessment of the
Woolfolk Chemical Works Site in Fort Valley, Georgia."
GOAL 3-16
-------
• The Superfund program initiated evaluations on site-specific payroll charging
practices and processes, long-term ground water monitoring plans using newly
developed optimization tools, and community involvement in risk assessment.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: EPA awards six types of
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 NPL.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) are an important tool for involving the local
community meaningfully in the cleanup process. By providing independent technical
expertise to local communities, TAGs help community members better understand the
technical issues affecting site cleanups, the risks associated with site contamination, and
options for effective and safe site remediation.
The Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Program provides free,
independent, university-based technical assistance to communities facing hazardous
waste contamination issues that do not qualify for TAGs. Created in 1994, TOSC has
provided more than 200 communities with an independent understanding of technical
issues related to hazardous substance contamination, enabling them to participate
substantively in the decision-making process.
STAG grants support the RCRA Corrective Action Program and help to control human
exposure to toxins and toxic releases to ground water at high priority RCRA facilities.
Under LUST Cooperative Agreements, EPA awarded funds to 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, four U.S. territories, and 10 tribes. Funding to tribes helped to
address a contaminated LUST site on the Onondaga Indian Nation, provide equipment
for tribal inspectors, build LUST program capacity, and oversee LUST program
implementation.
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tank. EPA provides funding to states, Tribes,
and/or Intertribal Consortia through these grants to encourage owners and operators to
properly operate and maintain their USTs. Major activities focus on ensuring that
owners/ operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in
accordance with UST regulations as well as developing state programs with sufficient
authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal program.
GOAL 3-17
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by
mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring
contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
APGi
'Superfundgotentially;Responsible Party Participation
Planned
Actual
3.4
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of Remedial
Action (RA) at 90 percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable,
liable parties.
Goal Met.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
> Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement
action is taken before the start of an RA.
Data Source: CERCLIS is the automated database used by the Agency to
track, store, and report Superfund site information. EPA's headquarters
and regional offices enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis. Each
performance measure is a specific variable within CERCLIS. Also see
www.epa.gov/enforcement/cleanup.
90%
100%
PERFORMANCE
EPA met this goal for FY 2005. EPA is committed to identifying liable Potential
Responsible Parties (PRPs) at contaminated sites and to taking enforcement actions at
90 percent of those sites before remedial action begins. By securing private party
commitments to clean up hazardous waste sites, EPA ensures that trust fund money is
used only when absolutely necessary. Settlements or enforcement actions included
Consent Decrees, Administrative Orders on Consent, Consent Agreements, Unilateral
Administrative Orders, voluntary cost recovery actions, or litigation referral.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Civil
Enforcement program, which includes Superfund Enforcement, most recently in 2004.
The program received an adequate rating.
GOAL 3-18
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by
mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring
contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
APG
Superfund Cost Recovery
Planned
Actual
3.5
Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work
and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies.
Address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of
limitations on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Refer to Department of Justice, settle, or write off 100% of Statute
of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with total unaddressed past
costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs
recovered.
Data Source: CERCLIS is the automated database used by the Agency to
track, store, and report Superfund site information. EPA's headquarters
and regional offices enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis. Each
performance measure is a specific variable within CERCLIS. Also see
www.epa.gov/enforcement/cleanup.
100%
99%
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: Through enforcement, settlement, or compromise/write-off, cost recovery
was addressed at 195 NPL and non-NPL sites, of which 94 of the 95 cost recovery
cases had outstanding unaddressed past costs greater than $200,000 and pending
statute of limitations (SOL) concerns. Decision documents for the remaining case were
signed soon after the end of the fiscal year, and costs associated with it were written-off
because the attorneys concluded that there were no viable, liable parties at the site. In
FY 2005, EPA secured private party commitments for cleanup and cost recovery that
exceeded $1.1 billion.
Annual Response and Cost Recovery Settlements, FY 1996-FY 2005
-1,336—1329-
1986 1997 1998
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Bad Year
EPA continues to pursue the "Enforcement First" strategy to focus limited trust fund
resources on sites where PRPs do not exist or lack the funds or capabilities needed to
conduct the cleanup. By taking enforcement actions at sites where viable, liable parties
exist, EPA will continue to leverage private-party dollars to clean up hazardous waste
sites so that trust fund money is used only when absolutely necessary.
GOAL 3-19
-------
EPA relies on "Smart Enforcement" to focus program resources on the most significant
problems and to use the most appropriate enforcement and compliance tools to achieve
the best outcomes.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Civil
Enforcement program, which includes Superfund Enforcement, most recently in 2004.
The program received an adequate rating.
GOAL 3-20
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by
mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated
sites or properties to appropriate levels.
APG
Prepare!for and'Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
Planned?
Actual
3.6
Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases
of harmful substances by improving our nation's capability to prepare for
and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
> Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage
facilities that are required to have Facility Response Plans (FRP). •
> Number of Superfund lead removal response actions completed.
(PART)
> Voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed. (PART)
> Superfund removal actions completed annually per million dollars.
(PART)
> Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations. (PART)
> Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to FRP regulations.
(PART)
> Percentage of emergency response readiness improvement.
2003 Baseline: 82%
Data Source(s): Data for the Superfund Removal program will be provided
by CERCLIS. Data on the Oil Program will be provided by the EPA regional
offices. Also see www.epa.gov/oem.
300
360
195
110
0.9
100%
100%
10%
260
335
172
137
1.54
100%
77%
10%
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: Although this annual performance goal was not met, it includes several
new performance measures that better track environmental progress for the Superfund
removal and oil spill programs as a result of PART reviews. Among the existing
measures, the Agency missed the target for responding to or monitoring 300 oil spills,
however, the program participated actively in the 260 that occurred within EPA's
jurisdiction. Given that the number of oil spills that require EPA's participation fluctuates
from year to year, the Agency cannot accurately predict a target for this measure.
However, EPA ensured that all oil spills within its jurisdiction were properly evaluated
and addressed.
With respect to the newly external measure that tracks FRP facility inspections, the
target to inspect 6 percent of these facilities nationwide was set in FY 2003 using an
inaccurate estimate of the universe of facilities. Recent data assessment efforts with
EPA's regional offices have indicated that there are approximately 5,000 facilities subject
to FRP regulations rather than 6,000; thus the target should have been set at 300 rather
than 360. The actual number of facilities inspected was 335.
The Agency also missed the target for completing 195 Superfund-lead removal actions.
EPA completed 23 less than expected due to the difficulty of predicting accurately the
number of time-critical and emergency response actions that are identified and referred
GOAL 3-21
-------
to EPA by the states or other agencies; an increase in the scope of response needed at
several actions following the initiation of field work; and greater than anticipated
participation by Agency staff in support of emergency preparedness activities and
response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The compliance rate of facilities subject to FRP regulations was 77 percent primarily
because the determination of compliance is not consistent among EPA regional offices.
The program will issue national guidance next year to provide a consistent definition for
compliance at these facilities.
EPA continues to improve the capacity of our national responders to plan for and
respond to accidental and intentional releases. The Agency is identifying and monitoring
the key elements and standards of an emergency response and homeland security
program, inspecting and conducting response plan exercises at higher risk oil storage
facilities, and tracking the number of chemical and oil incidents to which EPA responds
or monitors.
CHALLENGES: EPA will strive to maintain an effective and efficient emergency
planning and response program while addressing any new homeland security issues
that arise.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is reassessing the Superfund
Removal program and assessing the Oil Spill program related to this APG in the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GOAL 3-22
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of the
environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
Sa'entificallyDefensible Decisions for the Site Cleanup -'
Planned
Actual
3.7
Complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on Non-
Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) and sediments, in order to, by 2010,
develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools, technologies, methods, and models,
and provide technical support that enables practitioners to: 1) characterize
the nature and extent of multimedia contamination; 2) assess, predict, and
communicate risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ
improved remediation options; and 4) respond to oil spills effectively.
Goal Met.
Data Source(s): EPA Quarterly Reports and EPA Project manager files.
The SITE program home page provides access to program statistics,
project status, publications and recent quarterly reports,
www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/. Information from SITE demonstrations and other
sources are combined in a searchable characterization and remediation
technology selection tool, www.epareachit.org/.
The Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, which includes the SITE program,
www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites. pdf.
PERFORMANCE
EPA conducts sound, leading-edge scientific research to provide a foundation for
preserving land quality and remediating contaminated land. The research program
focuses on the important issues of contaminated sediments, ground water contaminant
transport and remediation, and site characterization. In addition, the research program
provides site-specific technical support. Research on waste management, resource
conservation, and multimedia modeling supports OSW regulatory activities in areas such
as waste-derived products, modeling to support risk assessment activities, landfill
issues, and the Resource Conservation Challenge.
SITE demonstrations are performed to independently document innovative remediation
technology or monitoring and measurement approaches so that project managers can
more confidently select new technologies.
EPA completed six demonstration projects in FY 2005, including two sediment
technologies and three NAPL technologies to document the performance of new or
improved technologies in field situations. A dioxin demonstration involving six regions
has already significantly influenced decisions in choosing a screening method: the
tested methods cost about 40 percent of the conventional method. Regional offices now
have the documented results they need to justify selecting one of these methods. This
will realize significant savings in time and cost, since each region requires many hundred
dioxin analyses every year.
Products and activities for the land research program in FY 2005 included the
completion, peer-review, and implementation of a customer-focused research plan to
address the ecological effects of contaminated sediments. Among the first products of
this plan is a model for extrapolating predictions about bioaccumulation of toxic
chemicals across species, time and/or ecosystems. When fully validated, this model will
GOAL 3-23
-------
greatly simplify the task and improve the scientific certainty of ecological risk
assessments performed at contaminated sediment sites.
Also, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) review of the Multimedia, Multipathway, and
Multireceptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) modeling system concluded that 3MRA provided
a scientifically defensible framework that gives reproducible results for determining
national exit levels for RCRA-listed hazardous wastes. The research program on 3MRA
is responding to SAB recommendations.
A report on vapor intrusion modeling titled "Uncertainties in Vapor Intrusion Calculation,"
was also produced in FY 2005. The results of this work indicated that the uncertainties
that exist in input parameters result in expected uncertainties in the model outputs and
that synergies between these parameters can amplify the uncertainties. Sensitivity
analysis identified the input parameters that were the most important to reduce
uncertainty.
Waste Management of Kentucky won a 2005 Gold Award from the Solid Waste
Association of North America for the Outer Loop Landfill. The award was made in large
part for the ongoing landfill bioreactor research being carried out at the site by Waste
Management of Kentucky and EPA under a cooperative research and development
agreement. An article in MSW Management described the research as "unique and
significant" and noted the potential for "significant environmental and economic benefits
in the years to come". (MSW Management, September/October 2005, pp. 52-55;
www. mswmanagement. com)
CHALLENGES: As the Superfund program has matured, innovative approaches
evaluated through the SITE program have become standard tools for remediation, and
as a result, the program will conclude demonstrations of innovative remediation,
monitoring, and measurement approaches in FY 2006. The entire research program will
continue to conduct problem-driven research to produce methods and models to meet
the target for developing or evaluating 40 scientific tools in the FY 2010 long-term goal,
established in FY 2003.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: EPA Science Advisory Board panel report: "Advisory on
the Office of Research and Development's Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year
Plans." Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 3-24
-------
GOAL 3 - PART MEASURES WITH DATA AVAILABILITY BEYOND FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through
PART Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA
documents, including the PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available"
provides the most current estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
RCRA Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
RCRA Corrective
Action
RCRA Corrective
Action
RCRA Corrective
Action
Comparison of LUST cleanups completed over
a three year rolling average with public and
private sector cleanup costs.
Facilities under control (permitted) per total
permitting costs.
Percentage of high priority RCRA facilities with
human exposures to toxins controlled using
2005 baseline.
Percentage of high priority RCRA facilities with
toxic releases to groundwater controlled using
2005 baseline.
Number of final remedy components
constructed at RCRA Corrective Action facilities
per federal, state, and private sector cost.
%|Jll?S'SH^iS|5^«?J:Si'Stnj*-.
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Establishing Baseline
Establishing Baseline
Collecting Data
plDaWA\aUable|J]
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2006
FY 2006
FY 2007
GOAL 3-25
-------
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.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS
Brownfields, Chesapeake Bay, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, OPPTS'
Community Assistance Program, Consumer Labeling Initiative, Computational
Toxicology Research Program, Ecosystems Protection Research Program,
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT),
Endocrine Disrupters Research Program, Energy Star Programs, Envirofacts,
Environment and Trade, Environment Information Exchange Network Grant Program,
Environmental Justice Initiative, Fellowships, Global Change Research, Great Lakes,
Gulf of Mexico, Homeland Security Research, Human Health Research Program,
Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program, International Capacity Building,
Lead Programs, Mercury Research Program, National Environmental Monitoring
Initiative, National Estuary Program, National Library Network Program, Pesticides and
Toxics Research Program, US-Mexico Border, Wetlands
OVERVIEW OF GOAL
EPA's work to achieve healthy communities and ecosystems relies on both regulatory
and collaborative approaches. To accomplish its objectives under Goal 4, EPA reviews
pesticides according to the latest health and safety standards and registers them for use.
The Agency also screens and manages new and existing chemicals. The Agency leads
a wide range of community, geographical, and international initiatives, from restoring and
redeveloping contaminated properties and communities; to working collaboratively with
local organizations, states, tribes, and other federal agencies to make America's most
significant water bodies safe for swimming and fishing; to reducing risks to health and
the environment for people living along U.S. border areas. EPA also conducts research
to bring the best scientific expertise to bear on the nation's environmental challenges.
Chemicals and Pesticides
EPA is committed to ensuring that chemicals and pesticides entering the home, the work
environment, and agricultural or recreational settings are safe. Under its Pesticides
Program, the Agency identifies and assesses potential risks posed by pesticides, sets
priorities for addressing these risks, develops strategies for reducing them, and
promotes innovative and alternative methods of pest control. Gradually, old pesticides
are being replaced by newer pesticides that EPA has reviewed to ensure that they do
not pose unreasonable risks.
EPA continues to develop and improve programs to review and address risks posed by
new and existing chemicals. The Agency has targeted particular effort toward assessing
potential risks of new substitutes for existing chemicals; as a result, new industrial
chemicals are making consumer products and industry processes safer. EPA has
screened approximately 80 percent of the 612 pesticide cases eligible for reregistration
and more than 23 percent of the more than 82,378 commercial and/or industrial
GOAL 4-1
-------
chemicals in the U.S. inventory.1 The Agency reviews approximately 1,700 industrial
chemicals each year.
One of EPA's key strategies for identifying and addressing risks posed by chemicals
already in commerce is its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. Under
this program, "sponsor" companies provide the public with critical health and
environmental data for 2,800 HPV chemicals—chemicals manufactured in quantities of a
million or more pounds per year and routinely encountered in workplaces, homes, and
schools. More than 360 chemical companies and 100 industry consortia voluntarily
provide EPA with data on 1,397 of these HPV chemicals, and the Agency expects to
make these complete data available to the public by the end of 2005.2
In recent years, EPA has been collaborating with industry to move new, safe chemical
products to the marketplace more quickly and efficiently. The Agency has made its
advanced risk screening tools available and provided training to help companies assess
chemical risks in the earliest stages of product design and development. As a result,
manufacturers can screen out chemicals that would require regulated management or
extended review by EPA. Similarly, the Agency has worked with the pesticide industry
to establish a more efficient registration process and allow safer pesticide products to
reach the market quickly.
Protecting children's health is another key focus of Goal 4. Certain hazardous pesticides
have been virtually eliminated from residences, schools, and parks where children might
be exposed. In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control released data demonstrating
major reductions in the incidence of childhood lead poisoning—from approximately
900,000 children with elevated blood lead levels in the early 1990s to 310,000 children in
its 1999-2002 survey.3 To support the nation's goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning by 2010, EPA is focusing its outreach and education efforts on remaining "hot
spots," often disadvantaged urban areas where the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning remains high. EPA is also reassessing pesticide tolerance levels established
years ago, emphasizing foods most frequently consumed by children.
Hurricane Katrina Response
EPA co-leads the Gulf State Partnership, which has developed a five-state strategy to
better address coastal hazards and coordinate federal and state monitoring and
assessment in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. EPA is coordinating with the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
and the U.S. Geological Survey to develop an environmental impact assessment of
Hurricane Katrina's effect on coastal waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
The Agency is supporting local, state, and national efforts to assess aquatic resources,
identify stressors that harm or cause deterioration of these resources, document
changes over time, restore ecological conditions, and protect human health.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. TSCA New
Chemicals Program" Internal monthly report by Chemical Abstract Services.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "High
Production Volume Challenge Program, HPV Commitment Tracking System." Available at
www.epa.qov/chemrtk/hDvchmlt.htm.
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey: 1999-2002: May 2005. More information is available at
www.cdc.qov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
GOAL 4-2
-------
Community and Geographical Initiatives
EPA also collaborates with state, tribal, and local governments; community, industry,
and other stakeholder groups; and other nations to address larger geographical issues.
For example, the Agency is coordinating the federal effort to improve water quality for
the more than 30 million people living in the Great Lakes basin.4 EPA leads efforts to
improve habitat and ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.
Great Lakes Legacy Act
With the signing of a project agreement in September 2004 and initiation of dredging in October,
EPA began implementing the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Act represents an important step in
addressing some of the 75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments within the 31 US
geographic areas designated as Areas of Concern. These are severely degraded geographic
areas within the Great Lakes Basin with impairments to one or more of 14 beneficial uses; for
example, these areas may have restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, dredging activities,
or drinking water consumption. Under the Act, EPA and its partners are working to remove
beneficial use impairments and delist Areas of Concern.
Through the first Great Lakes Legacy Act sediment remediation project, Black Lagoon (Detroit
River, Michigan), EPA has remediated approximately 116,000 cubic yards of sediment
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, oil, and grease.5 In FY 2005, EPA
signed agreements with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the remediation of
Newton Creek/Hog Island Inlet in Superior, Wisconsin, and with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality for assessment and remediation of Ruddiman Creek in Muskegon,
Michigan.
Wetlands are among the nation's most critical and productive natural resources,
providing a variety of benefits and serving as the primary habitat for many species. The
President has called for restoring, improving, and protecting 3 million acres of wetlands
over 5 years. EPA believes that the way to achieve "net gain" is through partnerships
and by building state, tribal, and local governments' capacity to protect and manage their
wetlands. Toward this end, EPA has awarded $15 million in Wetland Program
Development Grants to support states and tribes in restoring, improving, and protecting
wetlands. Wetlands data provided in the April 2005 Council on Environmental Quality
report, Preserving America's Wetlands, Implementing the President's Goal, indicate that
since April 2004, 832,000 acres of wetlands have been restored, created, improved, or
protected.6
Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound Program has reduced point source nitrogen load to Long Island Sound
by approximately 6,000 pounds per day from 2003 levels, significantly jmproving water quality.
As of December 2004, the program has reduced point source nitrogen loads to the Sound by
59,000 pounds per day, or 26.7 percent from baseline levels. This represents 47.3 percent of
the total maximum daily load (TMDL) goal to reduce nitrogen pollution to the sound by 58.5
percent by 2014.
4 U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office and Government of Canada. The Great Lakes
Atlas. 1995. EPA905-B-95-001. Online at www.epa.gov/qlnpo/atlas/index.html.
5 U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Volume of Sediment Remediated in the Great
Lakes Legacy Act Program. Available from GLNPO Sediment Files.
6 U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Status and Trends Report, Corps of Engineers ORM Database.
GOAL 4-3
-------
Restoring Communities
In addition to preventing potential new risks to the environment, EPA is working to
protect and restore communities affected by past contamination. The Agency provides
states, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders with the tools and financial
assistance they need to assess, clean up, and redevelop brownfields properties.
Brownfields are an economic issue across the country; reusing these properties
increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, uses existing infrastructure, takes
development pressure off undeveloped land, and improves and protects the
environment.
International Affairs
EPA continues to make significant progress toward reducing risks to human health and
the environment internationally by investing in efforts to reduce lead, reduce emissions,
and provide safe clean water. For example, the Agency collaborated with Russia,
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan to reduce and avoid emissions of approximately 260,000 tons
of air pollutants, 7.9 millions metric tons of greenhouse gases, and 20 pounds of
mercury from coal-fired power plants.7
As a result of EPA's leadership through the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
all 49 sub-Saharan countries will have phased out leaded gasoline by the end of 2005, 2
years earlier than anticipated, affecting the health of 733 million people. In addition, EPA
forged an agreement with the United Nations Environment Programme to address global
mercury and announced a U.S government focus on five partnership areas: chloralkali
facilities, mercury in products, coal combustions, artisanal gold mining, and research.
No More Pesticide Dumping
EPA helped Russia prevent the release of 1,500 metric tons of obsolete pesticides to the
arctic environment. Work included inventorying stocks of obsolete pesticides, analyzing the
stocks for heavy metals and chlorinated compounds, and moving them to safe storage. As a
result of this EPA investment, Russian authorities now prohibit dumping of these toxic
pesticides in trenches, and they are collaborating with the United States and other arctic
nations to implement environmentally sound options for destroying the pesticides.
Along the US-Mexico border, residents have suffered disproportionately from Hepatitis A
and other water-borne diseases due to inadequate potable water and sewage treatment
infrastructure. EPA is reducing health risks to border residents by increasing the number
of homes connected to safe drinking water systems and with access to basic sanitation.
EPA grant funds, together with local, state, and Mexican government contributions, are
providing and improving drinking water and wastewater infrastructure for more than 6
million residents of the US-Mexico border area.8
7 See www.npaf.ru for results from an environmental finance project, www.vti.ru for results from
an electrostatic precipitator performance project, and www.cenef.ru for results from an energy-
efficient building codes project.
8 North American Development Bank project files for the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund.
GOAL 4-4
-------
Science and Research
To achieve healthy communities and ecosystems, EPA continues to make significant
scientific and technological progress in monitoring ecological condition, homeland
security, and nanotechnology.
Programs such as the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program develop
indicators to monitor the condition of ecological resources, assess the success of
programs and policies, and advance the science of ecological monitoring and risk
assessment. In 2005, EPA released the first report of its kind describing the condition of
streams in the western United States. This report establishes a baseline against which
future ecological changes and trends in stream condition can be measured.
Federal, state, and local emergency personnel rely on EPA for tools that will assist in
decisionmaking in the event of a terrorist attack. In 2005, EPA research scientists
developed a Web-based system to identify hazards quickly, assess human exposure,
and characterize risks during an emergency response. The Emergency Consequence
Assessment Tool (ECAT) integrates hazard and exposure information for specific
situations. ECAT is being expanded to cover a wider range of scenarios and
contaminants, and it will eventually be used to provide information to the public and
scientific community.
Through its own research and by participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
EPA has taken a leadership role in directing research on the environmental applications
and implications of nanotechnology. The Agency is conducting 38 research grants to
develop nanotechnology applications to protect the environment and 26 research
projects to study the possible harmful effects of manufactured nanomaterials. EPA's
Small Business Innovation Research Program has let contracts to more than 25 small
companies for developing and commercializing clean technologies, some of which use
nanomaterials.
SUMMARY OF FY 2005 PERFORMANCE
GOAL 4 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Total APGs
26
Met
13
FY 2005 Obliqations (in
thousands):
EPA Total: $10, 125,982.6
Goal 4: $1,367,963.8
Goal 4 Share of Total: 13.5%
Not Met
7
Data Available
November 15,
After
2005
6
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $8,500,594.0
Goal 4: $1,272,852.0
Goal 4 Share of Total: 15.0%
GOAL 4-5
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to
humans, communities, and ecosystems.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $456,172.1 (33.4% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $438,464.0 (34.4% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Costs)
J'ABG#,
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
NEW
IN
FY05
4.8
4.9
4.10
NEW
IN
FY05
'•ft*&^£n£ij$i- £«&•.+ "APG Title". ^ " . "'
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
Process and Disseminate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Information
Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical. Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
- Status of APGfts
Not Met
Data Available FY 2006
Data Available FY 2007
Met
Data Available FY 2007
Not Met
Data Available FY2006
Met
Not Met
Not Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
Although EPA did not meet all of its annual performance commitments for pesticide
reregistration and tolerance reassessments, the Agency is confident that it will meet
future year commitments for ensuring that appropriate tolerance levels are established
and safer pesticides are introduced. Much of the Agency's effort to finish hundreds
(772) of tolerance reassessment has been completed. The only task remaining is the
cumulative risk assessment for these tolerances. The Agency must also finalize 23
Interim Registration Eligibility Decisions, which EPA expects to complete early in
FY 2006.
EPA is on target for preventing or reducing chemical and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems through mix of
targeted regulatory and voluntary programs. EPA did not meet its FY 2005 goal for
standardizing and validating screening assays, but believes that it will meet the future
target.
The Agency has made considerable progress in preventing or reducing chemical risks.
EPA has now screened more than 23 percent of the 82,000 commercial and/or industrial
chemicals in the U.S. inventory, and it reviews an average of 1,700 new chemicals each
year.9 EPA exceeded 2005 targets for closing the gap in providing the public with risk
screening data for more than 2,200 of the chemicals that have been in the marketplace
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. TSCA New
Chemicals Program." Internal monthly report by Chemical Abstract Services.
GOAL 4-6
-------
prior to 1978.10 EPA also made progress in assessing risks of perfluoroctanoic acid,
completing a draft risk assessment, negotiation enforceable consent orders, and
memoranda of understanding with industry. With respect to children, the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning decreased from approximately 900,000 cases in the early
1990s to 310,000 cases in the 1999-2002 Centers for Disease Control survey.11
Communities need information on toxic chemical releases to make informed decisions
about protecting their environment. In March 2005, the Agency released the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) annual Public Data Release (PDR) report containing information
on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities by certain industries,
as well as by federal facilities. EPA is continuing to focus resources on modernizing TRI
data collection, processing, and dissemination processes with the goal of releasing more
reliable information sooner to all communities.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Emerging issues, such as using human study data,
registering new biopesticides, managing resistance, and protecting endangered species
may affect pesticides program priorities.
While the updated Centers for Disease data that show continued declines in the
incidence of childhood lead poisoning are encouraging, the data also reveal that the
reduction trend is tapering off, jeopardizing achievement of the national goal to virtually
eliminate this disease by 2010. Accordingly, EPA is revamping strategies and using a
variety of regulatory and voluntary tools to address the remaining population of at-risk
children.
Nanotechnology poses unique challenges for assessing the risk of materials
manufactured at the nano scale. EPA has been coordinating with other federal agencies
and is considering developing a voluntary notification pilot program for nano-scale
materials under TSCA.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $287,372.8 (21.0% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $239.133.4 (18.8% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Costs)
4.11
Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
Data avail FY 2006
Met for FY 2004
4.12
US-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
Not Met
4.13
NEW
IN
FY05
Sustain Community Health
Met
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "High
Production Volume Challenge Program, HPV Commitment Tracking System." Available at
www.epa.qov/chemrtk/hpvchmlt.htm.
11 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-2002: May 2005. More information is available at
www.cdc.qov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
GOAL 4-7
-------
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
In addition to preventing potential new risks to the environment, EPA is working to
protect and restore communities affected by past contamination. The Agency provides
states, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders with the tools and financial
assistance to assess, clean up, and redevelop brownfields properties. In 2005, EPA
announced $76.7 million in brownfields grant funding to recipients in 45 states. The
grants included 176 Assessment Grants, 13 Revolving Loan Fund Grants, 11 Job
Training Grants, and 106 Cleanup Grants. In 2005, EPA also distributed $49.7 million to
49 states, two territories, and 49 tribes to enhance their response capabilities. From
1995 through FY 2004, EPA grantees assessed 5,021 brownfields properties, leveraging
$6.7 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding and 31,337 jobs. Additionally, EPA
has conducted 1,369 targeted brownfields assessments.
EPA, states, and partners from both sides of the US-Mexico border are making
significant progress in providing safe drinking water and sanitation services to border
residents. To ensure that the most critical public health and environmental problems are
addressed first, EPA delayed new project funding in FY 2005 while it developed a
process for establishing project priorities. As a result, progress towards achieving the
FY 2005 goal was delayed. Work on high-priority projects resumed after the
prioritization process was implemented in summer 2005. US-Mexico Border Program
achievements will be reflected under a new measure being developed in FY 2006.
Patagonia's New Wastewater Treatment Plant
In October 2004, the town of Patagonia, Arizona, on the US-Mexico border completed a new
wastewater treatment plant, which is now serving a community of 900 residents. EPA grants
of $1.3 million leveraged an additional $1.2 million in other state and federal funds for the
project. The 110,000-gallon wastewater treatment plant and improved collection lines will help
prevent discharge of raw sewage to ground and surface waters on the border.
USEPA: the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund Deal Sheet - "Wastewater Treatment Facility Replacement and
Sewer Collection System Improvements Project" Patagonia, Arizona (February 13, 2003)
In FY 2005, EPA assisted three Free Trade Area of the Americas countries—Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru—in conducting environmental reviews of trade liberalization. EPA
supported a workshop in El Salvador to allow representatives from Central American
countries to share experiences and lessons learned in conducting environmental reviews
of trade agreements. The Agency also made a presentation on the benefits of
environmental reviews at a May 2005 Organization of American States workshop on the
effects of trade on sustainability.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Fluctuations in real estate marketplaces, general
economic conditions, and local issues significantly affect the Brownfield Program's ability
to demonstrate its effectiveness, particularly with regard to leveraged jobs and
investments measures. EPA is evaluating the feasibility of using additional
environmental measures to demonstrate program effectiveness.
GOAL 4-8
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $178,224.3 (13.0% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $165,297.8 (13.0% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Costs)
4.14
4.15
NEW
IN
FY05
4.16
4.17
4.18
NEW
IN
FY05
4.19
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
Increase Wetlands
Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
Gulf of Mexico
Met
Data avail FY 2008
Met
Not Met for FY 2004
Not Met in FY 2003
Not Met
Not Met
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA's ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches,
targeting specific geographic areas as well as broad categories of threatened
ecosystems, such as estuaries and wetlands. Pollution, generated locally or transported
by rivers and streams and through air deposition, collects in these closed and semi-
closed ecosystems and degrades them over time.
National Estuary Program Success
In 2005, the six National Estuary Programs (NEPs) in EPA's Region 4, working with their
federal, state, and local partners, restored and/or protected approximately 80,000 acres of
habitat, including critical estuarine, riparian, and coastal wetlands. The NEPs used Clean
Water Act Section 320 and matching dollars to leverage additional funding for this effort.
These restored and protected natural habitats and ecosystems will contribute to improving the
quality of coastal waters in the region.
Community interest and involvement, as well as EPA's and its partners' increased
capability for collecting and reporting data depicting protection and restoration
achievements, enabled EPA to make significant progress towards restoring and
protecting habitats in estuaries. Since 2001, more than 400,000 acres have been
protected or
restored; of these, 103,959 acres of estuarine habitat within the 28 estuaries of the
National Estuary Program (NEP) were protected and/or restored in FY 2005.12
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and states, EPA is working to
increase wetlands acreage and maintain and restore its biological and functional
integrity. Wetlands data from 1987 to the 1990s will be available at the end of 2005 to
indicate whether there has been a net gain in wetlands. EPA's regulatory programs help
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuary Program GPRA Habitat Report. More
information available at www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
GOAL 4-9
-------
to ensure that there is no overall net loss in wetlands, and a regulatory program report
on gains and losses of wetland acreage will be available at the end of 2007.
EPA continues to make progress in improving and protecting the health of ecosystems in
the Great Lakes. Based on the most current data, the Great Lakes Index, indicating
overall ecosystem condition in the Great Lakes, improved in FY 2005.13 Long-term
concentrations of PCBs in predator fish and trends of toxic chemicals in the air are
meeting targeted goals, although cleanup efforts are still necessary to address PCB
concentrations which substantially exceed human health and wildlife protection values.
Cumulatively, 3.7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been remediated,
including 345,000 cubic yards in 2004.14 Phosphorus concentrations in the Lake Erie
Basin are still too high to avoid algal blooms and the related "dead zone".15 Although
EPA has not met the target of delisting three Areas of Concerns (AOC), significant
progress has been made towards delisting of two AOCs.16 The FY 2005 nutrient
(phosphorus and nitrogen) and sediment pollution load reduction goals were not met;
current pollutant loads exceed levels needed to meet WQS in many areas.
EPA has not met its goals for the Chesapeake Bay. Although the Chesapeake Bay
Program is making progress towards protecting acres of submerged aquatic vegetation,
current pollutant loads continue to exceed the level needed to meet water quality
standards adopted by states.17
In the Gulf of Mexico, the size of the hypoxic zone was reduced in FY 2005.18 EPA will
evaluate the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the size of the hypoxic zone in FY 2006 as
part of the more comprehensive impact assessment on public health and water quality.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Future restoration and protection of estuaries
present challenges as EPA faces more difficult projects, requiring longer lead time, as
well as remaining smaller study areas. The United States also faces daunting
challenges in conserving coastal wetlands. Recognizing that collaboration is critical,
EPA continues to work with partners on new strategies for protecting and restoring these
areas.
Although EPA is making progress, challenges remain for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake
Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico programs. Growing human and animal populations in the
Chesapeake Bay area continue to challenge efforts to reduce pollutant loads. Damage
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office analysis of select
Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus
concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach
closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition) and internal files.
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office. Volume of
Sediment Remediated in the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program, August, 2005. Available from
Great Lakes National Program Office Sediment Files and from:
www.epa.gov/qlnpo/grmdicators/sediments/remediatea.html.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office: Phosphorus
Monitoring Program. More information available at
www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/water/phosphorusa.html.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office internal tracking
and communications with Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the International
Joint Commission (IJC).
17 State/district data provided to the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
18 Data from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON) and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
GOAL 4-10
-------
from Hurricane Katrina will affect improvements made in the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
Most immediately, states and EPA must assess the impact of the hurricane and plan for
recovery.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and
restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and
developing better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $446,194.6 (32.6% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $429,956.8 (33.8% of FY 2005 Goal 4 Total Costs)
4.20
NEW
IN
FY05
4.21
NEW
IN
FY05
4.22
NEW
IN
FY05
4.23
NEW
IN
FY05
4.24
4.25
NEW
IN
FY05
4.26
NEW
IN
FY05
Conduct Relevant Research to Support the Food Quality Protection Act
Conduct Relevant Research: Mercury
Conduct Relevant Research: Exposures and Environmental Effects
Conduct Relevant Research: Riparian Zone Restoration
Risk Assessment Research
Conduct Relevant Research: Homeland Security
Conduct Relevant Research: Regional Scale Ecosystem Assessment
Methods
Met
Met
Met
. Met
Met
Met
Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
The Agency is making considerable progress toward its 2008 objective of providing a
sound scientific foundation to support its work under Goal 4.
In 2005, EPA provided methods and models to enable risk assessors and risk managers
to measure and evaluate exposure to, and effects of, environmental stressors in
children. The objective of this research is to reduce children's exposure to harmful
agents and reduce the cost of treating environment-related diseases.
EPA demonstrated its commitment to restoring the health of ecosystems by providing
clear and concise information on the utility and effectiveness of vegetative riparian
buffers to reduce'nitrogen loadings to streams. Decisionmakers will use this information
to design vegetative buffers that will most effectively reduce nitrogen impacts on
streams.
GOAL 4-11
-------
On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to permanently cap
and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time. This rule,
combined with EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, will significantly reduce emissions from
the nation's largest remaining source of human-caused mercury emissions. The mercury
research program supported CAMR by producing essential scientific information about
the status and costs of mercury control technologies for coal-fired utility boilers. This
work contributed to a larger effort that considered emissions, control technologies, health
effects, and the impacts on our electrical system and economic competitiveness.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA is working to identify meaningful outcome and
efficiency measures for its research programs.
Nanotechnology has the potential to improve the assessment, management, and
prevention of environmental risks. As products made from nanoparticles become more
numerous and nanoparticles become more prevalent in the environment, EPA is
considering how nanotechnology will affect its environmental programs, policies,
research needs, and approaches to decisionmaking.
GOAL 4-12
-------
GOAL 4 - HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
APG-
4.1
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances _;
Ensure that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active ingredients
and the products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate
protection for human health and the environment, taking into
consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native
Americans.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
Tolerance Reassessment.
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (REDs).
Product Reregistration.
Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children.
Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed.
Reduce decision time for REDs.
Data Source(s): The Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network
(OPPIN), and EPA's pesticides program staff and managers. Also.see
www.eDa.qov/Desticides.
"Planned
87.7%
88.2%
400
93%
100
7%
Actual
80.4%
82.3%
501
74.4%
168
75%
PERFORMANCE
To ensure that food remains safe, EPA reviews and reassesses tolerance levels. In
cases where tolerance levels do not meet current safety standards, the Agency pursues
approaches to achieve safe pesticide levels as required by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA). In much the same way, EPA's reregistration program assures that currently
registered pesticide products are used in ways that protect people, communities, and
ecosystems. These reviews are conducted through a public process that promotes
transparency and builds partnerships with stakeholders inside and outside the federal
government.
Goal Not Met: Although EPA did not meet all of its annual performance commitments for
pesticides reregistration and tolerance reassessments, it remains on target for achieving
its long-term goal. During FY 2005, the Agency completed reassessing 80 percent of
the 9,721 tolerances that FQPA requires be reassessed, including tolerances on foods
most commonly eaten by children.1 In addition to those fully reassessed in FY 2005, the
Agency evaluated approximately 782 additional tolerances; these are not counted as
reassessed because cumulative risk assessment has not yet been accomplished.
These evaluations, combined with the 2005 completions, place the Agency over its FY
2005 target.
1 For additional information on EPA authorities for conducting work under the Food Quality
Protection Act go to www.epa.gov/Desticides/requlatinq/tolerances.htm.
GOAL 4-13
-------
EPA expects to complete the cumulative risk assessment early in 2006; therefore, the
Agency feels confident that it is on target to meet the statutory deadline of reassessing
all of the 9,721 tolerances by August 2006. The deadline for completing REDs is also on
target for 2008; in FY 2005 the Agency completed more than 82 percent and an
additional 23 Interim REDs, nearly 86 percent of the 612 required. EPA greatly
exceeded its FY 2005 target for RED decision time, reducing the time for decisions from
a baseline of 40 months to 10 months in FY 2005. Times vary according to the
chemicals being evaluated. The program is currently reviewing data to isolate
anomalies that resulted in this dramatic reduction of time. Of importance is that this is
an anomaly, and does not represent a future commitment to either maintain or further
reduce the time involved.
Performance Measure: % Tolerance Reassessment and Tolerance
Reassessmentsfbr Top 20 Foods Bten by CNIdren Completed
(Cumulative) and % Registration Bigbility Decisions
Completed (Cumulative)
X Reassessed
% REDs Completed
% 20 Children's Food
2001
2005
CHALLENGES: Completing cumulative risk continued to be a challenge during FY
2005, delaying issuance of final reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs). However, the
Agency anticipates meeting its mandatory deadlines for this program.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pesticide
Registration program most recently in the 2003 PART process and the Pesticide
Reregistration program most recently in the 2004 PART process. Both programs
received adequate ratings.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Pesticides programs are
supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide Implementation Program. Responsibility
for regulating pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes. These grant
resources assist states and tribes in pesticide certification and training/worker protection
programs, endangered species activities, and environmental stewardship.
GOAL 4-14
-------
STRA
biolog
MRGI
4.2
TEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
ical organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
*Decrease>Risk from Agricultural Pesticides "• ».- - ^ , -^ -•
Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk
pesticides.
Performance Measures
> Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk pesticides
FY 2004: Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).*
> New Chemicals (cumulative).*
> New Uses (cumulative).*
> Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
> Occurrences of residues on a core set of 1 9 foods eaten by children
relative to occurrence levels for those foods reported in 1994-
1996.**
Data Source(s): 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. Also see
www.epa.qov/pesticides and www.epa.qov/epahome/pestoxpqram.htm.
* These performance measures are reported in FY 2005 under APGs 4.10.
** This performance measure is reported in FY 2005 under APG 4.7.
Planned
8.7%
131
74
3,079
8.5%
25%
Actual
Data avail
FY 2006
143
79
3,142
13%
34%
PERFORMANCE
Through its registration program EPA makes reduced risk pesticides available for use as
alternatives to riskier existing pesticides. Reregistration ensures that older pesticides
which remain in the marketplace continue to be safe and meet the latest safety
standards. As necessary, the Agency's regulatory programs continued to impose
mitigation conditions during registration and reregistration to provide for proper/safe use
of pesticides and further reduce risk. Continued outreach, education, and training for the
general public and agricultural community ensure that pesticides will be appropriately
and safely used, reducing pesticide exposure and risk.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pesticide
Registration program most recently in the 2003 PART process and the Pesticide
Reregistration program most recently in the 2004 PART process. Both programs
received adequate ratings.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Pesticides programs are
supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide Implementation Program. Responsibility
for regulating pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes. These grant
resources assist states and tribes in pesticide certification and training/worker protection
programs, endangered species activities, and environmental stewardship.
GOAL 4-15
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
*APGi:kExpbsure toilnaustrial/CorfirriercTalChemicals ^v'
Planned
Actual
4.3 | Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial
chemicals.
Performance Measures
> Annual number of transformers safely disposed.
> Annual number of large capacitors safely disposed.
> Number of children aged 1 -5 years with elevated blood levels (>10
ug/dl).
FY 2004: Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority
industrial/commercial chemicals.
Performance Measures
> Number of individuals certified nationally through federal
administered programs to perform lead-based paint abatements.
> Children aged 1 -5 years with elevated blood lead levels (>1 Oug/dl).
> Safe disposal of transformers.
> Safe disposal of capacitors.
> Number of participants in Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
(cumulative).
FY 2000: Administer federal programs and oversee state implementation of
programs for lead-based paint abatement certification and training in 50
states, to reduce exposure year is to lead-based paint and ensure
significant decreases in children's blood levels by 2005.
FY 1999: Complete the building of a lead-based paint abatement
certification and training in 50 target states, to ensure significant decreases
in children's blood lead levels by 2005 through year is reduced exposure to
lead-based paint
Data Source(s): Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of
PCB Waste, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).2 Also see
Lead Program: www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/index.html and PCB Capacitors
and Transformers: www.epa.gov/oppt/pcb/.
5,000
9,000
9,000
18,000
261,000
8,000
6.000
2,000
50
35
Data avail
09/2007
Data avail
09/2007
Data avail
06/2008
24,000
Data
available
FY2007
2,930
50
30
PERFORMANCE
These quantitative performance measures for APG 4.3 track EPA's progress in
managing risks associated with the high profile chemicals Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(RGBs) and lead. EPA's historic annual performance targets for PCB disposal were
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National
Program Chemicals Program, Internal PCB Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB
Waste. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-2002: May 2005. More information is available at
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
GOAL 4-16
-------
established using uncertain and outdated information. EPA expects to meet its targets
for FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006, which are based on concerted efforts to improve
baseline data through campaigns to persuade companies to retire PCB-containing
equipment ahead of schedule.
PCS Creators andTraisformers Scfely Disposed
1999
In FY 2005 EPA initiated a new effort to reach vulnerable populations of children most
at-risk of exposure to lead-based paint. The Agency also developed new long-term
goals for eliminating demographic disparities in blood levels, in addition to eliminating
childhood lead poisoning. EPA also began work to develop rules establishing lead-safe
work practice standards for renovation and remodeling projects.
The most recent NHANES data estimated 310,000 children with elevated blood lead
levels in 1999-2002, a steep reduction of the more than 900,000 cases estimated in the
early 1990's3. This information demonstrates significant progress in meeting EPA's
2008 goal of reducing elevated blood lead level incidences to 90,000 cases and the
national goal to virtually eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 2010.
The 1999 APG was missed; however, it counted only state lead-based paint abatement
certification and training programs. This does not mean that there was a lack of
protection because EPA implements the program in the absence of a state program.
The 2000 measure captures both state and federal programs, demonstrating that there
is either a federal or state program in place in all 50 States.
Bev^ed Bood Lead Levels in Children of the United Sates
Number of Children
(Tnousaids)
•
600 -
. 890,000 • Aaud nrrtxr of children with
X . , d«i/aortHnnritartta»t=(>in«Jll)
\ A Target projection to meet 2010
Hirrinaion God
\
^i 31 o.ooo ^261000
^^90000^
0 1 1 1 1
1994 1999-2002 2005 2008 20
3 May 27, 2005 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
GOAL 4-17
-------
CHALLENGES: Recently released NHANES data reveal that the rate of reducing
childhood blood lead poisoning is slowing, and that there is a higher than average
incidence of elevated blood lead levels among low-income children3. To counter this
trend, EPA has employed targeted outreach and educational strategies to reach these
vulnerable communities.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Lead
program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the
FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This program is
supported by the Categorical Grant: Lead. These resources assist states and tribes in
developing and maintaining authorized programs for training individuals engaged in
lead-based paint remediation, accrediting training programs for those individuals, and
certifying contractors engaged in lead-based paint remediation.
GOAL 4-18
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
APG
4.4
Process and Disseminate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Information
The increased use of the TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total
burden reduction of 5% for FY 2005 from FY 2004 levels.
Goal Met
Performance Measures
> Percentage increase of TRI chemical forms submitted over the
Internet using TRI-ME and the CDX.
Data Source(s): TRI Data Center Operations Statistical Reports. Also
see www.epa.qov/triinter/index.htm.
Planned
10%
Actual
12.9%
PERFORMANCE
EPA believes that electronic reporting is easier and less time consuming for facilities
required to submit these reports and should improve their compliance. Additionally,
electronic reporting improves the quality and timeliness of the data in TRI. TRI-ME
provides reporting facilities with electronic forms that help detect some types of errors
and eliminate the need for EPA to enter the data from paper submissions.
In FY 2004, 38 percent of all reports on chemical releases and other waste management
data were submitted to EPA via the internet and EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), a
73 percent increase over FY 2003. EPA is aggressively trying to increase CDX
submissions through such efforts as targeted training and outreach to the reporting
community. EPA set a goal of increasing the percentage of electronic-submissions by
10 percent per year, beginning in FY 2005. The Agency met that goal in FY 2005: 42.9
percent were submitted electronically, a 12.9 percent increase over FY 2004. To
achieve the FY 2006 goal, more than 47 percent of the reports must be submitted
electronically.
TRI Submissions by MediaType
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Rscal Reporting Year
GOAL 4-19
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
ftPGJtlRisksTfrornI IndusWaVCommircTarCheniicars '.*
Planned
Actual
4.5
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial
chemicals.
Performance Measures
> Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk screening
environmental indicators (RSEI) risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals.*
> Percentage of chemicals identified as highest priority by the Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGLs) Program with short-term
exposure limits established.*
FY2004: Same Goal.
> Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk screening
environmental indicators (RSEI) risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals.*
Data Squrce(s): The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
Model, and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals.
Also see www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/whats rsei. html.
These are interim measures to be finalized in the PART Assessment process.
2%
annual
52%
Data avail
FY 2007
70%
2%
Data avail
FY 2006
PERFORMANCE
Under this goal, EPA tracks its progress in identifying risks presented by new and
existing chemicals and addressing them quickly and effectively. Annual targets for the
RSEI measure are based on the Agency's long-term strategic target of reducing relative
risks to chronic human health associated with environmental releases of industrial
chemicals in commerce by 21 percent from 2001 levels, equating to a 3 percent annual
reduction over a 7 year period. The FY 2002 results showed that the Agency exceeded
its target of a 2 percent reduction in the RSEI risk value from the 2001 baseline,
achieving a 5.7 percent actual reduction.
AEGLs are short-term exposure limits applicable to a wide range of extremely hazardous
substances. First responders use AEGL values in dealing with chemical emergencies,
increasing EPA's ability to deal with threats of chemical terrorism and assist with
homeland security. EPA exceeded its FY 2005 goal for developing Proposed AEGL
values for additional chemicals, in part because the program was able to address
several chemicals as a category. Category opportunities can not be predicted in
advance.
GOAL 4-20
-------
Rsk Screening Bivtronmentai Indicators Model (REB)
This measure tracks ffft's process in reducing existing cherried ri*s utder
TSCA avJ is based on the REB modd. which ofcubtes are* inda baaed
on rrieases ofTR chwmcafa
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Existing
Chemicals program related to this APG in the 2002 PART process. The program
received an adequate rating.
GOAL 4-21
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
fff&i
4.6
:,ChernIcaVOrgahisrn,?and Pesticide Risks t -~: ---*,' *,*^ ' - * - * \ -. v
Standardization and validation of screening assays.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Screening assays completed.
Data Source(s): 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). Also see
www.eDa.aov/sciDolv/oscDendo/.
Planned ;
11
-ActualXrS
Not
Measured
in FY 2005
PERFORMANCE
The endocrine disrupters screening program (EDSP) is required to test all pesticides and
determine if they may have an endocrine disrupting effect in humans. EDSP will
accomplish this goal by developing appropriate testing techniques, establishing the
approach for selecting chemicals for testing, and developing procedures on how the
Agency will require testing.
Goal Not Met: This APG was not achieved in FY 2005 due to the numerous steps
required to complete an assay screening. The Agency's goal of completing assay
screenings within 1 year's time was too ambitious, and intends to complete all 11 assay
screenings by the end of FY 2006. Nonetheless, in FY 2005 the Agency can point to
incremental progress in each of the 11 cases. The Agency uses five internal
performance measures to track progress toward overall programmatic goals. To
highlight a few, EPA completed 15 detailed review papers, 42 prevalidation studies, and
42 validations by multiple laboratories in FY 2005. These are necessary steps prior to
peer-review and completion of assays ready for use.
CHALLENGES: Each phase of assay development may uncover new issues to be
resolved before an assay is ready for use. For example, EPA may plan on 4 studies to
address prevalidation issues. An additional study will be required if it's determined that
an ambiguity exists. The need for additional study will then require additional time
before the assay is complete and ready for use.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Endocrine
Disrupters program, which is comprised of components from the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances and the Office of Research and Development in the
2004 PART process. The program received an adequate rating.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Results achieved in FY
2005 are due in part to the following Interagency Agreements and Grants with the
following entities: U.S. Army Center of Environmental Research (IAG), Smithsonian
(IAG); National Research Council (Cooperative Agreement), National Older Workers
GOAL 4-22
-------
Career Center (Grant), National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (Grant), and
Senior Service America, Inc. (Grant).
GOAL 4-23
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
vGherriicalyOrganismyarici Pesticide Risks.
Planned S Actual
4.7
NEW
IN
FY05
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-
inhibiting neurotic pesticides on foods eaten by children from their average
1994-1996 levels.
Performance Measures
> Reduce occurrence of residues on a core set of 19 foods eaten by
children relative to detection levels for those foods reported in
1994-1996.
Data Source(s): The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Pesticide Data Program (POP). Also see www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/.
27%
Data avail
FY2006
PERFORMANCE
Children's health will be protected from pesticide risk through the reduction of pesticide
residues in the foods eaten by children.
CHALLENGES: POP does not survey the same foods every year, nor do they analyze
the same pesticides every year.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pesticide
Registration program related to this APG most recently in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an adequate rating.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This program is
supported through an interagency agreement with USDA which funds state grants.
GOAL 4-24
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
APG
Ghemical,jOrgahism1:and Pesticide Risks
Planned
Actual
4.8
Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks
and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building community
infrastructures. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Number of risk management plan audits completed.
FY 2004: Same goal, same measure. Goal Met.
Data Source(s): Survey of Regional offices. Also see www.epa.gov/oem.
400
400
885
730
PERFORMANCE
This goal tracks EPA's efforts to prevent the release of chemicals from hazardous
facilities. Monitoring of high risk chemical facility through risk management plan (RMP)
audits is an important step to ensuring these facilities have the best prevention
technologies and procedures in place to prevent a chemical accident. Conducting RMP
audits allow EPA to determine the completeness and accuracy of the RMP, understand
the various processes used in chemical facilities, review the policies, procedures, and
processes in place to prevent chemical accidents, and learn from accidents and follow-
up actions at RMP facilities. These audits also help EPA disseminate accident
prevention techniques and technologies currently used in a limited number of chemical
facilities to facilities nationwide.
The number of RMP audits and inspections completed in FY 2004 was 730. In FY 2004,
the number was 885. Actual performance significantly exceeded the target number of
400 in both years. While all of our regions slightly exceeded their specific target for RMP
audits and inspections, one of our regions exceeded its target by nearly 400 audits and
inspections, due to one of its states with which they have a contract conducting those
audits and inspections on behalf of the region. The numbers for FY 2004 and FY 2005
would have been 530 and 496, respectively, without these additional audits and
inspections, which are closer to our target. Based on estimates from our regions, we
should complete 400 to 500 audits and inspections in FY 2006.
EPA is working to identify improved measures for audits to gain a more complete
understanding of improvements in chemical safety resulting from the RMP program.
This information along with an analysis of the new information submitted by facilities to
the EPA on their RMP programs should provide a better understanding of the prevention
activities taking place nationally as well as the state of chemical safety in the country.
GOAL 4-25
-------
STRA
biolog
%SB&
4.9
TEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
cat organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
lGfie1fficalf0r||ariismtandPesticIde"Risks^ ,--i->v*\. - ^. , , - t
Reduce from 1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to
nontargeted terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides. Goal
Not Met.
Performance Measures
Percent reduction in number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife caused by the 15 pesticides responsible for the greatest
mortality to such wildlife. (PART)
Data Source(s): Data are extracted from written reports of fish and wildlife
incidents submitted to the Agency by pesticide registrants under the
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section
6(a)(2), as well as incident reports voluntarily submitted by state and
Federal agencies involved in investigating such incidents.
Planned S*
11%
reduction
=ActualK^tr.
Insufficient
data for
analysis
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: The availability and proper use of less toxic pesticides will result in the
reduction of incidents and mortalities to wildlife. Decreased wildlife mortality rates also
indicate that the regulatory programs are contributing to achievement of our long term
goal of protecting human health and the environment.
Outreach, education and training provided to the general public and targeted audiences
offer assurance that pesticides will be appropriately and safely used resulting in a
reduction in incidents and mortalities to wildlife.
CHALLENGES: The basis of available information provided is insufficient to determine
the actual risk reduction. Consequently, the data to report on the measure may not be
available in the future. EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to the American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) to collect information on avian mortalities. EPA's laboratory at
Fort Meade, Maryland, is performing tissue analyses of pesticides for bird carcasses
collected under the agreement with ABC. The Agency expect to complete a final report
in 2006.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pesticide
Registration program most recently in the 2003 PART process and the Pesticide
Reregistration program most recently in the 2004 PART process. Both programs
received adequate ratings.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: The pesticide programs
are supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide Program Implementation.
Responsibility for regulating pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes.
These resources provide assistance to states and Tribes in the areas of pesticides
certification and training/worker protection, endangered species activities, and
environmental stewardship.
GOAL 4-26
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
APG;
4.10
NEW
IN
FY05
:Ghernica^ Organism^and Pesticide Risks
Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients,
new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
> New chemicals (active ingredients) (cumulative). (PART)
> New uses (cumulative).
> Maintain timeliness of S1 8 decisions.
> Reduce registration decision times for new conventional chemicals.
(PART)
> Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals.
(PART)
Data Source(s): The Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network
(OPPIN). Also see www.epa.qov/Desticides/reaulatina/reaisterina/index.htm
and www.eDa.aov/eDahome/DestoxDaram.htm.
Planned
135
84
3,479
45 days
7%
3%
Actual
154
79
3,332
45 days
7%
3%
PERFORMANCE
These performance measures track regulatory actions that identify risks and set
mitigation requirements prior to registration of an approved pesticide. They demonstrate
EPA's progress in assuring that registered pesticides meet appropriate standards to
protect human health and the environment.
Additionally, new pesticide products may substitute for older, more toxic pesticides.
Through use of the newer, less toxic products, the Agency continues to ensure that risk
from pesticides is minimized. Through expeditious review of the newer, reduced risk
pesticides, EPA seeks to maintain the availability of potential substitutes for the older,
more toxic pesticides such as organophosphates.
Goal Not Met: In FY 2005, the Agency exceeded its target for registering reduced risk
pesticides and met the targets for reducing decision times on new conventional
pesticides and reduced risk pesticides, providing additional alternatives for higher risk
pesticides faster.
CHALLENGES: During 2005, the ethical acceptability of using human studies for
regulatory purposes presented a challenge to the program. EPA is drafting a rule to
provide guidance in this area.
Protecting the health of susceptible populations such as children and Native Americans
continues to be a challenging endeavor, particularly in the areas of developmental
neurotoxicity, non-dietary pesticide exposure and subsistence lifestyles.
GOAL 4-27
-------
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pesticide
Registration program related to this APG most recently in the 2003 PART process. The
program received an adequate rating.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: The registration program
is supported with implementation activities through the Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Program Implementation. Responsibility for regulating pesticide use is in large part
delegated to states and tribes. These resources provide assistance to states and Tribes
in the areas of pesticides certification and training/worker protection, endangered
species activities, and environmental stewardship.
GOAL 4-28
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them. ^
APG
Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
Planned
Actual
4.11
Leverage or generate funds through revitalization efforts.
Performance Measures
> Number of Brownfields properties assessed. (PART)
> Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
> Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
> Number of acres of Brownfields property available for reuse.
> Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
> Percentage of Brownfields jobs training trainees placed.
> Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2004: Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields
properties, leveraging cleanup and redevelopment funding and
jobs. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
> Brownfield properties assessed.
> Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
> Brownfield property acres available for reuse or continued use.
> Jobs generated from Brownfields activities (annual).
> Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
> Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfield sites.
Data Source(s): EPA collects data from grantee Property Profile Forms and
Quarterly Progress Reports in the Brownfields Management System (BMS).
Also see www.epa.gov/brownfields/.
1,000
25
60
No target
5,000
65%
$0.9B
Data avail
FY 2006
25
1,000
No target
No target
2,000
65%
S0.9B
75
1,076
17
129
2,250
61%
$0.7B
PERFORMANCE
EPA's Brownfields Program empowers states, tribes, local governments, and other
stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and reuse brownfields sustainably. Reinvesting in brownfields increases local
tax bases, facilitates job growth, and takes development pressures off of undeveloped
land.
To date, Brownfields grantees have assessed 5,752 properties, leveraging $7.2 billion in
cleanup and redevelopment funding, and 33,599 jobs. Additionally, EPA has conducted
1,406 targeted brownfields assessments. EPA will not be able to provide FY 2005
performance due to grantee reporting delays.
Since FY 2001, the Brownfields Program has exceeded its target for leveraged
investment in brownfields properties. In FY 2004, the Brownfields Program did not
GOAL 4-29
-------
achieve its target of leveraging $0.9 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding,
however, grantees continue to succeed in efforts to cleanup and redevelop brownfields
properties. Program grantees did not report the anticipated leveraged figures, because
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment projects are ongoing and will be completed in
future years. Additionally, the Brownfields Program did not achieve the FY 2004 target
of 65 percent job training participants who are trained and find employment. The
program did not meet its target for job placement due to prevailing national economic
conditions beyond the program's control.
CHALLENGES: The Brownfields Program is still collecting information on grantee
activities but anticipates reaching its FY 2005 goal.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the Brownfields
program related to this APG in the 2003 PART process. The program received an
adequate rating.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
• Office of Inspector General: "EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative
Resources." Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
• Government Accountability Office report: "Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders
Report That EPA's Program Helps to Redevelop Sites, but Additional Measures
Could. Complement Agency Efforts." Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: The Brownfields
Program has awarded more than 1,000 Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund,
Job Training, and State and Tribal Voluntary Response Program Grants. The
Brownfields Program reports on the number of properties assessed, cleaned up, the
number of acres made ready for reuse, as well as the amount of cleanup and
redevelopment jobs and dollars leveraged by these grantees thus far.
GOAL 4-30
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2- Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them.
APG
4.12
US-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
In the US-Mexico Border Region, sustain and restore community health,
and preserve the ecological systems that support them.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Protect the health of 1.5 M people in the Mexico border area by
providing adequate water and wastewater sanitation systems
funded through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund.
(cumulative) (PART)
Data Source(s): North American Development Bank. Also see
www.epa.qov/r6border/index.htm.
Planned
1.5M
Actual
1.163M
PERFORMANCE
The purpose of the APG is to track the number of people without adequate water service
on the border that have been and will be supported by the planning, design and
construction of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure construction with capital
funding. The funding helps reduce raw sewage and provide safe drinking water to
residents on the U.S.-Mexico Border.
To date, drinking water and sanitation service have been provided for 1,163,000 people
who previously had no service. This effort requires considerable coordination among six
Mexican and four U.S. states, municipalities with varying capacity, and two international
organizations that certify the projects and issue subgrants for individual projects.
Goal Not Met: In FY 2005, EPA stopped the certification process to develop and
implement a prioritization system for to streamline the planning and development
process and better target EPA resources to EPA objectives. Planned accomplishments
were not achieved in FY 2005 because funding for new projects was delayed until the
prioritization system was put in place. The first certifications from the prioritized project
list are anticipated in the second quarter of FY 2006.
Additional FBople on the US-Mexioo Birder with
Accessto Sie DrinkingWaer a
Sxrcc NonhAnwiCT Dw^ofnwt 5»* AoJKX Hormfton for ttift Sol Of
CHALLENGES: The need to better prioritize projects to ensure alignment with the
Agency's Strategic Plan required the Agency to develop and implement a new
prioritization system for funding projects in FY 2005. The new prioritization process will
GOAL 4-31
-------
streamline the planning and development process and better target EPA resources to
EPA objectives starting in FY 2006.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB assessed the US-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure program related to this APG in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an adequate rating. [The water infrastructure program was
assessed; however, the US-Mexico Border Program (AKA Border 2012) was not
assessed].
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Board of Directors of the North American Development
Bank report: "North American Development Bank Border Environment Cooperation
Commission Business Process Review." Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This APG is supported
by grants provided to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North
American Development Bank for water infrastructure. In FY 2005, the funding for the
U.S-Mexico Border water infrastructure grants was $49.6 million. Although no new
projects were certified in FY 2005 due to the development of the prioritization system,
progress on existing projects continued to provide safe drinking water and sanitation to
citizens on the border.
GOAL 4-32
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them. ^
APG
Sustain Gommunity'Health
Planned
Actual
4.13
NEW
IN
FY05
Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental reviews.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Number of environmental reviews initiated by FTAA countries
following the enactment of the 2002 Trade Promotion Act.
Data Source(s): Organization for American States (OAS) FIDA website
www.oas.org/usde/fida.
3
countries
PERFORMANCE
This measure seeks to increase the degree to which other countries assess and
understand possible environmental implications of economic growth resulting from trade
liberalization. Such understanding should lead to development and implementation of
capacity building measures to better address likely environmental impacts, as well as
increased commitment on the part of trade partner countries to enforce their existing
environmental laws and regulations.
In FY 2005 EPA concluded most of the required work on a new training course on
conducting environmental reviews. By delivering this training course in developing
countries and continuing our efforts to facilitate such reviews, EPA expects to see more
developing countries - both in the western hemisphere and more broadly - improve their
capacity to anticipate and address major potential environmental impacts associated
with trade liberalization.
Our baseline (2002) is for zero reviews conducted by the thirty one countries with market
economies in Latin America and the Caribbean that - combined with the US, Canada
and Mexico - make up the negotiating parties for the FTAA.
CHALLENGES: The primary challenge we face is uncertainty felt by many developing
countries of conducting such reviews. Many countries view environmental
considerations or measures in a trade context, even an environmental review of trade
liberalization, as a hidden barrier employed by developed countries to limit imports from
developing countries. Finally, many such countries have neither the knowledge of
procedures nor the data required for generating a meaningful environmental review of
trade liberalization.
GOAL 4-33
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3- Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
?APGt
4.14
'Protecfand Restdre*Ecosystems ' .*« - •- - ••- * '* v
Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of
habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the
National Estuary Program. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the
National Estuary Program, (incremental)
Data Source(s): NEP GPRA Habitat Report. Also see
www.epa.aov/owow/estuaries.
"Planned
25,000
Actual - v
103,959
PERFORMANCE
The health of the nation's estuaries depends in part on the maintenance of high-quality
habitat. This APG tracks the acreage of habitat protected or restored through the
National Estuary Program (NEP). Such acreage contributes to the ability of the 28 NEP
estuaries to support healthy populations of wildlife and marine organisms, including
many commercially valuable fisheries, and to perform the economic, environmental, and
aesthetic functions on which coastal populations depend for their livelihood. In FY 2005,
the NEPs, working with their partners, protected and restored 103,959 acres of habitat,
significantly exceeding the goal of 25,000 acres. This success is partly due to
substantial local bond measures that passed, allowing several of the NEPs to
significantly exceed their goals. Also, an improved peer process has been established
where successes and lessons learned are more readily transferred among the NEPs.
CHALLENGES: Based on the fact that most of the NEPs have been implementing
protection and restoration projects for 15 years now, it appears that most of the "easier"
projects have been tackled. Remaining projects are expected to be more difficult - at a
minimum, require more lead time. In addition, in some of the NEPs with smaller study
areas, there is less and less land available for and/or in need of protection or restoration.
We continue to work with our partners to ensure that everyone is using consistent
definitions to identify the appropriate acreage for tracking under this APG.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the
Oceans/Coastal program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results of this
assessment will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Section 320 of the Clean
Water Act provides for annual grants to NEPs. NEPs have been very effective at
leveraging this "base" grant funding by building relationships with diverse private, local,
state, and federal partners. Base funding for FY 2005 totaled approximately $17 million.
Estimates indicate that approximately $160 million was leveraged in FY 2005.
GOAL 4-34
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3- Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems
APG Increase Wetlands
Planned Actual
4.15
NEW
IN
FY05
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
Performance Measures
> Working with partners, achieve an increase of wetlands with
additional focus on biological and functional measures.
> Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and states,
achieve no net loss of wetlands in the CWA Section 404 regulatory
program.
Data Source(s): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status and Trends Report,
Corps of Engineers ORM database. Also see www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands
and www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/.
100,000
acres/yr
Nonet
loss.
Data avail
FY 2006
Data avail
FY 2008
PERFORMANCE
Wetlands are among our Nation's most critical and productive natural resources. They
provide a variety of benefits, such as water quality improvements, flood protection,
shoreline erosion control, and ground water exchange. Wetlands are the primary habitat
for fish, waterfowl, and wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for
education, recreation, and research.
EPA recognizes that the challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland heritage
are daunting and that many partners must work together for this effort to succeed. This
APG acknowledges the joint nature of the task to not only increase acreage of wetlands
but maintain and restore their biological and functional integrity.
The challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland heritage are daunting; many
partners must work together for this effort to succeed. This APG acknowledges the joint
nature of the task to not only increase acreage of wetlands but maintain and restore their
biological and functional integrity.
The "net gain" element of the wetland goal will be primarily accomplished by other
Federal programs (Farm Bill agriculture incentive programs and wetlands acquisition and
restoration programs, including those administered by Fish and Wildlife Service) and
non-Federal programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Status and Trends Report
provides the data necessary to measure achievement of this APG.
EPA contributes to achieving no overall net loss in wetlands through EPA's regulatory
programs, including Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permit review, compliance and
enforcement, and other programs, such as Sections 402 and 311. EPA will continue to
work with the COE to ensure application of the 404(b)(1) guidelines, which require that
discharges into waters of the U.S. be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable.
Additionally, in FY 2005 EPA continued to work with states to build their capability to
monitor trends in wetland condition using biological metrics and assessments and has
the goal of at least 14 states using these methods by 2008. Five grants were awarded in
FY 2004 to promote the development of methods to be used to monitor trends in wetland
condition in five states. Work was continued under those five grants in FY 2005, as well
as technical support provided to these and other states in fulfillment of this annual goal.
GOAL 4-35
-------
CHALLENGES: In April 2004, the President announced a performance-based goal to
restore, enhance, and protect at least 3 million wetland acres over the next 5 years. The
link between this new goal and the existing APG is described in EPA's FY 2006 National
Water Program Guidance.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Status and Trends Report provides the data
necessary to measure achievement of this APG and typically is only produced every 10
years. The most recent report was in January 2001 and was not due to be produced
again until 2010. Additional funding was provided to produce a report at the end of
2005.
Delays in reporting on "no net loss" in the CWA Section 404 regulatory program are due
to budget constraints at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While EPA and other federal
agencies have provided extra funds to the COE, implementation of the Corps' new
permit tracking database has been delayed until end of 2006 which will postpone
obtaining data and information to report on acreage gains and losses in the regulatory
program until end of 2007.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Wetland Program
Development Grants (WPDG) are critical for building State/Tribal and local government's
capacity to protect and manage their wetlands. Established in 1990, the WPDG program
provides $15 million in funds to states, Tribes, and local governments to develop
programs that increase their participation in wetland restoration, improvement, and
protection activities. In FY 2005, EPA initiated a grant pilot under the WPDGs to
demonstrate the environmental outcomes of implementing comprehensive State and
Tribal wetland programs. Funds used in these demonstration projects are designed to
determine the extent to which wetland program implementation achieves no net loss, net
gain, and protection of vulnerable wetlands.
GOAL 4-36
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
APG
Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
Planned
Actual
4.16
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem
health of the Great Lakes is improved by at least 1 point.
Goal Met.
21
Performance Measures
> Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term) in the Lake Erie Central
Basin.
> Average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples
will decline.
> Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes
basin will decline.
> Restore and delist Areas of Concern (AOC) within the Great Lakes
basin.
> Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment remediated in the
Great Lakes, (cumulative from 1997)
FY 2004: Great Lakes ecosystem component will improve, including progress on
the fish contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic status. Goal Not
Met.
Performance Measures
> Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top
predator fish
> Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
> Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, pg/l) in the Lake Erie
Central Basin.
FY 2003: Same goal As FY 2004. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top
predator fish.
> Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
> Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, ug/l) in the Lake Erie
Central Basin.
Data Source(s): EPA Great Lakes National Program Office: Phosphorus
Monitoring Program; Fish Monitoring Program; Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network Program. AOC delisting: GLNPO Internal tracking and communications
with Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the International Joint
Commission (IJC). Contaminated sediment remediation: GLNPO collection of
sediment remediation data. Also see www.epa.aov/qrtlakes/. •
5%
7%
3 AOC
2.9M
5%
7%
10
5%
7%
10
21.9
11
6.2%
7.1%
OAOC
3.7M
5.8%
8.4%
21.2
Data
avail
11/2005
8.3%
18.4
GOAL 4-37
-------
PERFORMANCE
Measures under this APG assess the overall progress U.S. environmental programs are
making in protecting and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Improvements in the index and measure for this APG1 would
indicate that fewer toxics are entering the food chain, ecosystem and human health is
better protected, fish is safer to eat, water is safer to drink, and beaches are safer for
swimming.
The Great Lakes Index shows overall progress in Great Lakes ecosystem condition.
Improvements in coastal wetlands, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition are
reflected in increased annual index scores. EPA's FY 2005 target was an index score of
21.9 out of a possible 40, more than the one-point increase over the baseline score of
20. Of this increase, 0.5 points resulted from additional information that was not
available at the time the baseline was calculated, and thus, may not reflect actual
environmental improvement. The overall increase in index score for FY 2005 might have
been even greater, were it not for high phosphorus concentrations in Lake Erie. Thus,
while two performance measures under this APG were not met for FY 2005, the more
comprehensive measure based on the Great Lakes Index indicates that EPA met its
goal for FY 2005.
Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator fish. Odd Year Sitei
Lite Trout fftttjf n Lite Ertt)
1991-2003
Onano. SjMrior. n! Hurjn L4a tout in «• 400-500 m
»un»: Or«« JUs. Njuara Proywn Oik. - Sru UtaFWi M
fi* Cot«mpbOT Aifeoiy . Gr-»
5 Fhjtocol for » Unfcfm Grea L
Sort F* Atf.ur, T* fen.- S«««lt« 1 3K.
Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the Great Lakes that controls algae growth. Lake
Erie exceeded phosphorus guideline levels in recent years, particularly its central basin
which is most representative of the Lake's anoxia problems. Elevated phosphorus
concentrations in Lake Erie are linked to the increased "dead zone," or zone of limited
dissolved oxygen. FY 2005 data indicate that the targeted concentration level was not
met. Further exploration of this problem, identified by GLNPO, is being augmented by
work with NOAA and Environment Canada.
GOAL 4-38
-------
Totd Rio^Dhorus—Centrd Bsar\ l&e Erie
[Target Concentration]
14 14 14
f
19U 19»4 1965 1906 1987 19U 19BS 1990 1961 19S3 1993 1994 1936 1996 1W7 19M 1W9 2000 XCn 2002 2003 20W
Office Rio^horous Monitoring Rogam fttpy/wwwepa^V^n^xy
Analysis in 2005 indicate that on average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great
Lakes top predator fish have declined 6.2 percent annually between 1990 and 2003;
meeting the target for declines in concentration trends. Cleanup efforts, such as the
remediation of contaminated sediments and the reduction of PCB loadings to the Great
Lakes, need to be continued and enhanced to continue the declining trend. Based on
Lake Michigan data, current concentrations in lake trout are approximately 8 times the
wildlife protection value (0.16ppm) and current concentrations in game fish fillets are
approximately ten times the unlimited consumption level for protection of human health
(.05ppm)4
Atmospheric deposition has been shown to be a significant source of pollutants to the
Great Lakes. From 1992 to 2003, U.S. concentrations of PCBs in the air measured at
stations on Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie decreased an average of 7.1 percent
annually, meeting the targeted commitment5.
The 31 U.S. or binational Areas of Concerns (AOC) are the most polluted geographic
areas in the Great Lakes. EPA is working with the states to restore their impaired
beneficial uses (such as restrictions on fish consumption due to high contaminant levels)
in order to "delist" ten AOCs by 2010 and all AOCs by 2025. While EPA has not met
the target of delisting three AOCs in FY 2005, significant progress has been made
toward delisting of two AOCs in FY 2006.
In FY 2005, EPA reported that the commitment to remediate 300,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments in calendar year 2004 had been met through the combined
efforts of EPA, states, and other partners, including the first Great Lakes Legacy Act
project. EPA and its partners have already substantially exceeded the 2008 goal of
remediating 3.3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
4 Source: Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, Great
Lakes Environmental Database Wildlife Protection Value reference - Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative technical support document for the procedure to determine bioaccumulation factors,
EPA-820-B-95-005. Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory -
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force. September 1993.
5 Source: Great Lakes National Program Office - Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network.
Before the end of calendar year 2005, Environment Canada is expected to provide concentration
information from stations on Lakes Huron and Ontario in order that the complete performance
measure can be evaluated.
GOAL 4-39
-------
CurUaive9adment \6lirneRsmaiaecl in Great Likes 9ree 1997-
4.000DOO
3,500000
• Hbrmaboo h the bar gaphfcbaBd on opanotafive estimates reported by project
irarujisDia oolednn »id report dfcrte noeacrfced ii the T3red Utei
admenl Rsmeiiation Rojed ajnraryaijporf Qu*yAmiince Action Ran
(GlNPO.iu»y 2005). Delated proied hfarrtaion maj be
from project manap^rt
CHALLENGES: Great Lakes restoration and protection, including delisting of Areas of
Concern, is dependent upon core EPA programs and organizations outside of EPA's
control, such as (i) Departments of State, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and
Urban Development, Transportation, the Army, and Homeland Security; (ii) Great Lakes
states and Tribes; and (iii) municipalities. The President's Executive Order and the
Regional Collaboration are improving coordination and collaboration, but EPA does not
have the authority to direct the activities that would result in achieving this APG.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: EPA Report: "Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program
(GLFMP) Review." Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Great Lakes National
Program Office programs; state grants for Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans; competitive grants addressing Contaminated Sediments, Pollution
Prevention and Reduction, Habitat (Ecological) Protection and Restoration, Invasive
Species, and Strategic or Emerging Issues; and, competitive monitoring grants regarding
Atmospheric Deposition, Fish Contaminants, and Biology.
GOAL 4-40
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
;APG!
4.17
^Chesapeake Bay Habitat . , , „ , , -^
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall
aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved enough so that
there are 90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (cumulative).
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the
Chesapeake Bay (cumulative).
Data Source(s): Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences provides the data (via
an EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences). Also see Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
www.chesaDeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=88. Chesapeake Bay SAV
www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreDorts.html. Chesapeake Bay Program
www.chesaDeakebav.net.
^Planned *
90,000
Actual
89,659
PERFORMANCE
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is one of the most important biological
communities in the Bay, producing oxygen, nourishing a variety of animals, providing
shelter and nursery areas for fish and shellfish, reducing wave action and shoreline
erosion, absorbing nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and trapping sediments.
Trends in the distribution and abundance of SAV over time are useful in understanding
trends in water quality
Beginning in FY 2005, achievement of SAV targets will be based on the "single best
year" of acreage as observed through the most recent 3 years of data from the aerial
survey. This new method for reporting performance more accurately captures the
natural fluctuations in acreage due to annual changes caused by weather. Baywide, the
single best year in the CY 2002-2004 period was 89,659 acres in 2002.6
Goal Not Met: The FY 2005 goal of restoring the acres of SAV to 90,000 was not met, in
part because pollution reduction strategies for reducing nutrient and sediment pollution
loads were not implemented to levels envisioned by the partners in tributary strategies.
Challenges to achieving nutrient and sediment pollution loads are discussed under APG
4.18. In addition, population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed continues to
make restoration of the SAV difficult. , While the program plans to begin a full re-
evaluation in 2007, it continues to pursue strategies to accelerate nutrient-sediment
reduction: the reduction of nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) and sediment pollution
loads plays a crucial role in restoring SAV.
6 USEPA. April 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (EPA 903-R-03-002).
Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office and Water Protection Division, and Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology.
Available on the Internet: www.eDa.qov/reqion03/chesaDeake/bavcriteria.htm.
GOAL 4-41
-------
Chesapeake Bay Submerged AquaticVfegetation
Calendar \fear
Stxrce US E» Chesapeake Bsy ftog-an data from Wrgnia Witute of Mare Sciences
CHALLENGES: Meeting the SAV performance goal is dependent on the reducing
phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediments loadings to the Bay and its tributaries. Challenges
to accomplishing these reductions are described in APG fact sheet 4.18.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This goal is supported by
CWA Section 117(e) grants, which fund the full range of state water quality nutrient
reduction programs. In FY 2005, EPA awarded a total of $7,628,000 in Chesapeake
Bay Program State Implementation Grants to Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the
District of Columbia. The funds are used to reduce nutrients and sediments entering the
Bay for a variety of land uses. The grants have a particular emphasis on state tributary
strategy implementation to improve water quality and help meet the goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
In FY 2005, EPA awarded $1,984,000 to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to
administer the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants. This funding goes to local
governments and watershed organizations to restore wetlands, create riparian buffers,
protect undeveloped lands, and improve citizen awareness. All of these outcomes will
reduce nutrients and sediments that will help improve water clarity, which will improve
SAV habitat.
GOAL 4-42
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3- Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and
ecosystems.
APG
4.18
NEW
IN
FY05
ChesapeakfrBay Habitat - ••••<• • •
Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by
8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1 .06 million tons per
year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year.
> Reduce phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year.
> Reduce sediment loads by 1 .06 million tons per year.
Data Source(s): State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office for input into the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed
Model. Also see www.chesapeakebay.net.
Planned '
74
8.7
1.06
Actual
67
8.4
0.92
PERFORMANCE
Indicators used to measure environmental improvement in the Bay are reductions in the
pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment entering the Bay. Implementation of best
management practices has reduced these pollutants, offsetting significant load increases
that would have resulted from population growth.
The current pollutant-loading rate continues to exceed the level needed to meet the Bay
water quality standards adopted by the states in 2005.
The targets in EPA's Strategic Plan for nutrient and sediment reductions are scientifically
based and reflect a multi-state consensus. Bay Program partners have committed to
meet target load allocations by the end of calendar year 2010.
In FY 2005, states adopted enforceable Bay-specific water quality standards and
implemented an innovative basin-wide NPDES permitting strategy for nitrogen and
phosphorus. The Chesapeake Executive Council also adopted measures to reduce
nutrient pollution from animal manure. With animal manure and poultry litter accounting
for a significant amount of the nonpoint nutrient pollution flowing into the Bay, the
Executive Council took action to minimize manure nutrients reaching local waters.
Goal Not Met: The FY 2005 nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) and sediment pollution
load reduction goals were not met because the goals are ambitious and the level of
effort and expenditure needed to meet them far exceed initial estimates made by federal
and state partners. The annual targets were aligned to reflect the goal of restoring water
quality standards by 2010.
While the program plans to conduct a full re-evaluation beginning in 2007, it continues to
pursue strategies to accelerate nutrient-sediment reduction. Strategies include: (1) state
adoption of enforceable Bay-specific water quality standards by the end of summer
2005; (2) implementation of an innovative basin-wide NPDES permitting strategy for
nitrogen and phosphorus; and (3) the development of a strategy to address excess
GOAL 4-43
-------
animal manure and poultry litter for Chesapeake Executive Council endorsement in
2005.
CHALLENGES: Maintaining the existing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loading
levels will be a challenge due to the continued expected growth in human and farm
animal population in the region. In addition, the current pollutant-loading rate continues
to exceed the level needed to meet the bay water quality standards adopted by the
states in 2005. In order to achieve the necessary nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
load reductions, states will need to fully implement their pollution reduction strategies.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: This goal is supported by
CWA Section 117(e) grants, which fund the full range of state water quality nutrient
reduction programs. In FY 2005, EPA awarded a total of $7,628,000 in Chesapeake
Bay Program State Implementation Grants to Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the
District of Columbia. The funds are used to reduce nutrients and sediments entering the
Bay for a variety of land uses. The grants have a particular emphasis on state tributary
strategy implementation to improve water quality and help meet the goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
In FY 2005, EPA awarded $1,984,000 to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to
administer the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants. This funding goes to local
governments and watershed organizations to restore wetlands, create riparian buffers,
protect undeveloped lands, and improve citizen awareness. All of these outcomes will
reduce nutrients and sediments that will help improve water clarity, which will improve
SAV habitat.
GOAL 4-44
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
lAPGf
4.19
IGulfbfsMexico "* , , < ^ v
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the
health of the Gulf of Mexico.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin
to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as
measured by the 5-year running average.
Data Source(s): Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Also see
www.epa.qov/ampo.
Planned?::
14,128
km sq
iActual
12,700
km sq
PERFORMANCE
Efforts to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused
effort to reduce the size of the zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e. low oxygen in the water)
in the northern Gulf. The hypoxic zone results in the failure to capture fish, shrimp, and
crabs in bottom-dragging trawls when the oxygen falls below the critical level of 2 ppm.
The seasonal formation and persistence of hypoxia are influenced by discharges and
nutrient loads of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. The fresher water forms a layer
above the saltier Gulf waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus in the river water stimulate the
growth of microscopic plants or phytoplankton. These algae are either transferred into
the food web or end up as organic debris on the sea floor. Their decomposition by
bacteria depletes oxygen in the lower waters until they no longer sustain the life of most
marine animals.
The coast wide extent of the hypoxic zone mapped in 2005 was 11,840 square
kilometers or 4,564 square miles. The low oxygen waters extended from near the
Mississippi River to the Louisiana/Texas border. The long-term average since mapping
began in 1985 is 12,700 km2 (or 4,800 square miles).
CHALLENGES: The smaller than predicted size was expected because of a tropical
storm and hurricane that affected the area between the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya
rivers earlier in July. The effects of Hurricane Katrina on the hypoxic zone will not be
determined until research cruises are conducted in FY 2006.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG:
• Targeted Watershed Initiative grants support nitrogen reduction in the Mississippi
River Basin, with a special emphasis on support for innovative programs allowing
trading of nutrient reductions. Although there were no Targeted Watershed Initiative
grants in the Mississippi River Basin in FY 2005, funding of $943,000 supported a
point source inventory, shiptime and monitoring support, modeling, wetlands and
water quality trading, sub-basin team support, and nutrient science workshop.
• Grants supporting Gulf States in their efforts to develop nutrient standards for
estuaries and near coastal waters. In FY 2005, grants for $375,000 supported Gulf
States in their efforts to develop nutrient standards for estuaries and near coastal
waters, included the development of a nutrient TMDL model, provided real-time
GOAL 4-45
-------
monitors near the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico to better
understand the dynamics of the hypoxic zone that forms each year in this area.
GOAL 4-46
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
APG*
4.20
NEW
IN
FY05
'CdnductRelevant'Research to Support the Food Quality Protection Act - "•.
By 2005, provide high quality exposure, effects and assessment research
results that support the August 2006 reassessment of current-use pesticide
tolerances to EPA so that, by 2008, EPA will be able to characterize key
factors influencing children's and other subpopulations' risks from pesticide
exposure.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Children's exposure data and tools for assessing aggregate
exposure to residential-use pesticides.
Data Source(s): Research developed under this project. Also see
www.eDa.aov/heds/index.htm. www.epa.qov/chadnet1/index.htm. and
www.eDa.aov/heasd/erdem/erdem.htm.
Planned
9/30/05
Actual tf
9/30/05
PERFORMANCE:
This research provided protocols, data and models that EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) can use to conduct exposure assessments for pesticides. The
products will be used as OPP conducts risk assessments for pesticides for the first time
or as pesticides that have previously been evaluated are reassessed as required under
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Under FQPA, OPP is required to take into
consideration multiple pathways of exposure to pesticides and the cumulative risks they
may pose. FQPA also mandates ensuring the protection of sensitive subpopulations
such as children. By having tools to be able to understand children's residential
exposures to pesticides, OPP will have the sound scientific underpinnings to incorporate
this information in setting allowable levels of pesticide residues on crops (tolerances)
through its assessments and reassessments.
Before this research was conducted, the data available in the scientific literature
characterizing children's exposures to residential-use pesticides were extremely limited
and of unknown or varying quality. Validated protocols for collecting the data to assess
children's aggregate exposures to pesticides through all routes and pathways did not
exist. The models that were available for characterizing children's exposures only
examined one route or pathway at a time, based on single point estimates. There were
no probabilistic models for describing distributions of exposure and addressing
uncertainty and variability.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Human
Health Research program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results of this
assessment will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors report: "Review of the Computational Toxicology Research Program
Directions." Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 4-47
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
lAPGI
4.21
NEW
IN
FY05
Conduct Relevant Rese'arctoMercury ,"•«*,,-" ^ ~»— ' -~ >>%-,-..,,-¥>,
By FY 2005, provide information on managing mercury and other co-
pollutants from utility boilers so that, by 2010, there is an extensive set of
data and tools available to help industry and federal, state, and local
environmental management officials make decisions on the most cost-
effective ways to reduce or prevent mercury releases into the environment.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants from
utility boilers
Data Source(s): (1) EPA's Mercury Information Collection Request. (2)
Papers presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution
Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, Washington, D.C., August 30-
September 2, 2004. (3) DOE/NETL Mercury Control Technology R&D
Program Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 14-1 5, 2004. Also see
www.eDa.qov/mercury/control emissions/technology. htm.
Planned
1 report
Actual i
1
PERFORMANCE
On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to permanently cap
and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever. This
rule, combined with EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), will significantly reduce
emissions from the nation's largest remaining source of human-caused mercury
emissions. The work performed to fulfill this APG supported the development of the
CAMR. The results of the work also will be used in the future to support effective
implementation of the CAMR by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, EPA's Office of
Water, and the States, and to evaluate the rule's effectiveness.
The work conducted under this APG culminated in the production of a white paper
(February 18, 2005) that summarizes the status of mercury control technologies for coal-
fired utility boilers was produced to support development of the new Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR). The paper documented the current status of mercury controls and directly
informed the regulatory proposals contained in the CAMR. The paper was placed in the
regulatory docket to support the CAMR.
CHALLENGES: No major challenges were encountered in FY 2005 that adversely
affected performance under this APG. An earlier white paper on the status of mercury
control technologies for electric utility boilers was released in February 2004 by EPA's
Office of Research and Development. Subsequently, much new information became
available on these technologies. Despite the limited time available to revise the white
paper to reflect the best-available scientific information, the revised white paper was
finalized on February 18th and placed in the regulatory docket. This revised paper
successfully documented the most current status of mercury controls and helped inform
the regulatory process.
GOAL 4-48
-------
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors report: "Review of the Mercury Multi-Year Research Plan." Additional
information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 4-49
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
tARGi
4.22
NEW
IN
FY05
ieololie^ -
By FY 2005, provide risk assessors and managers with methods and tools
for measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and
reducing risks to children from environmental agents in schools so that, by
2014, EPA will be able to demonstrate why some groups of people, defined
by life stage, genetic factors, and health status, are more vulnerable than
others to adverse effects from exposure to environmental agents.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children,
and characterizing and reducing risks to children from
environmental agents in school
Data Source(s): Peer-reviewed publications and internal review of draft
guidance document on risk assessment for children. Also see
Human Health Multi-Year Plan (2003) at www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. and
the National Center for Environmental Research Website at
cfpub.epa.qov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/research.displav/rpt/abs
/rfa id/373.
Planned
9/30/05
Actual
9/30/05 '
PERFORMANCE
The intent of this APG is to provide methods and models so that risk assessors and risk
managers will be able to measure and evaluate exposure to and effects of
environmental stressors in children. The objective of this research is to reduce children's
exposure to harmful agents. The public will benefit from the reduced cost of treating
environmental-related diseases and by having a safer environment for children.
Research included evaluating new, less invasive approaches for assessing children's
exposures and developing models for assessing aggregate exposure to environmental
stressors in a residential setting. Research also demonstrated approaches to reduce the
exposure of children with respiratory problems to indoor contaminants. These findings
are essential to the long-term goal of this work: to provide methods and models so that
risk assessors and risk managers can characterize and provide adequate protection for
susceptible subpopulations, including children. Guidance on conducting risk
assessments for children as a sensitive subpopulation was also provided. This work is
part of a larger program of research that focuses on characterizing how sensitivity or
vulnerability to environmental stressors varies as a function of age. This research
contributes to understanding how behavior and environments specific to home and
school may make children differentially vulnerable to the effects of common
environmental stressors.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB is assessing the Human
Health Research program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results of this
assessment will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
GOAL 4-50
-------
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors report: "Human Health Research Program Review." Additional information on
this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG:
• Chloroatrazine protein binding: Biomarkers of exposure and susceptibility (EPA grant
R828610). The purpose of this research is to develop a non-invasive method for
measuring environmental stressors to be used as biomarker of exposure of children.
• Methods development for exposure-related behaviors (EPA grant R831540). The
purpose of this research is to provide information for EPA's Consolidated Human
Activity Database, which can be used to assess exposure to environmental stressors
in children.
• A longitudinal assessment study of human exposure to pesticides due to variations
of dietary consumption patterns (EPA grant R832244).This research focuses on
dietary consumptions patterns, dietary exposures and body burdens to
environmental stressors for a database to predict exposure among individuals on a
national level.
• Data collection platforms for integrated longitudinal surveys of human exposure (EPA
grant 831541). The purpose of this research is to develop and test methods to
facilitate the collection and processing of longitudinal data for exposure models to
environmental stressors.
GOAL 4-51
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
rCohduct Relevant Research:;Ripariah Zone Restoration
Planned
Actual
4.23
NEW
IN
FY05
By FY 2005, provide technical guidance for implementing and evaluating
projects to restore riparian zones, which are critical landscape
components for the restoration of aquatic ecosystems and water quality,
so that, by 2010, watershed managers have state-of-the-science field-
evaluated tools, technical guidance, and decision-support systems for
selecting, implementing, and evaluating cost-effective and
environmentally-sound approaches to restore ecosystem services as part
of watershed management.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to
restore riparian zones.
Data Source: See www.epa.gov/ordntmt/ORD/NRMRL/ and
www.epa.gov/ada/topics/er nm.html.
1 tech
guidance
PERFORMANCE
In-stream and near-stream restoration actions are being actively pursued by local, state,
and non-governmental organizations by utilizing a range of expertise. This expertise is
tapped from contractors, consultants, local and state personnel, land owners, as well as
many volunteers to design, construct, and implement restoration plans and strategies.
To date, very little scientifically sound information has been established as to actual
effectiveness of the in-stream and near-stream restoration actions in meeting the goals
and objectives for these restoration plans.
The purpose of the APG is to provide clear and concise information on the utility and
effectiveness of vegetative riparian buffers to reduce nitrogen loadings to streams. This
knowledge, provided in the form of a technical guidance, will be utilized by decision
makers in the design and implementation of vegetative buffers that stand a greater
probability than past practices of being effective at reducing nitrogen impacts on
streams.
The performance measure produces quantifiable results demonstrated by a number of
studies as to the influence of vegetative buffers on nitrogen loading. This information
provides a significant step toward a more comprehensive guideline for watershed
management, which is a future PM for the Ecological Research Program.
The performance measure supporting this APG incorporates scientifically derived and
published research data regarding the effectiveness of vegetative buffers to reduce the
impact of a number of stressors. The collection of this information in a concise manner
makes the information more useful, while providing the client with sufficient information
to apply the knowledge, as well.as explore new methods for buffer design and
construction.
GOAL 4-52
-------
CHALLENGES: It was anticipated that this technical guidance document would have
been more inclusive and would have been developed as material for future training
workshops and seminars, and related technology transfer actions. To be able to meet
this need, the document was to have included additional guidelines for in-stream and
riparian restoration. However, this was not possible for several reasons, including the
inability to extend the deadlines for the product.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): In-stream and riparian zone
restoration research is a component of ORD's Ecological Research Program. OMB
reassessed this program most recently in the 2005 PART process. Results will be
included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors report: "Ecological Research Program Review." Additional information on
this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: A Watershed
Classification System for Improved Monitoring and Restoration: Landscape Indicators of
Watershed Impairment. EPA STAR Program Grant to Stephen D. Prince, University of
Maryland. (This grant was related to the general research area.)
GOAL 4-53
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
mm
4.24
JRis!c%sseWhent?Research-:Huma^
Through FY 2005 initiate or submit to external review 28 human health
assessments and complete 12 human health assessments through the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This information will improve
EPA's and other decision-makers' ability to protect the public from harmful
chemical exposure.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Complete 8 human health assessments and publish their results on
the IRIS website.
> Initiate or submit to external peer review human health
assessments of 8 high priority chemicals.
Data Source(s): IRIS Track: IRIS information and assessments
www.epa.qov/iris. Status of individual IRIS assessments
cfDub.eDa.qov/iristrac/index.cfm.
-Planned!
8
8
fAetuali
8
8
PERFORMANCE
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is EPA's primary electronic database
containing agency consensus hazard identification and dose-response assessments of
the human health effects that might result from exposure to various substances found in
the environment. The toxicity information and values in this database are used by EPA
Program Offices, Regional Offices, States and Tribes to support risk-based decisions,
such as clean-up at Superfund sites and as an input toward regulatory decision-making
on environmental pollutants. The APG relates to the progress of IRIS in preparing and
submitting assessments for peer review under Agency guidelines, and to process these
to internet dissemination at www.epa.gov/iris.
In 2005, EPA completed eight human health assessments and published results on the
IRIS website cfpub.eDa.qov/iristrac/index.cfm. EPA also initiated or submitted to
external peer review human assessments of 8 high priority chemicals.
Results achieved in FY 2004 - 2005 represent the result of increased IRIS resources
and efforts to deliver assessments, coupled with additional peer review requirements
and quality assurance.
GOAL 4-54
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by
conducting leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of
environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
ABGI ICbriduct Relevant Research^Horrielarid Security
Planned
Actual
4.25
NEW
IN
FY05
By FY 2005, provide tools, case studies, and technical guidance so
that, by FY 2006, first responders and decision-makers will have
the methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance
safety and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction
of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the
consequences of chemical/biological attacks in U.S. cities.
> Technical guidance for water system owners and operators
on methods/strategies for minimizing damage from
intentional introduction of biological/chemical contaminants.
> Water system-related case studies that provide a spectrum
of contingency planning situations and responses, including
one specifically focused on the National Capital area.
Data Source: National Homeland Security Research Center
www.epa.gov/nhsrc. Technical guidance documents
www.asce.ora/static/1/wise.cfm.
1 toolbox
9/30/05
3 guidance
documents
9/30/05
1 set of
case
studies
9/30/05
PERFORMANCE
First responders have been, and will continue to be, called upon to deal with situations
involving the introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the
environment. Since 9/11, there has been recognition of the need to develop tools and
technologies to enhance security and to mitigate the effects of such incidents. These
completed products are the first in a series offered to first responders, decision-makers,
water utilities, and communities. They will be expanded and improved to include new
developments in this arena.
GOAL 4-55
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing better understanding and characterization of environmental
outcomes under Goal 4.
egional Scale Ecosystem Assessmentf"v,*f^ ;PJarjnejl^ i Actual.'
4.26
NEW
IN
FY05
By FY 2005, the baseline ecological condition of Western streams will be
determined so that, by 2008, a monitoring framework is available for
streams and small rivers in the Western U.S. that can be used from the
local to the national level for statistical assessments of condition and
change to determine the status and trends of ecological resources.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Baseline ecological condition of Western streams determined
Data Source(s): Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) database. See www.epa.gov/emap/ and
www.epa.qov/owow/monitoring/.
1 report
PERFORMANCE
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) develops
statistically rigorous, scientifically defensible monitoring designs and responsive
biological indicators to determine the condition of the nation's aquatic resources. The
purpose of this APG was to: (1) demonstrate the feasibility of the EMAP approach for
use nationally by working with the states and regions (EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10) of the
Western US to establish the ecological condition of their wadeable streams; (2) establish
a baseline against which future ecological changes and trends in stream condition in the
west could be measured; and, (3) transfer the technology to our state partners.
In 2005, EPA completed a report on the statistical baseline for ecological condition of
Western Streams. The ecological research program is in the process of working with the
EPA Regions and Western states to help them analyze data for assessments of the
condition of streams (CWA 305(b)) within their jurisdiction.
Because of the ecological research program's success in the Western US, EPA's Office
of Water requested that EMAP design and assist in the development and
implementation of a National Wadeable Streams Assessment. The purpose of this
assessment would be to establish the first estimate of national wadeable stream
condition. It would integrate EPA's Western EMAP work with a stream condition
assessment for the remainder of the lower 48 states. The sampling was completed in
2004 for this, and the ecological research program is currently working with the Office of
Water to produce a report on the overall condition of wadeable streams in the United
States.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): Western EMAP streams research
is a component of ORD's Ecologipal Research program. OMB reassessed this program
most recently in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
GOAL 4-56
-------
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors report: "Ecological Research Program Review." Additional information on
this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG:
• Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling and Analysis Program (STARMAP).
• EPA STAR Program Grant to N. Scott Urquhart, Colorado State University.
• An Empirical Evaluation of the Performance of Different Approaches to Classifying
Reference Conditions in Streams EPA STAR Program Grant to Charles Hawkins,
Utah State University.
GOAL 4-57
-------
GOAL 4 - PART MEASURES WITH DATA AVAILABILITY BEYOND FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through
PART Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA
documents, including the PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available"
provides the most current estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
pssj^tttM-ig
;iePART,Programrj
a^l*5j:i;WS;,»..i:. »,•«"
jM^k^V-li-' rrifrTji--.1 ?I:
L,frf.-.r,rs»a-;»'r,ijl;;4gc:M
X^vt^'-^r^-N^sS-.. .V :
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Endocrine
Disrupters
Pesticide Field
Program
Pesticide Field
Program
Pesticide Field
Program
Pesticide
Registration
Pesticide
Registration
US Mexico Border
US Mexico Border
^iS£l4i^SK5-^ P. irS^ff |f3i$lpf $P
:mm&!^S$m:. PAR* Measure^fel-i^SnH
':& Ki^ ^T'UJ^N ; :r!V7Vi"r^r^ ^
r"r^'%,,^ 1.(.-?^vv, .?._' ... t-. » c..'..zi'i-i^.-.r:i3 v - ,.,* '• --*•* ''-^"a^Jii >'*> ^ -«•«'-*•- -„•*-«£ ;*«..*-••£.
Detailed Review Papers Completed.
Validation Studies Completed.
Peer Reviews.
Prevalidation Studies Completed.
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the effects,
exposure, assessment, and management of endocrine
disrupters so that EPA has a sound scientific
foundation for environmental decision-making.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine
disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the environment to
better inform the federal and scientific communities.
Provide OPPTS with screening and testing assays
using rats, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates.
Cumulative percent reduction in poisoning incidents
Cumulative reduction in the number of occupational
poisoning incidents associated with exposure from
pesticides as reported and confirmed since 1998.
Cumulative reduction in the number of systemic
poisoning incidents associated with exposure from
organophosphate pesticides as reported to Poison
Control Centers since 1996.
Annual number of TSCA Section 5 PMNs received that
are self audited using complete battery of P2
Framework/PBT Profiler Screening Tools.
Percentage of pesticides managed to reduce
leaching/persistence.
Percentage of homes connected to potable water
supply and wastewater collection and treatment
systems.
Additional people served per million dollars (US and
Mexico federal expenditures).
S^s^s&lfes^sifS^ ~~<-: -
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
** | Ayajlabtes;»
S ^fii'jj^'-^i-f;:'?;}
FY 2006
FY 2006
FY 2006
FY 2006
FY 2009
FY 2009
TBD
TBD
FY 2007
FY 2007
TBD
TBD
4th Quarter/FY
2006
4:h Quarter/FY
2006
GOAL 4-58
-------
US Mexico Border
Percentage of water quality standards met in shared
and transboundary surface waters.
Under Development
4lh Quarter/FY
2006
GOAL 4-59
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE & 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.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS
Office of Compliance, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, Office of
Civil Enforcement, Federal Facilities Enforcement, Office of Federal Activities, Pollution
Prevention Program, State and Tribal Pollution Prevention 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
OVERVIEW OF GOAL
Under Goal 5, EPA continues to improve national environmental performance by
ensuring compliance with environmental laws and promoting environmental stewardship
to conserve natural resources, prevent pollution, and reduce waste. The Agency uses a
wide spectrum of regulatory and nonregulatory strategies, including compliance
assistance, incentives, monitoring, data analysis, pollution prevention, and civil and
criminal enforcement to achieve performance goals. EPA helps businesses, particularly
small businesses, achieve and maintain compliance1 and provides incentives2 for
facilities to conduct voluntary audits, correct problems, and return to compliance. EPA
also conducts research to identify innovative approaches to environmental protection
and encourages states, tribes, and regulated entities to develop new approaches, ideas,
and techniques.
Millions of Rxrris of FbllutatsFteducedThroucfi Ehfbrcemert Act ions
1200
2000
2001
2002 2003
fiscd \fear
2004
2005
1 More information on compliance assistance programs is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html.
More information on compliance incentives programs and the self-audit policy is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/index.html.
GOAL 5-1
-------
EPA's compliance programs work to ensure that regulated entities understand and
comply with requirements set forth in environmental laws. The Agency reduced, treated,
or eliminated 3.5 billion pounds of pollution over the last 4 fiscal years. From FY 2001 to
2005 more than 6,000 facilities took advantage of EPA's incentive policies to voluntarily
disclose and correct environmental problems in a timely manner. Seventy-eight percent
of the Compliance Assistance Centers' survey respondents from the regulated
community improved environmental management practices as a result of information
provided by the compliance assistance centers.3
EPA uses enforcement actions to correct and deter violations.4 In FY 2005, 72.5 percent
of enforcement actions resulted in implementation of improved environmental
management practices; 28.8 percent of enforcement actions required that pollutants be
reduced, treated, or eliminated and populations and ecosystems be protected.5 In
settling civil cases, the Agency often negotiates supplemental environmental projects
that improve health and the environment in affected communities.6 The use of
compliance assistance, incentive programs, and monitoring and enforcement activities
all contribute to improved environmental conditions, management practices, and
performance.
Chevron Phillips Chemical
The Chevron Phillips Chemical Settlement Team negotiated a settlement that included a $1.8
million penalty and a benchmark Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The agreement will
directly benefit Houston-Galveston citizens in this non-attainment area by reducing the production
of NOX by at least 20 tons per year, as well as reducing production of ozone and particulate
matter. As part of its SEP, Chevron Phillips Chemical agreed to procure and install a fuel cell to
provide electricity for Moody Gardens, one of the largest publicly owned tourist attractions in the
Houston/Galveston area. Moody Gardens will use the fuel cell as part of a pollution
prevention/reduction system that employs an anaerobic digester as the feedstock for biogas
power to reduce solid waste that would otherwise be sent to a landfill. Biogas from the digester
will power the fuel cell, and heat from the fuel cell will make the digester operate more efficiently.
By using electricity generated by the fuel cell, Moody Gardens will reduce its reliance on an
existing boiler, thereby reducing air emissions. Moody Gardens uses treated wastewater to
irrigate its rain forest exhibit, and organic matter from the irrigation will also be used in the
digester. Moody Gardens will experience some emission offsets e.g., NOX from its boilers,
because some of the fuel cell heat will offset steam production from the boiler. The fuel cell
provided under this SEP will be an important component of a multimedia project that relies on the
principles of alternative energy, reuse, and recycling to reduce pollution.7
To promote environmental stewardship under Goal 5, EPA and its partners used a
variety of collaborative, non-regulatory approaches to prevent pollution at the source,
conserve natural resources, and save businesses money through more efficient
3 More information on the EPA's Compliance Assistance Centers available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/centers/index.html.
More information on compliance monitoring and civil enforcement is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance.
5 More information on settled cases and the environmental benefits achieved, including pounds of
pollutants reduced, is available atcfpub.eDa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm and at
epa.gov/compliance/data/index.html.
More information on supplemental environmental projects is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/seps/index.html
7 More information on settled cases and the environmental benefits achieved available at
cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm.
GOAL 5-2
-------
practices. To achieve these results, the Agency's pollution prevention (P2) programs
employ such strategies as:
• Collaborating with companies to develop and commercialize cleaner and safer
products.
• Leveraging the market influence of large manufacturers to improve the
environmental performance at numerous, widely distributed suppliers.
• Expanding state and tribal program capacity to help small and medium-sized
businesses apply P2 technologies.
• Promoting environmentally preferable purchasing, green building construction
standards, and facility management.
• Reducing the impact of EPA government facility operations.
Each year, these P2 strategies reduce hundreds of millions of pounds of pollution, save
billions of gallons of water and BTUs of energy, and save tens of millions of dollars in
business costs. EPA is working collaboratively with states to improve capabilities to
measure P2 results and to focus future intervention efforts on high priority environmental
concerns, such as developing safer flame retardant products.
Under Goal 5, EPA works with 572 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native
villages or consortia to assess environmental conditions, build tribal capacity, and, in
limited cases, implement programs to protect health and the environment in Indian
country. The number of tribes developing their own environmental programs has steadily
increased, and EPA has increased its presence in Indian country by directly
implementing environmental programs and developing EPA-tribal environmental
agreements. In FY 2005, the Agency implemented a new reporting system that enables
better performance tracking. In addition, the Agency's Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture is improving data quality, closing data gaps, and integrating data systems to
better reflect environmental conditions in Indian country.8
EPA works with its partners to encourage innovative approaches to environmental
protection and to evaluate these and other efforts. Through its State Innovation Grant
Competition, for example, EPA supported 22 state innovation projects over the last 3
years. In FY 2005, the Agency awarded $1.5 million in grants to fund seven state
projects on innovative approaches to environmental permitting. The Agency continues
to promote testing of such innovative efforts as the National Environmental Performance
Track Program, use of Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Results
Programs for small businesses, watershed-based permitting, and others. EPA also
works with states and other federal agencies to conduct program evaluations designed
to verify environmental outcomes and provide information that can help improve results.
EPA also works directly with the regulated community, recognizing and encouraging
outstanding environmental leadership and performance through innovative programs.
The Performance Track Program is building a culture of corporate environmental
responsibility and superior performance by recognizing and rewarding high-performing
environmental leaders that go well beyond complying with environmental law. Through
its Sectors Strategy Program, EPA works with business to identify cost-effective
methods for reducing energy use and protecting the environment.
More information on EPA's tribal program is available at www.epa.gov/indian.
GOAL 5-3
-------
The need for innovative
design and production
techniques increases as
EPA increasingly turns to
pollution prevention to
address high-risk human
health and environmental
problems. Research that
EPA conducts to support
compliance and
environmental stewardship
informs government
officials, industry,
academia, citizen groups,
and other stakeholders
about P2, new technology
opportunities, and
approaches that employ
environmental
sustainability. EPA is
currently restructuring its
P2 research program to
introduce sustainability concepts and approaches. This research will enable the Agency,
as well as state, community and other decisionmakers, to include risk reduction and
pollution prevention as quantifiable, measurable, and scientifically defensible
components of a holistic approach to risk management.
One of the challenges for this goal is accurately predicting future levels of performance
based on past performance trends because the Agency does not set enforcement
targets and cannot compel individuals, businesses, or units of government to participate
in voluntary activities, such as pollution prevention or Performance Track.
Summary ofFY 2005 Performance
Performance Track Highlights
Corporate Environmental Progress
U.S. Steel Clairton Works of Clairton, Pennsylvania, was the
first U.S. "smokestack" facility certified as meeting ISO
14001, an international standard for environmental
management systems. The largest metallurgical coke plant in
the country, Clairton Works produces blast furnace coke,
coke oven gas, light oil, anhydrous ammonia, elemental
sulfur, and crude coal tar. When Clairton Works joined
Performance Track in 2001, it committed to reduce energy
use by 12,000 million British Thermal Units (MMBTUs) per
year over its 3 year membership period. Clairton reduced its
use of steam each year, and, in 2003, showed a particularly
impressive reduction of 64,432 MMBTUs—a level far above
the facility's initial commitment. By identifying opportunities
to reduce steam use and conducting various energy
conservation projects, such as repairing steam leaks, Clairton
saved energy and reduced the adverse effects on air quality
associated with combustion emissions. (More information
about Performance Track is available at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf.)
GOAL 5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Total APGs
7
Met
2
FY 2005 Obliqations (in thousands):
EPA Total: $10, 125,982.6
Goal 5: $787,535.3
Goal 5 Share of Total: 7.8%
Not Met
4
Data Available
November 15,
After
2005
1
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $8,500,594.0
Goal 5: $714,178.0
Goal 5 Share of Total: 8.4%
GOAL 5-4
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and environment through compliance
assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in the pounds of
pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in the number of regulated
entities making improvements in environmental management practices. __^_
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $47.1,494.2 (59.9% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $436.565.3 (61.1% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Costs)
*APG#t
-APGTitle
Status of APG
5.1
NEW IN
FY05
Compliance Assistance
Not Met
5.2
NEW IN
FY05
Compliance Incentives
Met
5 3
NEW IN
FY05
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Not Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA activities under the compliance objective contribute to the strategic goal of
improved environmental performance by reducing, treated, or eliminating an estimated
1.1 billion pounds of pollution in FY 2005. Seventy-two and a half percent of the FY2005
concluded enforcement cases required implementation of improved environmental
management practices.9
Compliance assistance activities also contribute to the strategic targets. Seventy-one
percent of facilities receiving direct compliance assistance improved environmental
management practices.10
Compliance incentives prompted 90 percent of facilities using audits to improve
environmental management practices. Incentives programs, such as the Agency's FY
2005 initiative with health care facilities in Region 2, can reach an entire industry sector
or multi-facility company, increasing understanding, improving EMPs and, in some
cases, reducing, treating or eliminating the release of pollutants.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA is working on several fronts to address its
Agency-level Permit Compliance System (PCS) weakness as specified under Federal
Managers Financial Integrity Act. (See discussion of management challenges in
"Management's Discussion and Analysis.") This system tracks Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) results. Through system
modernization, the Agency will ultimately improve information on pollutant loading,
stormwater sources, and the health of individual watersheds and increase public access
to this information. The target date for PCS modernization has been extended by three
months to the end of the second quarter of 2006.11
More information on compliance monitoring and civil enforcement is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance, www.epa.gov/comDliance/basics/enforcement.html, and
epa.gov/compliance/data/index.html.
More information on compliance assistance is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html.
More information on PCS is available at epa.gov/compliance/data/svstems/water/pcssvs.html.
GOAL 5-5
-------
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated vary from year to year, because a
few cases with extremely large pollutant reduction can have a significant impact on
annual results. Accurately predicting the number and type of cases that will be settled in
a given year is difficult, making it challenging to gauge the magnitude of pollutant
reductions that will be achieved from one year to the next.
EPA also faces challenges in expanding the outcomes of compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities for hazard and risk (e.g., human health and monetary impacts) in
response to PART findings.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH P2 AND
INNOVATION
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public through the adoption of pollution prevention and sustainable
practices that include the design of products and manufacturing processes that generate less pollution,
the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia
approaches.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $128,063.1 (16.3% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Obligations)
FY2005 Costs (in thousands): $118,997.7 (16.7% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Costs)
5.4
NEW IN
FY05
5.5
Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution
Prevention and Innovation (Performance Track)
Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution
Prevention and Innovation
Not Met
Data avail FY 2007
Met for FY 2003
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
Through EPA's P2 programs, the Agency and its state and tribal partners use a variety
of innovative, non-regulatory approaches to reduce pollution, conserve water and
energy, and save business costs. For example, under EPA's Performance Track
program, member facilities commit to making improvements that exceed the
environmental law requirements in one or more of six areas.
In 2005, EPA implemented a comprehensive national results measurement system to
track, collect, and aggregate P2 environmental results achieved through federal, state,
and tribal programs. The system will allow the Agency to demonstrate core
environmental outcomes and its ability to assess strategies and make adjustments to
improve performance and efficiency.
Initial results suggest that P2 programs are on track for this objective. While complete
data will not be available until 2007, data already in hand for 2005 indicate that the
Green Chemistry Challenge and Design for the Environment programs eliminated more
than 30 million pounds of hazardous chemicals and conserved 500 million gallons of
water.
GOAL 5-6
-------
Performance Track: Andersen Corporation
Andersen Corporation of Bayport, Minnesota, manufactures windows and patio doors.
During its first three years as a Performance Track member, Andersen reduced its
emissions of volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ground-level ozone air
pollution and can cause serious health problems) from 1,775 to 1,391 tons. Andersen
achieved this significant reduction by improving the efficiency of its wood treating
processes and incorporating a slower evaporating solvent into its window paint line
pretreatment process. Over the next three years (2004 through 2006), Anderson plans to
further reduce its emissions by at least 200 tons through process improvements to
solvent-borne preservative and coating operations. Andersen continues to improve its
processes to promote the principles of lean manufacturing, for example, by increasing
transfer efficiencies in its paint line coating processes and reducing solvent-based wood
preservation treatment. (More information about Performance Track is available at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf.)
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Aggregate numbers are highly sensitive to the
results achieved by a few large facilities. Even when most facilities show improvements
in preventing pollution or conserving natural resources, negative results for one large
facility in a small voluntary program can mask ail the positive results achieved by others.
Results data do not reflect changes in eco-efficiency. In many cases, companies
achieving the environmental results under this objective institute practices and
technologies that also reduce waste or resources used per unit produced. When
production increases, however, the overall waste and resource use may increase as
well, albeit at a much slower rate. Actual results show only the increase in environmental
footprint, not improvements in efficiency.
Performance Track Facilities voluntarily make their own environmental commitments
and, as a result, the number of results contributing to any given indicator can vary widely
over the years.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - TRIBAL CAPACITY
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment,
help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal
health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country where needed to address
environmental issues.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $85,191.8 (10.8% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $71,344.1 (10.0% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Costs)
5.6
NEW IN
FY05
Build Tribal Capacity
Not Met
GOAL 5-7
-------
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
EPA is working to develop core tribal environmental protection programs and establish
the infrastructure needed to assess environmental conditions in Indian country.
Working with the tribes, the Agency met or exceeded nine of the 10 tribal capacity
building performance measures. These results reflect significant progress in developing
and integrating data systems, eliminating data gaps, improving environmental monitoring
and assessment activities, implementing programs, and expanding the holistic
multimedia approach to programs that reflects traditional use of natural resources in
Indian country.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: Compared to states, tribes have been in the
business of developing capacity for a relatively short period. Measuring tribal capacity in
terms of environmental, health, and behavioral outcomes is a challenge.
EPA is making significant progress toward overcoming this challenge by improving data
quality through EPA approved quality assurance plans, providing training in
environmental monitoring and assessment techniques, closing data gaps, and
integrating data systems through the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture to better
reflect environmental conditions in Indian country.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 - ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental polices and
decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
FY 2005 Obligations (in thousands): $102,786.2 (13.0% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Obligations)
FY 2005 Costs (in thousands): $87,270.9 (12.2% of FY 2005 Goal 5 Total Costs)
57 I Enhance Science and Research I Met
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
By providing objective, quality-assured, credible performance data on commercial-ready
technologies, the Agency can aid permitting and purchasing decisions on new,
innovative technology.
In FY 2005, EPA completed 25 verifications and two testing protocols for new
environmental technologies. These technologies apply to treatment of arsenic in
drinking water, stormwater treatment, stormwater modeling, fuel efficiency for
transportation, distributed energy generation, dust suppressants, diesel retrofits, nutrient
monitors, pollution reduction, and improvements in detection of pollutants.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE: EPA is working to institutionalize approaches for
identifying future environmental problems and opportunities. These anticipatory
approaches will enhance the Agency's ability to respond appropriately and potentially
influence tomorrow's events and conditions in a positive way. Nanotechnology,
computational toxicology, biotechnology, genomics, and information technology are just
a few of the areas that EPA is exploring for their potential benefits and consequences.
GOAL 5-8
-------
GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and environment
through compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in
the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in the number of
regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.
'tfPif
5.1
NEW
IN
FY05
Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of
regulated entities, improve environmental management practices (EMPs),
and reduce pollutants. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored compliance assistance (CA) centers and clearinghouse
reporting that they improved EMPs as a result of their use of the
centers or the clearinghouse.
> Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance
assistance from EPA reporting that they improved EMPs as a result
of EPA assistance.
> Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting that they
reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of that resource.
> Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting that they
increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a
result of their use of the resources.
> Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct CA from EPA
reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental
requirements as a result of EPA assistance.
> Percent of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA
reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a
result of EPA assistance.
Data Source(s): Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS);
Compliance Assistance Center Results:
www.eDa.qov/comDliance/assistance/centers/index.html. Also see
www.eDa.qov/clearinqhouse and www.assistancecenters.net/.
^Planned :
60%
50%
25%
75%
65%
25%
Actual
78%
72%
46%
84%
91%
13%
PERFORMANCE
EPA provides assistance to help members of the regulated community understand
environmental regulations, improve their environmental management practices (EMPs),
and reduce the amount of pollution they produce or discharge. The Agency offers
compliance assistance both directly through, for example, onsite visits, workshops and
training, and through its Compliance Assistance centers. EPA conducts assistance
activities in partnership with state, local, and tribal environmental compliance programs
and collaborates with industry and trade associations to provide information and
materials.
GOAL 5-9
-------
Goal Not Met: This is the first year EPA has collected the three GPRA measures for
direct compliance assistance, and the Agency had no trend data to help establish the
initial targets.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): The initial PART rating for Civil
Enforcement was not adequate. An adequate rating was received in FY 2004 based on
preparation of a Measure Implementation Plan.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Categorical Grant:
Sector Program.
GOAL 5-10
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and environment
through compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in
the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in the number of
regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.
APG,
5.2
NEW
IN
FY05
Improve Compliance ^ ; ,•'.,•-•"-. - , "; -~
Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of audits
or other actions reducing pollutants or improving environmental
management practices. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the reduction,
treatment, or elimination of pollutants and the protection of
populations or ecosystems.
> Percentage of audits or other actions that result in improvements in
environmental management practices. 1
> Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a result of
audits or other actions. (PART)
> Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or
improved environmental management practices as a result of audits
or other actions.
Data Source(s): Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Also see
www.eDa.qov/comDliance/incentives/Droarams/index.html.
Planned
5%
10%
0.25
million
pounds
$2
million
Actual
6%
90%
1.9
million
pound
s
S3.4
million
PERFORMANCE
EPA encourages facilities to identify, disclose, and correct violations for reduced or
eliminated penalties. Incentives increase compliance and establish improved
environmental management practices that can reduce the chance of future non-
compliance or unpermitted discharges. In some cases correcting the violations directly
reduces pollutant discharges.
In 2005,1.9 million pounds of pollutants were estimated to be reduced treated or
eliminated by facilities using compliance incentives policies. Ninety percent of audits
resulted in improved EMPs, while 6% resulted in reduction of pollutants. Since 2001,
more than 6,000 facilities have disclosed and corrected violations.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Civil
Enforcement program related to this APG most recently in the 2004 PART process. The
program received an adequate rating.
1 This is the first year EPA has a GPRA measure for audits resulting in improvements in
environmental management practices. EPA will use the FY2005 result as the baseline from
which to set future targets.
GOAL 5-11
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1 - By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and environment
through compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in
the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in the number of
regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.
APG_
5.3
NEW
IN
FY05
Improve Compliance
Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying
compliance actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve
environmental management practices. Goaf Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, and
eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions. 2 (PART)
> Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that
pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated and protection of
populations or ecosystems.
> Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring
implementation of improved environmental management practices.
(PART)
> Number of inspections, civil investigations, and criminal
investigations conducted.
> Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or
improved EMPs as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e.,
injunctive relief and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs).
> Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a
result of onsite compliance inspections and evaluations.
Data Source(s): Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS);
CRIMDOC (comprises the "grey literature" from the field of Criminology);
manual reporting. Also see www.epa.aov/comDliance/civil/index.html. and
www.epa.aov/comDliance/criminal/index.html.
Planned
300
million
pounds
30%
60%
18,500
$4 billion
10%
Actual
1.1
billion
pounds
28.8%
72.5%
22,000
$10
billion
19%
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: EPA fell slightly short of the target for the percentage of cases that require
pollutant reductions. In FY 2005, EPA added a new category of compliance actions
called "preventative actions." These are actions that do result in pollutant reductions by
2 Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated vary from year to year, because a few cases
with extremely large pollutant reductions can have a significant impact on annual results.
Accurately predicting the number and type of cases that will be settled in a given year is difficult,
making it challenging to gauge the magnitude of pollutant reductions that will be achieved from
one year to the next.
3 Dollars invested in improved environmental performance can vary from year to year, because a
few cases with high injunctive relief amounts can have a significant impact on annual results.
Accurately predicting the number and type of cases that will be settled in a given year is difficult,
making it challenging to gauge the dollar amount of injunctive relief and SEPs achieved from one
year to the next.
GOAL 5-12
-------
preventing pollution from occurring. Many complying actions that previously were
counted as part of the 30 percent target are now counted as preventative complying
actions. In FY 2005, 17 percent of EPA's cases had a preventative benefit, which is
reflective of this change. A contributing reason for missing the target is that the number
of cases with the potential to require pollutants to be reduced varies depending on the
mix of cases in a given year. EPA was still able to achieve significant pollutant
reductions from case settlements, which is a more meaningful outcome with regard to
protection of human health and the environment. In fact, EPA far exceeded its pollution
reduction FY 2005 goal of 300 million by achieving 1.1 billion pounds of pollutants
estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated.
EPA uses inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions to identify egregious
violations and return violators to compliance as quickly as possible. EPA targets these
activities to achieve the greatest reduction in pollution and impacts on sensitive
populations.
300.000
250.000
2DO.DOO
150.000
100.000
50300
DEC A Enforcement BIwmcy Meourn
. —T3500DOO
3COUNO
2500000
2000COO
I
pvt of tmtttmmt VWIWW.IB return to epHH)l»x «Jdt» •nprovaig or
pokJtKXl control cqupmen!
CHALLENGES: The February 2005, 2nd Circuit Court decision in Waterkeeper Alliance
v. EPA vacated two key provisions in the 2003 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFO) rule that no longer require all CAFOs to apply for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) surface water permits. The CAFO sector is one of the
national priorities for the enforcement and compliance assurance program.4 The Agency
must now clarify to states and the regulated community which CAFOs must apply for a
permit and when applications are due. As a result of this court finding, the Agency
anticipates that more compliance and enforcement activities will need to be directed at
finding CAFOs and taking appropriate follow up action at facilities that are discharging,
but have failed to apply for a permit.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): Initial PART ratings for Civil
Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement were not adequate. An adequate rating was
received in FY 2004 based on preparation of Measure Implementation Plans. The
Pesticide Enforcement Grants program received an ineffective rating.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Industrial Economics Corporation conducted an Evaluation
of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/Environmental Council of the
States State Review Framework in Pilot States. Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Categorical Grant:
Pesticides Enforcement; Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance.
4 For additional information on OECA's National Priorities, visit
epa.gov/compliance/data/planninq/priorities/index.html.
GOAL 5-13
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural
resource conservation on the part of government, business, and the public through the adoption of
pollution prevention and sustainable practices that include the design of products and manufacturing
processes that generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-
based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
APG
5.4
NEW
IN
FY05
Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
In FY 2005 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual
reduction of 600 million gallons of water use; 2.5 MMBTUs of energy use;
1 5,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases; 1 0,000 tons of water
discharges; and 15,000 tons of materials use.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
> Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use,
energy use, solid waste, air releases, water discharges, and
materials use.
2001 Baseline: 475 million gallon reduction in water use; 240,000
MMBTU reduction in energy use; 150,000 ton reduction in solid
waste generated; a 2,154-ton increase in materials use; a 1,113-ton
reduction in air releases; and a 6,870 ton reduction in water
discharges water discharges. 5
Data Source(s): PTrack Online at www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
Planned
6 media
reductions
Actual
1 media
reduct'n
PERFORMANCE
The Performance Track results shown above reflect changes in Performance Track
facilities' environmental footprint in terms of pollution and consumption of natural
resources (materials, energy, and water). Performance data reflect the quantitative
results of Performance Track members that commit to making improvements in one or
more of the six listed environmental areas. All improvements exceed environmental
legal requirements.
Goal Not Met. In FY2005, Performance Track members collectively reduced water use
by 528 million gallons, increased energy use by 22 million MMBTUs, increased solid
waste by 22,000 tons, reduced air releases by 7700 tons, reduced water discharges by
7700 tons, and increased materials use by 125,000 tons.
Indicator-specific activities at the regional level are anticipated to help the program
accomplish its goals. For example, the Energy Challenge that EPA New England
(Region 1) instituted in 2004 led New England Performance Track members to increase
their focus on reducing greenhouse gases. Of the 33 current members, 17 have
commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, and seven more have committed to reducing
their total energy use.6
5 US EPA. Performance Track Progress Report: Top Performers, Solid Results. EPA Report:
EPA-100-R-03-004. Washington, DC: US EPA, 2003.
6 US EPA. "PTrack Online." Internal Database. Updated: September 12, 2005. The New England.
GOAL 5-14
-------
In terms of environmental impact per unit of product produced, Performance Track
members improved their performance for all six of the reported environmental categories
in FY2005. Performance Track members tend to be innovative, growing facilities.
Consequently, in those cases where the aggregate environmental footprint increased (as
shown in the table above), the primary cause was increased production. When changes
in production between FY2004 and FY2005 are taken into account, the data show that in
FY2005 members' efforts resulted in an avoidance of 4.3 billion gallons of water use; 19
million MMBTUs of energy use; 451,000 tons of solid waste generation; 77,000 tons of
air emissions; 14,000 tons of water discharges, and 3800 tons of materials use.
CHALLENGES: Aggregate numbers are highly sensitive to the results of a few large
facilities. Even when most Performance Track facilities show improvements in a given
environmental area, negative results for one large facility member in that same area can
mask all the positive results achieved by others. Performance Track's solid waste
results are a good example. 180 different facilities contributed results to the aggregate
result shown in the table. If the results of just one large facility are removed from the
total, the results would change from an increase of 22,000 tons to a reduction of 221,000
tons.
These results show only changes in actual results ("footprint") and do not reflect
changes in eco-efficiency. In many cases, Performance Track members institute
practices and technologies that reduce waste or resources used per unit produced.
When production increases, however, the overall waste and resource use may increase
as well, albeit at a much slower rate. Actual results show only the increase in footprint,
not the improvement in efficiency.
Performance Track developed its strategic and annual performance targets after its first
year of operations. At that time, the program did not have normalized data on which to
base the targets. Additionally, over the next few years, the program adjusted its
measurement and reporting requirements in order to ensure better accuracy of data and
transparency in reporting. Performance Track will be developing new targets that will
take into account changes in facilities' production and the stricter measurement
requirements. This process should lead to more meaningful data by which to evaluate
program progress.
Facilities make their own selection as to environmental commitments and, as a result,
the number of results contributing to any given indicator can vary widely over the years.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: The Office of Inspector General report: "Ongoing
Management Improvements and Further Evaluation Vital to EPA Stewardship and
Voluntary Programs" (Report Number: 2005-P-00007). Additional information on this
report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
GOAL 5-15
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 - By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource
conservation on the part of government, business, and the public through the adoption of pollution prevention and
sustainable practices that include the design of products and manufacturing processes that generate less pollution,
the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
APG
5.5
Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and
improve environmental stewardship practices.
Performance Measures
> Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) - reported
toxic chemical releases at federal facilities.
2007 Baseline: 0% releases (cumulative)
> Percent reduction in both TRI chemical releases to the environment
from the business sector per unit of production ("Clean Index").
2001 Baseline: 0% releases (cumulative)
> Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related wastes
generated by the business sector per unit of production ("'Green
Index").
2007 Baseline: 0% waste (cumulative)
> Reduction in overall pounds of pollution. (PART)
2001 Baseline: 0 pounds (cumulative)
> Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution.
2007 Baseline: $0.00
> Annual cumulative quantity of water conserved. (PART)
2001 Baseline: 0 gallons
> Billions of B TUs of energy conserved. (PA RT)
2001 Baseline: 0 BTUs
> Annual number of pre-screened new chemical alternatives
generated through industries participation during the earliest stages
of research and development (PART)
FY 2003: Prevent, reduce, and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial
chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices. Goal Met.
Performance Measure
> The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or
combusted for energy recovery in 2002 (normalized for changes in
industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%,
from 2002.
Data Source(s): US EPA. TRI Explorer. Last Updated: June 8, 2005.
Internet. Available at: www.epa.gov/triexplorer.
US EPA, Pollution Prevention Database. Internal database. Last Updated:
August 2005. Also see www.eoa.qov/p2.
Planned
32%
Releases
20%
Releases
10% Waste
24.6 Billion
Pounds
$97 Million
1.1 Billion
gallons
104 Billion
BTUs
-200M
Actual
Data avail
FY 2007
Data avail
FY 2007
Data avail
FY 2007
Data avail
FY 2006
Data avail
FY 2006
Data avail
FY 2006
Data avail
FY 2006
Data avail
FY 2006
-622M
PERFORMANCE
The TRI federal facility measure examines reductions in total onsite and offsite disposals
or other releases from federal facilities. TRI 2003 results available in 2005 show that
total onsite and offsite disposal or other releases from federal facilities decreased by 8
percent from 2002 to 2003, indicating that the Agency is on track to meet future annual
GOAL 5-16
-------
targets and the associated long-term strategic target to reduce federal facility releases
by 40 percent by 2006.7
The TRI Clean Index tracks the total quantity of TRI-reported toxic chemicals released to
the environment across all environmental media (air, water, and land), adjusted to
account for changes in production. TRI 2003 results made available in 2005 show an
8.1 percent decrease in the production-normalized pounds of toxics released,
suggesting that the Agency is on track to achieve the associated long-term strategic
target, which calls for a 40 percent reduction from 2001 levels by 2008.8
The TRI Green Index measures the total quantity of TRI-reported toxic chemicals in
production-related wastes, adjusted to account for changes in production. TRI 2003
results made available in 2005 reveal a 7.5 percent decrease in the production-
normalized pounds of toxic chemicals in production-related wastes. The significant
improvements in 2003 results suggest the Agency will be on track to achieve the
associated long-term strategic target, which calls for a 20 percent reduction from 2001
levels by 2008.9
Performance measures for overall pounds of pollution prevented and energy and water
conservation are new in 2005, and because key contributing results are subject to up to
two-year data lags, comprehensive results for 2005 and prior years are not yet available.
Partial results for these measures are:
• 167 billion pounds of pollution reduced from state pollution prevention programs
during the 1990s.
• 830 million pounds of hazardous chemicals (cumulative).
• 500 million gallons of water saved.10
Waste Quantities of All Chemicals Except PBT Chemicals Reported by All
Industry Sectors Including Mining Industry, 1-228)3
TreatiTBri
Energy ftcowy
Off-site Release
Air Release
Surface Water
discharges
Land Relase
less metal minini
Annual Total of
Waste Quantities
Waste
Managemen
Releases
1998
1999
2002
2003
2000 2001
Reporting Year
CHALLENGES: The most significant challenge faced by the pollution prevention
program under this APG in 2005 was the establishment of the four new common
outcome measures tracking their results and negotiation of acceptance of those
n
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
° U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green
Chemistry Challenge and Design for Environment internal databases. Continually updated.
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable: A Decade of Results: 167 Billion Pounds of Prevention
2002.
GOAL 5-17
-------
measures by the state pollution prevention programs that generate substantial portions
of those results. Success was achieved by balancing information requirements against
the costs of developing and reporting the necessary data.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Categorical Grant:
Pollution Prevention (P2) - The P2 Grant Program provides grant funds to states, state
entities (e.g., colleges and universities), and federally recognized tribes and intertribal
consortia to help small and medium-sized businesses and industries identify improved
environmental strategies and solutions for reducing waste at the source. The program
effectively demonstrates that source reduction can be a cost-effective way of meeting or
exceeding federal and state regulatory requirements.
GOAL 5-18
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3 - Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the
condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs
where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
APG
Build Tribal Capacity
Planned
Actual
5.6
NEW
IN
FY05
Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their
environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental
programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and
implement programs in Indian country where needed to address
environmental issues.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs
(cumulative). (PART)
Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment
occurring (cumulative). (PART)
Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia workplans
(cumulative). (PART)
Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity
by ensuring that federally recognized tribes have access to an
environmental presence.
2002 Baseline: 82 % Universe: 100% (572 tribes)
Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data systems to facilitate
the use of EPA's Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA)
information in setting environmental priorities and informing policy
decisions.
2002 Baseline: 2 systems Universe: 15 systems
Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major water,
land, and air programs as determined through the availability of
information in the EPA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture.
2002 Baseline: 0% data gaps Universe: 100% data gaps
Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian
country as determined by program delegations, approvals, or
primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by
EPA.
2002 Baseline: 149 programs Universe: TBD
Increase the number of EPA-approved quality assurance plans for
tribal environmental monitoring and assessment activities.
2002 Baseline: 243 plans Universe: TBD
Increase the percent of EPA agreements with tribes that reflect
holistic (multimedia) program integration and traditional use of
natural resources.
2002 Baseline: 45 agreements Universe: TBD
Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country
per million dollars. (PART)
2005 Baseline: 12.3 programs
44%
25%
39%
90%
5
Systems
5% Data
Gaps
159
Programs
271
Plans
5%
11.1
Programs
47%
29%
33%
96%
6
Systems
5% Data
Gaps
233
Programs
321
Plans
102%
12.3
Programs
Data Source(s): US EPA. Objective 5.3 Reporting System. Updated quarterly by regional
Indian program contacts. This is the first year EPA has used this comprehensive data system,
which provides for much greater accountability. American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO):
epa.gov/indian. Applicable Laws, Regulations and Guidance (includes information on DITCAs,
GAP grants, and PPGs): epa.gov/indian/laws3.htm.
GOAL 5-19
-------
PERFORMANCE
The purpose of this APG is to develop tribal environmental program capacity critical to
protecting human health and the environment in Indian country as required by the Indian
Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) and the EPA Indian Policy. Tribal
capacity-building performance measures under Goal 5 track EPA's progress toward
building the capacity of Indian tribal governments and intertribal consortia to administer
environmental management activities and implement multimedia programs that address
environmental issues in Indian country. In addition, the Agency works to establish the
internal infrastructure needed to assess environmental conditions and improve
environmental stewardship in Indian country.
Fterant of Tribes withAccesto aiEnvironmentEl presence
1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
RscalYear
Sxra USB*, American Inetai Biwopmena Office. 'Tag* 1 frogan
Ffeporf Goi 5, Objective 53 Importing 3/aem, A\al*te
EPA met or greatly exceeded the majority of tribal capacity-building measures,
demonstrating significant progress toward developing and integrating high-quality
environmental data and data systems, and in building the capacity to implement
environmental programs. The Agency will continue to focus on methods to increase the
percent of EPA-approved multimedia workplans to be able to meet this performance
measure in future years.
Goal Not Met: Several factors contributed to not meeting the 39 percent target for EPA-
approved multimedia workplans.11 The new Objective 5.3 Reporting System improved
baseline data and revealed that some EPA-approved multimedia workplans are with
intertribal consortia representing multiple tribes; however, these count only once in the
reporting system. In addition, many tribes are in the initial stages of program
development and do not yet have the capacity to manage multimedia workplans. The
Agency's Indian Environmental GAP is continuing to expand the number of tribes with
the capacity to manage multimedia workplans by providing access to an environmental
presence and anticipates reaching the 39 percent target by March 2006 and 42 percent
by October 2006.
In FY 2005, 47 percent of tribes (269 tribes) have delegated and non-delegated
programs. These tribes operate 233 environmental programs such as "treatment in a
manner similar to a state" designations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and other statutes and more than 100 solid and hazardous
waste program implementation activities.
11 Multimedia workplans include Tier III Environmental Agreements, Performance Partnership
Grants, and other agreements.
GOAL 5-20
-------
Twenty-nine percent of tribes (169 tribes, cumulative) have EPA-reviewed monitoring
and assessment activities occurring under Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) in
FY 2005. By the end of FY 2005, EPA approved a cumulative 321 QAPPs, ensuring the
highest standards of environmental monitoring and assessment. This program measure
reflects improved tribal capacity in environmental data collection and interpretation, and
provides the Agency with better information about environmental conditions in Indian
country.
Three performance measures under this APG were significantly exceeded during FY
2005 due to several factors:
• A rapid increase in the number of tribes using GAP funding to conduct solid and
hazardous waste program implementation activities (a consequence of declining
resources from other parts of EPA and other federal agencies).
• Increasing tribal environmental capacity.
• Variations in how some EPA regional offices calculate QAPP results-
cumulatively versus non-cumulatively.
• Development and implementation of the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, which
allows the Agency to count significantly more multimedia agreements. The
Agency greatly exceeded the measure for the increase in the percent of EPA
agreements with tribes that reflect holistic (multimedia) program integration and
traditional use of natural resources because the Objective 5.3 Reporting System
incorporates new information not available in 2003 on the number of multimedia,
holistic agreements reached through other categories of agreements, such as
Tier I Tribal Environmental Agreements, Tier II Tribal Environmental Agreements,
Memoranda of Understanding, and Memoranda of Agreement. Initially the 2003
baseline only incorporated information on Tier III Tribal Environmental
Agreements and Performance Partnership Grants. In the future, the Agency will
reassess and raise its baseline to include all six categories of agreements, which
include Tier I, II, and III Tribal Environmental Agreements, Performance
Partnership Grants, Memoranda of Understanding, and Memoranda of
Agreement.
CHALLENGES: Calculating the number of QAPPs is difficult due to differences in how
EPA regional offices approve and manage their records. Some regions report cumulative
numbers (all QAPPs approved, even those that have expired) while other regions report
non-cumulative numbers. The Agency's 2002 baseline for this measure did not take into
account these differences.
To compensate for differences in QAPP results measurement, the Agency will establish
a new baseline number based only on current, active QAPPs rather than a running
cumulative total. This new approach to reporting QAPPs will provide a more accurate
picture of EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities taking
place throughout Indian country.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Tribal
General Assistance program related to this APG most recently in the 2003 PART
process. The program received an adequate rating.
GRANTS SUPPORTING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS APG: Categorical Grant: Tribal
General Assistance Program.
GOAL 5-21
-------
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4 -Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting
environmental polices and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
APG
Enhance Science and Research
Planned
Actual
5.7
By FY 2005, complete 15.verifications and two testing protocols for a
program cumulative total of 280 verifications and 83 testing protocols
for new environmental technologies so that, by 2009, appropriate and
credible performance information about new, commercial-ready
environmental technology is available that influences users to
purchase effective environmental technology in the United States and
abroad.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures
> Verifications completed.
> Testing protocols completed.
Data Source(s): Technology performance data are generated during
the verification process by the technology provider(s) and are
incorporated into subsequent verification statements, reports, and test
protocols, which can be located on the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Web site www.epa.gov/etv.
15
verifications
2 protocols
25
verifications
2 protocols
PERFORMANCE
Verifying commercial-ready innovative technology assists the American public by
providing objective, quality-assured, credible performance data on which to base
permitting and purchasing decisions. Use of better monitoring and treatment
technologies can improve detection and reduction of pollutants, reducing exposure and
improving human health and the environment.
In FY 2005, EPA verified 25 environmental technologies to support the long term goal to
provide tools and technologies that advance environmental management systems
designed to prevent and control pollution and reduce human health and ecological risks
Verifications were completed in the following categories: arsenic drinking water
treatment, stormwater treatment, stormwater modeling, fuel efficiency for transportation,
distributed energy generation, dust suppressants, diesel retrofits, nutrient monitors,
hydrogen sulfide monitors, and, protocols were completed for hydrogen sulfide monitors
testing and for distributed generation /combined heat and power testing.
CHALLENGES: EPA increasingly seeks to share technology verification and testing
costs with vendors and other verification program collaborators. These are often the
eventual users of the information, which allows them to have immediate access to
results.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART): OMB reassessed the Pollution
Prevention Research program related to the ETV program most recently in the 2003
PART process. The program received a results not demonstrated rating.
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS WITHOUT CORRRESPONDING FY
2005 GOALS (Actual performance data available in FY 2004 and beyond): FY 2003 -
GOAL 5-22
-------
Reduce waste minimization priority list chemicals in hazardous waste streams by 43
percent to 86 million pounds by expanding the use of state and industry partnerships
and regional pilots.
FY 2004 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (No Longer Reported for FY 2005):
• EPA will conduct inspections, criminal investigations, and civil investigations targeted
to areas that pose risks to human health, or the environment, display patterns of
noncompliance, or include disproportionately exposed populations.
• Identify noncompliance and focus enforcement and compliance assurance on human
health and environmental problems, by maintaining and improving quality and
accuracy of data.
• Improve capacity of states, localities, and tribes to conduct enforcement and
compliance assurance programs. EPA will provide training as well as assistance with
state and tribal inspections to build capacity
• Reduce waste minimization priority list chemicals in hazardous waste streams an
additional 3 percent from 1991 levels (for a cumulative total of 46 percent or 81
million pounds) by expanding the use of state and industry partnerships and regional
pilots.
• Percent of tribes will have an environmental presence (e.g., one or more persons to
assist in building tribal capacity to develop and implement environmental programs.)
• Verify 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies (through the ETV
program) so that states, technology purchasers, and the public will have highly
credible data and performance analyses from which to make technology selection
decisions.
GOAL 5-23
-------
GOAL 5 - PART MEASURES WITH DATA AVAILABILITY BEYOND FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through
PART Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA
documents, including the PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available"
provides the most current estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
3&PART Program ta
JHfcxsJsjaisie.Ji^wisRi's;
K-S|r-r;5^is^»,^;.^7;KJrJt-
Civil Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Environmental
Education
Environmental
Education
Environmental
Education
Environmental
Education
Pesticide
Enforcement
Grants
Pesticide
Enforcement
Grants
^jS^^H^^^KjKjSp^S^S'sS^ife^j^l&L^x ~ "j-.J
ss^s^^^2^|s*fii:°ARB5lwiezisurer«-'©-{?*?*»lr,^s *** *
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or
eliminated per FTE.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
Reduction in recidivism.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases
requiring implementation of improved
management practices.
Pollutant Impact.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or
eliminated per FTE.
Number of NNEMS fellows who pursue
environmental careers
Ratio of number of students/teachers that have
improved environmental knowledge per total
dollars expended.
Number of states adopting learning curricula and
standards.
Percentage of all students and teachers targeted
demonstrate increased environmental knowledge.
Percent of complying actions taken as a result of
grantee compliance monitoring and enforcement.
Percent of recipients of enforcement actions
receiving subsequent enforcement actions.
yA?s ** - __. ».-*• „•*•? ,
- :^ - -v Status-* -J; •»
. . * * . " ' \~ *
TBD
Baseline will be established Dec
'05 (based on 3-yr average, data
collected FY 03-05)
Baseline will be established Jul
'06 (based on 3-yr average,
merge of existing OECA data FY
03-05)
Baseline will be established Dec
'06 (based on 3-yr average,
merge of existing OECA data FY
04-06)
Baseline will be established Dec
'07 (based on 3-yr average, data
collected FY 05-07)
Baseline will be established Dec
'05 (based on 3-yr average, data
collected FY 03-05)
Baseline will be established
2007 (based on 3-yr average,
data collection FY 05-07)
The Office of Environmental
Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft
measure. Data collection should
start in 2007.
The Office of Environmental
Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft
measure. Data collection should
start in 2007.
The Office of Environmental
Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft
measure. We anticipate
initiating data collection in 2007
and reporting results in 2008.
In FY 2005, finalized measures
and negotiated with states to
collect data. Data collection will
begin in 2006. Baseline will be
based on a three year rolling
average.
In FY 2005, finalized measures
and negotiated with states to
coJIect data. Data collection will
begin in 2006. Baseline will be
based on a three year rolling
average.
JV , / ~ . .* . ,-
r* Data Available ;
-* ; > »t«
— ^
10/2007
10/2006
10/2006
10/2007
10/2008
10/2006
2007
2008
2008
2008
1/2007
1/2007
GOAL 5-24
-------
Pesticide
Enforcement
Grants
Number of enforcement actions taken (federal and
State) per million dollars of cost (federal and
state).
In FY 2005, finalized measures
and negotiated with states to
collect data. Data collection will
begin in 2006. Baseline will be
based on a three year rolling
average.
1/2007
RCRA Base
program, Permits
and Grants
Pounds of priority chemicals reduced in waste
streams per federal and private sector costs.
TRI data collection to support
this efficiency measure began
1/2005. Preliminary private
sector cost data will be available
6/2006
11/2007
Tribal GAP
Percent decrease in the number of households in
Indian Country with inadequate wastewater
sanitation systems.
Data Collection will begin
January 1,2006. The Indian
Health Sen/ice Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program
Annual Report to Congress is
the data source.
11/2007
Tribal GAP
Percent decrease in the number of households on
tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water
Data Collection will begin
January 1,2006. The Indian
Health Service Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program
Annual Report to Congress is
the data source.
11/2007
Tribal GAP
Show at least a 10% improvement in for each of
four parameters - total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms - at not
fewer than 90 monitoring stations in Tribal waters.
Data collection will begin
January 1,2006. U.S.
Geological Survey's National
Water Information System and
EPA's STORET water quality
databases are the data sources.
11/2007
GOAL 5-25
-------
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAM RESULTS
Many of EPA's efforts—improving the quality and availability of environmental and health
information, strengthening management practices, implementing human capital
strategies—contribute to the Agency's results across all of its goals and objectives. The
following FY 2005 results for EPA's enabling and support programs reflect progress
achieved by such organizations as EPA's Office of Administration and Resource
Management, Office of Environmental Information, Office of the Inspector General
(DIG), and Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Sample highlights of FY 2005
performance include:
Strengthening Financial and Program Management
EPA consistently met accelerated financial reporting goals, maintaining "green" status
and progress scores on the President's Management Agenda (PMA) scorecard. The
Agency attained an unqualified opinion for FY 2004 financial statements, and did so by
November 15, 2004, an accelerated reporting goal established by the Office of
Management and Budget. EPA also satisfied Government-wide Financial Reporting
System requirements by the accelerated November 18, 2004, deadline. During
FY 2005, EPA continued its support of the consolidated government-wide reporting effort
by issuing its interim financial statements within 21 days after each quarter.
The Agency identified opportunities and strategies for enhancing financial information
provided to decisionmakers across the Agency. Efforts are underway in partnership with
the Office of Grants and Debarment to address key grants management risk areas and
challenges integrating grants and financial management data, create single point data
entry, and have better information to assess the capabilities of nonprofit grantees. See
Improving Grants Management.
EPA continued to enhance the Annual Commitment System (ACS) it launched last year
to assist national programs and regional managers in negotiating and agreeing on
annual regional performance commitments. In FY 2005, the Agency developed and
implemented a new ACS performance tracking feature to support the entry and tracking
of actual performance data against annual regional performance commitments
An investigation conducted jointly by EPA's OIG and a number of other federal
organizations resulted in a contractor (PricewaterhouseCbopers) repaying the
government $42 million to settle allegations that it made false claims for travel
reimbursement.
Improving Grants Management
To ensure that grant funds are being used properly, EPA began implementing a new
policy for assessing the financial management capabilities of nonprofit recipients. Under
the policy, every nonprofit grantee receiving an award greater than $200,000 must
complete a questionnaire on its capability to administer the grant. Should EPA determine
that a grantee lacks this capability, the grantee must take action to address its
weaknesses before the grant can be awarded.
EPA revised its Order 5700.5 (now Order 5700.5A1, effective January 15, 2005) to
further increase competition for assistance agreements. The revised order clarifies
ESP-1
-------
requirements for noncompetitive justifications, provides guidance for identifying possible
conflicts of interest, requires statements from reviewers that they do not have any
unresolved conflicts of interest, and reinforces grant management officers'
responsibilities.
Performance Targets and Current Results
Under EPA's Grants Management Plan
Performance Measure
•Percentage of grafts managed
-by certified project officers • / ;
Percentage of new grants
subject to the competition
order that aie competed
' Percentage of new grants to
non-profit redptents subject
to tho cwnpettlion order that
-arecompeted^..',», , ^ _•"
* Percentage of active
recipients who receive
advanced morttoring
Pertertige of reeoni grant .
Percentage of eligibte grants
closed out
•woricplans that inducts a
d;Jcui»onc)F«nvirorimenUl .
00* '
85X
75X
iO*
90Xh2004
80%
Progress in FY 2005
- <* *
92.7%
764% in 2004
Evaluatiofl in progress
* These performance measures are tracked on a calendar year basis.
•• Ef* s currently conducting an ewfution. expected to be completed n January 2006.
This evafcjjtkm b of the Agency's prop«s mder EfA CJrder 5700.7. 'Environmemal
Results Under HW Assistance Agreements'.
Managing Human Capital
EPA's Human Capital Strategy has increased personal accountability and linked job
requirements to the Agency's mission and goals. The strategy provides the framework
to fill mission-critical positions, ensure that planning and budgeting anticipate and
address workforce needs, and train its diverse workforce.
EPA implemented a new five-level performance management system for general
service/general manager employees. By linking job performance standards to the
Agency's strategic goals and objectives, the Performance Appraisal and Recognition
System (PARS) promotes increased accountability and productivity among all
employees. PARS provides a framework within which EPA employees will be able to
demonstrate excellence in delivering effective and efficient government services.
Addressing Information Challenges
EPA conducted an Agency-wide planning process to rank key data gaps (identified in
the Agency's 2003 Draft Report on the Environment and through input provided by the
Agency's partners and stakeholders) and establish priorities for filling them. EPA is
integrating results from this data gaps analysis into its process for developing its 2006-
' See www.epa.Qov/indicators.
ESP-2
-------
2011 Strategic Plan and expects that many of the data gaps will be addressed in its next
draft Report on the Environment, scheduled for 2006.
Managed by EPA, the E-Rulemaking Initiative is overcoming barriers to public
participation in the federal regulatory process by improving the public's ability to access,
understand, and comment on federal regulatory actions. In its September 2005 report,
Electronic Rulemaking, Progress Made in Developing Centralized E-Rulemaking
System, the Government Accountability Office cited EPA for successfully integrating the
needs of its federal partners. EPA's effective collaboration was critical to the successful
launching of the Federal Docket Management System.2
Advancing Collaboration
EPA continues to work collaboratively with its partners—states, tribes, and other federal
agencies, to ensure a national focus on the most important environmental problems and
the most efficient and effective use of limited resources. In FY 2005, EPA and the
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) established a Partnership and Performance
Workgroup to provide a forum for collaboration. The workgroup explored ways to
support state strategic planning and improve dialogue around planning and priority
setting.
EPA continued to work with tribes on a govemment-to-govemment basis to protect the
land, air, and water in Indian country. In June, the Grand Traverse Band of Chippewa
Indians hosted the Sixth Annual National Tribal Environmental Conference for
Environmental Management. During this conference, more than 750 tribal, federal, and
state officials shared solutions on ongoing environmental and public health problems in
Indian country.
1 See wvyrw.qao.gov/.
ESP-3
-------
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
APG
Information Exchange Network
Planned
Actual
ESP-1
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data
for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data
Exchange (CDX).
Goal Met.
Baseline: The CDX program began in FY 2001.
Performance Measures
v CDX will fully support electronic data exchange requirements for
major EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.
> States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state
nodes in real time, using new Web-based data standards that
allow for automated data-quality checking.
> States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to
report environmental data electronically to EPA, taking
advantage of automated data quality checks and on-line
customer support
> Customer help desk calls are resolved in a timely manner.
Data Source(s): Data are provided by state, private sector, local, and
tribal government CDX users. Also see www.epa.gov/cdx.
12
Systems
40
States
20,000
Users
96%
40
45,000
96%
PERFORMANCE
Under this APG, EPA provides a centralized approach to receiving and distributing
information and improves access to timely and reliable environmental information. EPA
believes that these efforts will allow for the exchange of secure, accurate, and timely
information that supports environment and health decisions.
in FY 2005, EPA added features to the Central Data Exchange (CDX), including user
registration and increased security. The Agency continues to work on easing reporting
burden by bringing more states on line and adding more systems to the CDX. Shared
services are allowing external groups to leverage the CDX's capabilities more efficiently
and have increased the number of CDX users to 45,000.
Growth in Registered Users of EPA's Central Data Exchange
ESP-4
-------
APG
ESP-2
Data Quality and Accessibility
EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the
public for environmental decisionmaking. Goal Met.
Baseline: An effort to develop a State-of-the-Environment report based
on environmental indicators was initiated in FY 2002.
Performance Measures
> Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use
by EPA's programs and partners in the Agency's strategic
planning and performance measurement process.
> Responders to the baseline questionnaire on customer
satisfaction on the EPA Web site report overall satisfaction with
their visit to EPA.GOV.
Data Source(s): Initial collection of indicators compiled during the
drafting of EPA's Report on the Environment, supplemented by
indicators currently used in the Agency's strategic planning and
performance measurement process will comprise an Agency baseline of
indicators. Customer satisfaction data are provided by customers
completing the questionnaire. Also see www.eDa.aov/indicators.
Planned
1 Report
60%
Actual
13
63%
PERFORMANCE
EPA monitors progress in providing environmental data to a variety of users in forms that
are accessible and available. In 2005, EPA updated the list of proposed indicators for
the 2007 Report on the Environment (ROE) Technical Document based on comments
from the July 2005 public peer review. The additional proposed indicators were
announced in the Federal Register. In addition, EPA is updating its Strategic Plan
(2006-2011 update) and has included consideration of the proposed 2007 indicators and
data and information needs identified during development of the 2003 Draft Report on
the Environment in its deliberations.
3 This document is only an interim status update, not a full report on approved indicators.
ESP-5
-------
APG
ESP-3
Information Security
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established
standards for security.
Goal Met.
Baseline: In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand
and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
Performance Measures
> Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency
security programs reported annually to OMB under Federal
Information Security Management Act/Government Information
Security Reform Act
Data Source(s): Information technology system owners in Agency
program and regional offices.
Planned
75%
Actual
90%
PERFORMANCE
Under this APG, EPA tracks its compliance with Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) security criteria. EPA believes that constant system and network monitoring is
necessary to detect and identify any potential weaknesses or vulnerabilities that
compromise its information assets. These proactive efforts will allow the Agency to
develop cost effective solutions that support EPA's long-term goal of building and
analytical capacity. EPA's Security Program has continuously implemented security
measures to comply with OMB requirements. The Agency has exceeded this target for
the past several fiscal years, and it has adjusted the target for FY2 006 to better align
with performance.
ESP-6
-------
APG
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
Planned
Actual
ESP-4
In 2005, OIG will improve Agency business and operations by
identifying 240 recommendations; potential savings and recoveries
equal to 150% of the annual investment in the OIG; 102 actions for
better business operations; and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative
actions reducing risk or loss of integrity.
Goal Met.
Baseline: In FY 2002, OIG established a baseline of 150 business
recommendations; 70 improved business practices; 50 criminal,
civil, and administrative actions for improving Agency
management; and a 100% potential dollar return on the investment
in the OIG from savings and recoveries.
Performance Measures
> Number of improved business practices and systems.
> Number of criminal, civil, and administrative actions.
> Number of business recommendations, risks, and best
practices identified.
> Return on the annual dollar investment in OIG.
Data Source(s): Data are from OIG performance evaluations,
audits, research, court records and from EPA documents, data
systems and reports that track environmental and management
actions or improvements made, risks reduced or avoided. OIG
also collects independent data from EPA's partners and
stakeholders. Also see www.epa.gov/oia/index.htm.
2204
Improvements
80 Actions
8005
Recommendations
150%
724
125
1,119
285%
PERFORMANCE
The OIG has begun including the non-monetary results of "Single Audits" and audits
performed for OIG in its targets and results by acknowledging the increasing number
and significance of actionable recommendations in these audits to improve the
management of assistance agreements. Therefore, OIG adjusted its original targets
submitted to OMB to account for the large increase in the expected and actual number
of improved business practices and systems and the number of business
recommendations, risks, and best practices identified. OIG is constantly seeking ways of
improving how it plans and measures the value of its work, and will continue to refine its
targets and actions with data and experience in recognizing these opportunities. OIG
work is, by its nature, responsive to competing priorities of risks and stakeholder need;
therefore, OIG results may be variable or time-lagged by measure in relation to annual
targets. For example, the number of criminal, civil and administrative actions has
increased, reflecting a greater number of debarments and suspensions of contractors,
and the number of cases involving laboratories, which are time-lag results of prior years'
performance. The 285 percent return on the dollar investment in OIG represents $143.8
OIG revised its target from 102 to 220 by including non-monetary results of Single Audits,
which will also be included in FYs 2006 and 2007.
5 OIG revised its target from 240 to 800 by including non-monetary results of Single Audits,
which will also be included in FYs 2006 and 2007.
ESP-7
-------
million in questioned costs, recommended efficiencies and fines, recoveries, and
penalties.
SPKs DIG Helps Improve Agency Management,
Accountability, and Ftogram Operations
{
z
• FY2005
• FY2004
8 FY2003
• FY20G2
• FY2Q01
Rained Actual
Criminal, Civil,
Administrative
Actions
Panned Actual
Improvements in
Bu»in«s« Proowast
and Rsaolw Public
Conorns
Banned Actual
Hscommandalions, Beit
Practices, Manaosment
and ra4nA Chfltonyss
Wantifwd
0*1 otMMd torn DIG tafcnnUon qMm. OORmJ
EBik'sOIG's Questioned Costs,
Bficienaes, Savings, Rnes, Recoveries
800
Planned Actual
tarn OtO MumMkm maim, noR «nd PMRS.
ESP-8
-------
CHALLENGES
OIG is attempting to balance current and emerging priorities, especially those from an
increasing number of Congressional requests, expanding management and financial
quality control requirements, and exigent responses to EPA's emergency hurricane
actions.
ESP-9
-------
APG
Audit and Advisory Services
Planned
Actual
ESP-5
In 2005, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality
and human health by identifying 95 environmental
recommendations, best practices, risks, or opportunities for
improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 23
environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 45 actions
influencing environmental improvements or program changes.
Goal Not Met.
Baseline: In FY 2002, OIG established a baseline of 75
recommendations, best practices and risks identified contributing
to improved Agency environmental goals; established 15
environmental actions; and reduced 15 environmental risks.
Performance Measures
> Number of environmental risks reduced.
> Number of environmental actions.
> Number of environmental recommendations, risks, and
best practices identified.
Data Source(s): Data are from OIG performance evaluations,
audits, research, court records and 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.
Also see www.epa.gov/oiq/index.htm.
23 Risks 35
45 Improvements 35
95 112
Recommendations
PERFORMANCE
Goal Not Met: These performance results generally represent complex environmental
actions to be taken subsequently to OIG recommendations, risks, and best practices
identified. While the results for Environmental Actions and Improvements indicate the
measure was not met, the system used to track this information currently does not
capture actions taken by EPA program managers prior to the issuance of the Inspector
General's final report, which means the number of actions taken (35) is probably
artificially low from errors of omission. Further, there are a considerable number of
primary and secondary actions and improvements that are time lagged, occurring
beyond the immediate scope of recognition as reportable results because of their
complexity and expanded residual effect, thereby making them difficult to track.
Therefore, the reported results for this measure are conservative and do not fully reflect
the scope or number of actions taken and improvements made. The OIG is working to
provide greater follow-up to ensure better accountability and recognition of agreed to
actions by the Agency and its partners on OIG recommendations, and is also developing
measures that capture actions and results accruing prior to report issuance. As
mentioned in ESP APG 4, there are competing priorities for OIG resources based largely
on external factors. Due to the responsive nature of OIG work and the time-lag nature of
its results, performance evaluated over several fiscal years, better demonstrates the
OIG's significant strategic achievements in relation to its APGs.
ESP-10
-------
EFA'sOIG Contributesto Improved Human
Health and Environmental Quality
Banned Actual
Bivironmental
Improvement s, Act io ns,
Changes
Banned Actual
Environmental or
Infrastructure Rsks
Reduced or Eliminated
Fanned Actual
Environmental
RecommendationSi Best
Radices R*s Identified
CHALLENGES: OIG is attempting to balance current and emerging priorities, especially
those from an increasing number of Congressional requests and exigent responses to
EPA's emergency hurricane actions. Additionally, obtaining the needed staff skill mix to
perform complex program evaluations is a continuing challenge.
ESP-11
-------
APG Strengthen EPA's Management
Planned Actual
ESP-6
Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's
mission while addressing the challenges included in the President's
Management Agenda.
Baseline: Financial statements will be submitted on time to OMB and
receive an unqualified opinion.
Performance Measures
> Agency audited financial statements are timely, and receive an
unqualified opinion.
Data Source: Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). Also
see www.epa.gov/ocfo.
PERFORMANCE
EPA prepared timely accurate financial statements which earned an unqualified (clean)
opinion. The auditors identified nine reportable conditions, one non-compliance issue
and no material weaknesses.
ESP-12
-------
APG
Energy Consumption and Reduction
Planned
Actual
ESP-7
By 2005, EPA will achieve a 20% energy consumption reduction from
1990 in its 29 laboratories, which is in line to meet the 2005 requirement
of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base contained in EO 13123. This
includes green power purchases.
Goal Met.
Baseline: In FY 1990, energy consumption is 357,864 BTUs per square
foot.
Performance Measures
> Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption (from
FY1990).
> FY 2004: Cumulative percentage reduction in energy
consumption (from FY 1990). The data lag was due to the
reported billing cycle.
Data Source(s): The Agency's contractor collects quarterly energy data
from each of EPA's laboratories. The data are based on metered
readings from the laboratory's utility bills (e.g., natural gas, electricity).
Also see www.epa.gov/greeninqeDa/.
20%
16%
25%
17%
PERFORMANCE
EPA complied with Executive Order 13123 "Greening the Government through Efficient
Energy Management" that requires the Agency to reduce its reportable energy use by 20
percent in FY 2005 from an FY 1990 baseline. Reduced energy consumption reduces
greenhouse gas production and other environmental impacts associated with
conventional energy sources. It is also important that EPA lead by example to reduce
energy/operating costs by demonstrating energy efficient mechanical systems and
operations to the public.
EPA relied heavily on green power purchases to meet this goal. EPA is currently
implementing several building commissioning and mechanical system upgrades that will
significantly reduce actual energy consumption. The data from onsite consumption logs
are compared to invoices to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct.
EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported energy use at each
facility against previous billing data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable
increases or decreases in energy quantities and costs.
EPA exceeded this goal. Based on the data available (through the third quarter of FY
2005), EPA should show a reduction of reportable energy to the Department of Energy
and OMB of 25 percent for FY 2005. The fourth quarter information will not be available
until December 2005.
CHALLENGES: While EPA's new main laboratory facility at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, continues to improve, its operations have not yet fully stabilized.
ESP-13
-------
33
o
O
Section III
Management Challenges
Introduction to Management Section
OIG's 2005 Key Management Challenges
EPA's Response to Key Management Challenges
November 15, 2005
-------
SECTION III - FY 2005 KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
INTRODUCTION
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the Inspector General to identify,
briefly assess, and report annually the most serious management and performance
challenges facing the Agency. Management challenges represent vulnerabilities in
program operations and their susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.
This section includes a discussion of areas that the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified as EPA's 2005 management
challenges. It also includes a discussion of the Agency's response to the challenges
and progress in addressing the issues.
In FY 2005, OIG and GAO identified nine areas they consider EPA's most
pressing management challenges. While OIG identified the majority of these areas,
GAO raised a number of the same issues, such as human capital and assistance
agreements. Notably, neither OIG nor GAO suggested elevating any of the issues to
the level of a material weaknesses—a reportable condition that could adversely impact
the integrity of Agency programs and activities. Most of the challenges identified are
recurring issues that take time to resolve. EPA has been working to address these
long-standing issues for the past several years and has made good progress during FY
2005.
EPA's senior managers are committed to resolving current issues and identifying
and addressing emerging issues before they become serious problems. To sustain
management attention to issues raised by OIG, GAO, and other external evaluators,
EPA maintains a system of internal controls to ensure that program activities are carried
out effectively and in accordance with applicable laws and sound management policy.
Currently, EPA has elevated three of the nine management challenges to the level of an
Agency weakness under FMFIA. EPA leaders meet periodically to review and discuss
the progress the Agency is making to address the issues, and each year the Agency
reports on the status of its efforts in its Performance and Accountability Report and
Budget Submission.
The material that follows includes a table of the management challenges
identified by OIG and their relationship to EPA's Strategic Plan and the President's
Management Agenda. This section also includes OIG's description of these issues and
EPA's summary of actions it has taken to address them.
III-l
-------
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
2005 KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
(Prepared by EPA's Office of Inspector General)
The table below includes issues identified by OIG as the 2005 key management
challenges facing EPA and the relationship of the issues to the Agency's Strategic Plan.
and the President's Management Agenda. Following the table is a brief discussion of
the challenges. A more detailed discussion of each challenge can be found in OIG's
memorandum to EPA's Administrator, EPA's Key Management Challenges 2005, dated
April 25, 2005.
EPA's Key Management Challenges
Reported by the Office of Inspector General
FY FY FY
2003 2004 2005
Link to
EPA
Strategic
Goal
Link to President's
Management
Agenda
Linking Mission and Management*: Development of
more outcome-based strategic and annual targets in
collaboration with partners.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security:
Implementing a strategy to effectively coordinate and
address threats.
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification:
Improving the usefulness of internal evaluations, and
implementing program policy decisions.
Information Resources Management and Data
Quality: Improving the quality of data used to make
decisions and monitor progress.
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish
Its Mission: Improving the management of the billions
of dollars of grants awarded by EPA.
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program:
Reducing air toxic emissions by improving measurement
of risk assessment and progress.
Human Capital Management: Implementing a
strategy that will result in a competent, well-trained, and
motivated workforce.
Information Security: Protecting information systems
by preventing intrusion and abuse of systems, and
protecting integrity of data.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal3
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goall
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Integrating
Performance &
Budget
E-Gov
Financial Performance
Human Capital
E-Gov
* In FY 2004 and 2005 Working Relationships with the States was consolidated in "Linking
Mission and Management"
III-2
-------
EPA's FY 2005 Key Management Challenges
(Prepared by EPA's Office of Inspector General, April 25, 2005)
Linking Mission and Management
EPA faces a continuing challenge in demonstrating accomplishment of its
environmental mission through programs with clear objectives, measurable results, and
accurate cost information. We have considered Linking Mission and Management as a
top management challenge since 2001. While the Agency is making progress, we
continue to observe weaknesses across various activities, programs, and offices.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan is superior to preceding plans; however, it does
not contain sufficient substantive strategies or resource and schedule commitments
leading to the attainment of its stated goals. In a series of reviews of various Agency
activities, we have observed a systematic disconnect between program goals,
performance objectives developed in response to the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and measures of effectiveness.
As noted in prior years, developing outcome based performance measures linked
to Agency activities is a challenging undertaking. EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Assessments continue to cite a need for improved
measures in a number of programs. Past Office of Management and Budget PART
assessments have noted that the absence of valid outcome performance data has
hindered EPA in evaluating the impacts of its programs on the environment and public
health.
As EPA works to develop more outcome-oriented performance measures, it must
continue improvements to track the cost of achieving environmental results. A March
2005 policy change will allow EPA to more closely link costs by familiar program or
project names instead of broader, more abstract categories. It is important for EPA to
collect and integrate data for tracking the cost of organizational performance. A recent
OIG report on Superfund expenditures re-enforces this need through findings that all
costs incurred by the Superfund program cannot be identified or isolated.
Once accurate and current cost information is available, EPA managers need
to consider it when making operational and strategic decisions. With the right
information at hand, they can analyze organizational and programmatic performance.
EPA's success in implementing cost accounting will rely, to a great extent, on how
well the Office of the Chief Financial Officer works with program offices. An essential
aspect of this challenge will be persuading EPA managers to incorporate use of cost
accounting data into the normal course of managing their programs. In addition, EPA
continues to work with its Federal, State, and Tribal partners to develop appropriate
outcome measures and accounting systems that track environmental and human
health results across the Agency's revised goal structure. This information must then
become an integral part of the Agency's decision-making process.
III-3
-------
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains the lead for the
unified national response to terrorist threats, many other Federal, State, and local
agencies, including EPA, play a vital role in implementing homeland security efforts.
EPA has developed chemical, biological, and radiological, technical and scientific
expertise that enhances the ability of DHS to address potential terrorist threats. EPA
also possesses emergency response capabilities that complement the efforts of other
Federal agencies. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act (Public Law 107-188) specifically tasked EPA with funding and
overseeing water system vulnerability assessments and resulting emergency response
plans. In addition, several Homeland Security Presidential Directives direct EPA to
support and develop the preparedness of state, local, and tribal governments, and
private industry, to respond to, recover from, and continue operations after a terrorist
attack.
Over the past year,-OIG analyzed several of EPA's actions to address its
homeland security responsibilities. We found that the Agency has showed continued
improvement on several fronts such as establishing the EPA Homeland Security
Collaborative Network and updating its Homeland Security Strategy. The agency must
continue to work with stakeholders to develop performance measures for water security
and to identify impediments that are preventing water systems from successfully
reducing or mitigating vulnerabilities in computer systems used to control water
equipment (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, SCADA systems). The Agency
must also take steps to ensure that it is performing all BioWatch designated .
responsibilities and develop a better process for identifying, obtaining, maintaining, and
tracking response equipment necessary for Nationally Significant Incidents.
EPA has undertaken a number of efforts to work with Federal, State and local
counterparts to enhance critical infrastructure protection. As new threats to the Nation
continue to evolve, EPA's success will require simultaneous attention to questions of
risk, capabilities and deficiencies, preparedness, management and oversight, as well as
effective coordination with EPA's partners at all levels of government and industry.
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification
The Agency can be credited with reducing risks at hazardous waste sites across
the Nation, identifying and implementing needed reforms, instituting program
infrastructure, and making progress in cleaning up the nation's most contaminated sites.
However, troubling obstacles have been identified to the Agency's ability to effectively
meet the Nation's current and future needs for hazardous waste cleanup. Despite
having its own processes for evaluating and reforming the Superfund program, EPA has
failed to proactively identify, or communicate, the current fiscal and other program
III-4
-------
management challenges that are causing great pressure and attention on the program.
EPA has had mixed success in implementing reforms.
The EPA should continue its important internal evaluation and reform activities
that have characterized the Superfund program since 1989. However, changes or
modifications in its evaluation and policy identification process are needed to respond to
new challenges. In the future, the Agency will need to identify and provide solutions for
major program challenges and policy decisions, including (1) lack of Trust Fund
appropriations and decreasing general appropriations; (2) the inability to fund all sites
that require funding, including increasing expectations to identify and implement
program efficiencies, account for and explain costs, and establish site prioritization
processes; (3) determining potential future financial and environmental liability from
sites that have not yet formally entered the Superfund program; (4) lack of viable, or
fully cooperative, responsible parties, inadequate financial assurance for site cleanup,
and the inability to consistently rely on other programs to support Superfund needs; and
(5) use of credible measures of the ecological benefits that result from Superfund
cleanups.
Recognizing that tribes are important partners in implementing the Agency's
environmental programs, the Agency has undertaken three major initiatives since 1998.
These initiatives have produced some positive results and lessons have been
incorporated into the Agency's current strategy for managing the role of the tribes in the
Superfund program. The Agency's tribal strategy has faltered because it does not have
a detailed implementation plan with milestones, priorities, resource needs, and
corresponding measures to track progress and effects of the strategy. In addition, the
strategy cannot be effectively implemented without critical information, including an
inventory of hazardous waste sites on Indian lands. A strong working relationship
between EPA and the States and Tribes is necessary if environmental goals are to be
achieved.
If the Agency is to maintain the public's trust and confidence in its ability to
effectively manage the Superfund program and protect human health and the
environment at the Nation's most contaminated waste sites, it needs to demonstrate the
ability to proactively identify and address the program's most serious challenges. This is
particularly important when the Agency has processes in place to accomplish this. In
addition, effective and credible program planning, budgeting, and resource allocation
are accomplished when the Agency is informed of what the program's current and
future challenges and needs are.
Information Resources Management (IRM) and Data Quality
EPA acknowledges IRM data management practices as an Agency-level
weakness under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and has specifically
targeted various components for improvement. The Agency faces a number of
challenges with the data it uses to make decisions and monitor progress against
environmental goals. These challenges cover a broad range of interrelated activities
III-5
-------
including: using enterprise and data architecture strategies to guide the integration and
management of data and to make investment decisions; implementing data standards
to facilitate data sharing; and establishing quality assurance practices to improve the
reliability, accuracy, and scientific basis of environmental data, including data derived
from laboratories. EPA and most States often apply different data definitions, and
sometimes collect and input different data, resulting in inconsistent, incomplete, or
obsolete, consolidated national data.
While EPA has developed several core registry systems and metadata registries, it
has yet to implement a 1998, agreed-upon, OIG recommendation to formally revise its
policies and procedures supporting an Agency standards program. EPA has developed
and formally approved ten data standards, and continues to partner with the Environmental
Data Standards Council to develop additional standards for environmental information
collection and exchange. However, the true challenge lies in the implementation of the
approved standards, because many parties must follow through for EPA and others to
realize the benefits.
Some of the approved standards will not be fully implemented until Fiscal Year 2006,
and some have been implemented only in a targeted set of national EPA systems. If EPA's
exchange network infrastructure is to work effectively, timely implementation should be
required for all applicable systems. Moreover, the use of data standards should be a
required condition for receiving money under the Exchange Network Grant Program. In
addition, while EPA is focusing its efforts on standards for data shared with external
partners, additional attention is needed for internal data. Standards for internal data are
necessary to facilitate the efficient and effective development and implementation of truly
integrated systems within EPA. These data standards would help to reduce reliance on
interfaces and data warehouses to allow for the sharing and integration of internal data.
Data reliability is another major aspect of data management needing continued
attention. The Government Accountability Office noted that although EPA has made
some progress in addressing critical data gaps in the agency's environmental information,
the Agency still has further to go in obtaining the data it needs to manage for
environmental results. EPA should establish clear lines of responsibility and
accountability among the agency's various organizational components, and identify
specific requirements for developing and using environmental indicators.
Data quality concerns extend to questionable analyses by laboratories. The
number of ongoing lab fraud investigations increased by more than 150% between
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003 due to complaints received. The method of fraud
employed by all but two of the involved laboratories dealt with some form of altered or
fraudulent test results. The Agency has taken significant action to address the quality of
laboratory data and decided that Laboratory Quality System Practices was corrected as
a Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act in FY 2004. Follow-up activities will
determine if weaknesses in Agency laboratory practices have been corrected.
III-6
-------
EPA's ability to manage its business processes, enforce environmental laws,
evaluate the impact of its programs in terms of environmental improvement, and
accurately inform the public about the status of the environment may continue to be
limited by gaps and inconsistencies in the quality of its data. EPA needs to continue its
efforts to identify what data is necessary to manage its programs, and work, both
internally and with its partners, to ensure that such information is captured and reported
in a timely, accurate, and consistent manner.
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Its Mission
Assistance agreements are a primary means EPA uses to carry out its mission of
protecting human health and the environment. More than half of EPA's fiscal 2004
budget, approximately $4.4 billion, was awarded to organizations through assistance
agreements. Because the amount is large, and because the work involved is critically
important to fulfilling EPA's mission, it is imperative that the Agency use good
management practices in awarding and overseeing these agreements to ensure they
cost- effectively contribute to attaining environmental goals.
Since 1996, EPA has reported Management of Assistance Agreements as a
material or agency weakness under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
Recent OIG reports show that grant management challenges continue to exist. In March
2005, we reported on the implementation of EPA's new grant competition order and
concluded that EPA needs to compete more assistance agreements. The order was
ineffective because it included too many exemptions and, therefore, only applied to
$161 million of more than $835 million of discretionary grants awarded in 2003.
We also continue to identify pre-award and monitoring weaknesses that waste
money and weaken program effectiveness. While EPA issued a Grants Management
Plan in April 2003, EPA has not completed all of the proposed actions in its Plan. To
address many of our recommendations, EPA has issued several Orders since January
2005 containing new requirements for 1) identifying environmental results under
assistance agreements, 2) competing grants, and 3) assessing capabilities of non-profit
applicants for managing such agreements. Because these significant policies are so
new, EPA has no data to show that the problems that precipitated the issuance of these
policies have been corrected.
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program Goals
EPA's goal is to reduce emissions and implement area-specific approaches to
reduce the risk to public health and the environment from air toxics by 2010. To
achieve its goal, the Agency has increased its efforts to address air toxics in recent
years as evidenced by a nearly 41 percent increase in funding from $90.7 million in
FY 1999 to $127.7 million for FY 2004. The Agency has also completed its Clean Air
Act requirement to issue technology-based standards, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards, for categories of major stationary sources. This area
remains a management challenge, among other reasons, because of the difficulties
III-7
-------
and uncertainties associated with developing Phase II risk-based standards for major
stationary sources; EPA is years behind statutory deadlines for developing standards
for area sources; and identifying risk-based strategies and measuring progress is
difficult because of the uncertainties associated with characterizing air toxics
emissions, ambient concentrations, human exposure, and health risks from exposure.
Persistent bio-accumulative toxics, such as mercury, present challenges because
of their ability to be transported over great distances before they are deposited into
water bodies. For example, atmospheric deposition of mercury has contributed to
impaired listings of numerous waters and widespread fish consumption advisories. At
least 44 states have issued fish consumption advisories related to the accumulation of
mercury in fish tissue. In some States, a substantial proportion of the atmospheric
deposition of mercury derives from sources located outside the State's boundary, and
State-specific efforts to reduce mercury in water may have limited success in reducing
mercury fish-tissue concentrations to safe levels. In these cases, water bodies may
attain water quality standards only with additional reductions of mercury air emissions
from other states, regions, and countries. Addressing this problem will require EPA to
work nationally and internationally across traditional program boundaries of water and
air.
Finally, hundreds of new chemicals are introduced into the environment every
year, yet no new air toxics have been added to the original list of 188 since it was
established in 1990. Some of these recently introduced chemicals could be more
harmful than those currently regulated through the air toxics program. We will continue
to monitor the progress EPA makes in addressing these important issues.
Human Capital Management
EPA continues to face challenges in developing and sustaining a highly skilled,
diverse, results-oriented workforce with the right mix of technical expertise, experience,
and leadership capabilities. EPA also faces challenges in more thoroughly integrating
human capital management activities and measures into its core business processes.
Such integration will help strengthen accountability and ensure alignment of strategic
human capital goals with environmental and human health goals as well as
achievement of all these goals. Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are concerned about EPA's
efforts to achieve "Green Status" under the President's Management Agenda (PMA)
human capital initiative. Specifically, OPM and OMB are concerned about EPA's ability
to address skill gaps for mission critical occupations and its ability to achieve a green
status by July 2005 based on its current Proud to Be (P2B) milestones. OPM and OMB
have indicated that they will work with the Agency to help resolve their concerns.
The Agency remains committed to ensuring that it addresses these challenges
through its various human capital initiatives. In the past year, EPA made substantial
progress in addressing human capital concerns by implementing many of the initiatives
presented in its human capital strategic plan, Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy
111-8
-------
for Human Capital: 2004 and Beyond. During the year, EPA also linked employee
performance standards to the Agency's five strategic goals; developed a
comprehensive strategic workforce strategy and deployment plan; provided
restructuring options to all EPA senior managers; and monitored and reported diversity
statistics to address under representation.
Although EPA has made progress, it still needs to do more to ensure successful
Agency-wide implementation of strategic human capital management activities. In a
recent report, the OIG concluded that while EPA's headquarters and regional offices are
prepared to implement strategic human capital management activities, the offices have
not aligned their human capital activities to the Agency's Strategy for Human Capital.
The report emphasized that senior executives vary in their recognition of the importance
of human capital management and have not fully integrated human capital management
activities into the Agency's core management processes. These variations hamper the
Agency's ability to measure Agency-wide progress on strategic human capital
management activities.
In another report, the OIG emphasized the need for the Office of Acquisition
Management (OAM) to identify skill and full-time equivalent gaps within its workforce.
The OIG recommended that OAM complete its workload analysis and then perform a
workforce analysis. These analyses will allow OAM to identify needed skills so that any
skill gaps or surpluses can be addressed. OAM indicated that it had previously
attempted to conduct a workload analysis partly to compare full-time equivalents usage
against workload processes. However, OAM was unable to complete the analysis
because of the poor quality of data in their information systems and the application of
subjective weighting to the data.
In summary, while EPA is steadily progressing in its efforts to address human
capital management, it continues to be a challenge and should remain as an Agency-
level weakness under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
EPA's Information Systems Security
EPA must implement adequate security measures to help ensure the smooth
functioning of information systems and protect the Agency from loss or embarrassment
caused by security failures. Under the leadership of the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI), EPA's goal is to make information on its computer systems available,
while protecting the confidentiality and integrity of the information. As indicated in its FY
2004 Annual Report, EPA continues to enhance its se'curity program by strengthening
management controls to improve implementation of the Agency's security program. For
example, EPA implemented a testing and evaluation program to measure the
effectiveness of implemented controls. In addition, EPA continues to enhance its
program through risk assessments, penetration testing, and monitoring of the Agency's
firewall. The dynamic nature of security, however, requires continued emphasis and
vigilance.
IH-9
-------
We believe EPA needs to take the following additional actions to protect its
information and systems:
• Implement processes to ensure system Certification and Accreditation (C&A) are
complete and up to date. OEI needs to do more to ensure EPA program officials
assess the risks to operations and assets under their control and determine the
level of security appropriate to protect such assets and operations. Without
regular, effective, oversight processes, EPA will continue to place
unsubstantiated trust in the many components involved in implementing,
practicing, and documenting security requirements.
• Develop and ensure implementation of a training program to provide information
security training to EPA employees with significant information security
responsibilities. This includes OEI's plans to implement a system to aid in the
tracking of such training.
• Establish a process to complete timely background investigations on contractor
personnel who, by the nature of their work, have access to sensitive and/or
confidential files. At this time, EPA has contract employees with such access
who have not received any clearance. EPA has not established a target date for
correcting security weaknesses in the Fiscal 1999 Remediation Plan regarding
security screening for contractor personnel. Until the Agency addresses this
issue, it will be vulnerable to information leaks, theft, tampering, and destruction.
• Develop and implement oversight processes to increase security surrounding
remote access servers. EPA needs to establish processes to independently
verify and validate that remote access servers comply with published policies and
standards. Without an effectively implemented process for securing remote
access servers, the confidentiality and integrity of EPA's data, as well as the
availability of the network, is at risk.
We recognize that EPA has made significant strides to secure its data resources.
Last year, the Agency decided to consider this weakness under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act as corrected. While progress has been made, we still consider
information security to be a weakness given the evolving nature of technology, the
magnitude of system development activities, and new technology implementation
efforts.
Ill-10
-------
ERA'S RESPOSE TO
2005 KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
(Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency)
Linking Mission and Management - O/G believes that while EPA is making progress in
linking costs to goals, it continues to face challenges in demonstrating accomplishments of its
environmental mission through programs with clear objectives, measurable results, and
accurate cost information.
EPA has made significant progress over the past years in linking program
performance with resource decisions; developing outcome-oriented goals and
measures; and providing managers with timely, reliable, and consistent cost
information. Prior and current year efforts include:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Issued EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, which moved the Agency from ten to
five strategic goals centered on environmental and human health results.
• Increased the use of performance information and trend data in developing the
FY 2005 budget.
• Developed more outcome-oriented annual performance goals and measures as
well as efficiency measures.
• Developed a new accounting framework to track resources across the five goals.
• Released a Draft Report on the Environment, which is intended to help assess
the current state of the environment and to provide a baseline against which
future performance can be measured.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Developed and implemented a new performance tracking feature in the Agency's
Annual Commitment System that supports the entry and tracking of annual
performance data against annual regional performance commitments.
• Continued to improve PART scores by developing efficiency measures for
environmental programs. (As of July 2005, 6 of the 32 EPA programs assessed
show results not demonstrated.)
• Enhanced the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool (ORBIT) functionality by expanding the programmatic and
performance reporting capability and adding additional data sources
(Administrative Data Mart).
• Began to develop the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, including outreach to
partners and stakeholders and consultation with state and tribal partners.
Aaency_Efforts in Support of Homeland Security - O/G believes as new threats to the
Nation continue to evolve, EPA's success will require simultaneous attention to questions of
risks, capabilities and deficiencies, preparedness, management of oversight, as well as effective
coordination with EPA partners at all levels of government and industry.
EPA plays an important role in protecting the environment from potential threats
such as chemical, biological, and radiological contamination and must be prepared to
ffl-11
-------
respond to these threats effectively and efficiently. In FY 2005, EPA declared
Homeland Security an Agency weakness. Efforts to address growing concerns include:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Established the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) within the Administrator's
Office.
• Established the Homeland Security Collaborative Network to coordinate and
directly address high-priority, cross-Agency technical and policy issues related to
homeland security programs.
• Supported federal law enforcement agencies at Nationally Significant Events
(e.g., U.S. Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigations during the G-8
Nations Summit).
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Updated EPA's Homeland Security Strategic Plan to identify the range of EPA's
homeland security activities, taking into consideration the evolving role of the
DHS.
• Assisted drinking water systems in protecting their infrastructure from terrorist
attacks by completing vulnerability assessments.
• Drafted a policy that promotes consistency across the regions in implementing
BioWatch consequence management activities, while accommodating region-
specific needs.
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification - OIG reviews of the Superfund program
show that EPA faces significant challenges in its ability to meet current and future Superfund
needs and must establish a strong working relationship between states and tribes in order to
achieve its environmental goal.
The Superfund program is complex, dealing with cleanup requirements that have
been changing since its inception over 20 years ago. However, despite the program's
complexity and unique administrative structure, it has made and continues to make
significant progress in cleaning up Superfund sites and reducing risks to human health
and the environment. Progress over the years includes:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Initiated an internal review of the Superfund program (120-Day Study) to identify
opportunities for program efficiencies that would enable the Agency to begin and
ultimately complete remedial actions with current resources.
• Completed data collection and analysis on hazardous sites impacting Indian
country.
• Established the EPA tribal forum to work collaboratively on issues involving
tribes.
• Worked to increase oversight of the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (TASWER) cooperative agreement, in accordance with
commitments to OIG.
Ill-12
-------
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
. Published Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future, an internal
review of the Superfund program that contains recommendations for program
improvements.
. Developed a 120-Day Study Action Plan which outlines how EPA will carry out
the recommendations.
. Completed the Superfund Tribal Strategy and implementation plan.
Ill-13
-------
Information Resources Management and Data Quality
Scope of Weakness: EPA faces a number of challenges with the data it uses to make
decisions and monitor progress against goals (e.g., using enterprise and data architecture
strategies to guide the integration and management of data and to make investment decisions;
implementing data standards to facilitate data sharing; and establishing quality assurance
practices to improve the reliability, accuracy, and scientific basis of environmental data).
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged both laboratory quality system practices and
data management practices as Agency weaknesses. In FY 2004, the Agency corrected
its laboratory quality system practices as a FMFIA weakness. The Agency's actions to
address and validate the effectiveness of the corrective actions include:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Provided tools, technical evaluations, and training to help environmental
laboratory managers ensure that their operations produce data of documented
quality.
• Developed a policy directive focused on ensuring and documenting the
competency of Agency laboratories.
• Conducted discussions with Agency and outside representatives on how to
assure the quality of laboratory data. EPA incorporated the results of these
discussions into training courses and recommendations for best practices for
laboratory quality systems.
• Validated the effectiveness of corrective actions by summarizing audit reports,
documenting guidance for detecting and deterring misconduct, and documenting
the review process for the modified Quality Assurance Annual Reports and Work
Plans.
•
EPA has made significant progress in addressing data management. Specifically, EPA
developed an effective data standard program and promulgated six Reinventing
Environmental Information data standards for the Agency. In FY 2005, the Agency
completed the final corrective actions for the data management practices weakness.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Developed a process for ensuring data management policies and procedures are
planned, maintained, and revised as appropriate (e.g., changed the structure and
operating procedures for the Quality Information Council to better fulfill its role as
the information policy-making body for the Agency).
• Developed an Agency-approved planning process to identify key data gaps by
building on data-gap information included in EPA's Draft Report on the
Environment.
• Proposed a new Agency weakness, Implementation of Data Standards, to
ensure that new standards adopted by the Agency are fully implemented in a
cost effective and timely manner.
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Its Mission - Recent OIG and
GAO audits continue to identify problems in the use of assistance agreements. EPA needs to
m-i4
-------
improve oversight for the awarding and administering of assistance agreements to ensure
effective and efficient use of resources in attaining environmental goals.
Over the past several years, OIG and GAO continued to raise concerns about
the Agency's grant management practices. EPA acknowledges Assistance Agreements
as an Agency weakness and has a strategy in place to address concerns. EPA
established a long-term Grants Management Plan which serves as a roadmap of the
Agency's approach for improving grants management. Prior and current year efforts
include:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Issued a long-term Grants Management Training Plan that outlines the Agency's
strategy for ensuring that employees and grant applicants are understand their
grant management obligations.
• Modified the Agency's Compliance Monitoring Policy to require that EPA offices
use a standard format to collect and itemize information on problem areas.
• Instituted three types of internal reviews that provide EPA an early warning
system to detect emerging grant weaknesses.
• Revised employees' performance standards to reflect grants management
responsibilities.
• Deployed the Integrated Grants Management System in all 10 regions.
• Issued an interim policy requiring program offices to document how grant
proposals further EPA's Strategic Plan goals.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress.
• Issued a new policy on the internal review of discretionary grants that requires
senior managers to certify that noncompetitive discretionary grants and
competitive announcements have appropriate environmental outcomes and
support of program goals.
• Issued policy on roles and responsibilities that strengthens accountability for
effective grants management.
• Issued a pre-award policy to help ensure that grants are not awarded to nonprofit
organizations with weaknesses in their administrative capability to manage grant
funds or programmatic capability to carry out a project.
• Issued a-revised competition policy to increase the number and improve the
quality of competitions.
• Issued an EPA Order on Environmental Results to ensure that assistance
agreement solicitations, work plans, and decision memoranda discuss
anticipated environmental results and their linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan.
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program
Scope of Weakness: While EPA has achieved its Phase I goal of issuing technology-based
standards, there are concerns about EPA's efforts to assess and implement Phase 2, residual
risk standards, as well as the accuracy of air toxics data used in measuring progress. (2002)
III-15
-------
The Air Toxics Program faces significant challenges because much remains to
be done to address requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments (e.g.,
issuance of final standards for 70 stationary area source categories). However, the
Agency has made great progress in reducing air toxic emissions. In FY 2004, EPA
closed Air Toxics Program as an Agency weakness because it had developed a
strategy for achieving toxic risk reductions.
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Promulgated all remaining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards, as of February 2004.
• Completed 15 area source standards.
• Developed a comprehensive, integrated air toxics program that better meets
long-term goals by addressing risks from all sources of toxics.
• Worked with partners to design a national toxics monitoring network and
completed the data analysis phase of the initial assessment work.
• Initiated work on an efficiency measure on the cause-and-effect relationships
between the air toxics program and environmental conditions or cancer
incidence, as part of the effort to address concerns about data gaps for toxicity
and data collection-and analysis.
• As of March 2004, toxic emissions from large industrial facilities have decreased
by 1.7 million tons per year, a 35 percent reduction since 1990.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Completed the first residual risk standard for coke ovens in March 2005.
• Promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule, two rules
that will reduce mercury emissions from power plants, the largest remaining
uncontrolled sources of mercury in the U.S.
• Working to develop standards for an additional 25 area source categories (5 of
which are under court-ordered deadlines).
Human Capital Strategy Implementation/Employee Competencies - While EPA has
made progress in addressing human capital concerns; OIG believes EPA continues to face
challenges in developing and sustaining a highly skilled diverse, result-oriented workforce with
the right mix of technical expertise, experience and leadership capabilities. EPA must also work
to ensure successful Agency-wide implementation of strategic human capital management
activities.
EPA is committed to addressing its human capital challenges. Currently, EPA
acknowledges Human Capital as an Agency weakness and will continue to implement
its corrective action plan to ensure that deficiencies identified do not impair the Agency's
ability to accomplish its mission. Progress includes:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Established a senior Human Capital Official.
• Aligned human capital planning activities with strategic planning and budgeting
processes.
• Completed the Strategic Workforce Planning Pilot with nine EPA organizations.
Ill-16
-------
• Continued to implement and enhance training programs for all levels of EPA staff
and maintain SEES development and rotation programs.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Established a human capital accountability system to monitor and report on the
Agency's progress and to develop vulnerability assessments.
• Revised its approach to Agency-wide strategic workforce planning and presented
a workforce plan to the Administrator.
• Developed a comprehensive National Recruitment and Outreach Strategy that
coordinates outreach activities for a variety of positions and Agency programs.
• Integrated human capital with the Agency's planning and budgeting process
during the FY 2007 budget formulation cycle by making the issue a critical factor
in resource discussions.
• Developed "local" human capital plans at the national program and regional office
level to identify workforce needs and skill gaps in greater detail.
EPA's Information Systems Security - OIG believes that due to the evolving nature of
technology, the magnitude of system development activities, and new technology
implementation efforts, EPA-must continue to implement adequate security measures to help
ensure the smooth functioning of information systems and protect the Agency.
EPA continues to improve the management and oversight of the Agency
information security program and has successfully demonstrated a high level of security
for its information resources and environmental data. In FY 2004, EPA closed
Information Security as an Agency weakness. Highlights of progress include:
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Finalized an interim System Life Cycle Policy and Interim Procedures document.
• Enhanced security programs through risk assessments, penetration testing, and
monitoring of firewalls and intrusion detection systems.
• Implemented a comprehensive strategy to address security-related deficiencies
systematically.
. Validated the effectiveness of management controls developed to address
security-related deficiencies.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Established a robust training program that requires all EPA employees with
significant security responsibilities to complete at least two role-based security
training courses.
Developed a draft EPA Certification & Accreditation (C&A) Guide, a tool
designed to help assist EPA staff in conducting a C&A for EPA information
systems.
• Completed all corrective action plans for previously identified security-related
Automated Security Self Evaluation and Remediation Tool (ASSERT)
weaknesses.
Ill-17
-------
Inconsistency Among EPA's Regional Offices - GAO feels that inconsistency in
program delivery among EPA's regional offices has often gone beyond the level that should be
expected taken into account geographical diversity.
While EPA has mechanisms in place to ensure basic consistency in
environmental programs, the Agency expects and encourages some variation in
regional-state interaction. States and regions have differing ecological, economic, and
other factors that influence which environmental laws and regulations require the most
immediate attention and how they can be most effectively managed. EPA has s
significant effort underway with the states to improve alignment of the budget and
planning process and to better define performance expectations.
Highlights from Prior Years:
• Improved alignment of EPA and state planning and budgeting process to better
define performance expectations.
• Developed the State Enforcement Program Review Framework to achieve
greater consistency among state and regional enforcement program.
• Established various internal and external working groups to improve program
consistency, communication and coordination on water quality standards issues
across regions and states.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Continued to convene monthly meetings of the WQS Managers Association,
Regional WQS Coordinators, and Regional Endangered Species Act
Coordinators to discuss issues of national significance and ensure an
appropriate level of consistency.
Ill-18
-------
Section IV
Financial Statements
Introduction to Financial Section
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis
Principal Financial Statements
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
1. Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
2. Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-11, Section 52.4a)
3. Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements
November 15, 2005
-------
Introduction to Financial Section
EPA earned a clean opinion on the financial statements. The auditors identified nine reportable
conditions, one non-compliance issue and no material weaknesses. The Chief Financial
Officer's Analysis provides comments on the audit results.
This section of the Performance and Accountability Report contains the Agency s financial
statements, required supplementary information and related Independent Auditor's Report, as
well as other information on the Agency's financial management. Information presented here
satisfies the reporting requirements of OMB Circulars A-l 1 (Section 52.4a) and A-136,
Financial Reporting Requirements, as well as the following legislation:
• Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
Government Management Reform Act of 1994
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
The first portion of this section contains the Principal Financial Statements. The statements
provide a comparison of FY 2005 and 2004 data. EPA prepares the following required
statements:
• Balance Sheet - presents, as of a specific time, amounts of future economic benefits
owned or 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 Financing - serves as a bridge between an entity's budgetary and financial
(i.e., proprietary) accounting. The statement articulates the relationship between net
obligations derived from an entity's budgetary accounts and net cost of operations
derived from the entity's proprietary accounts by identifying and explaining key
differences between the two numbers.
• Statement of Custodial Activity - reports collection of nonexchange revenue for the
General Fund of the Treasury, trust funds, or other recipient entities. EPA, as the
collecting entity, does not recognize these collections as revenue. Rather, the Agency
accounts for sources and disposition of the collections as custodial activities on this
statement.
IV-1
-------
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
heen or was scheduled to be and which, therefore, is put offer delayed for a future
period.
• Jntragovernmental Amounts - reports assets, liabilities, and revenues and costs related to
transactions between Federal entities.
• Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources - provides information by Agency fund
group about how the budgetary resources were made available as well as their status at
the end of the period.
• Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements - provides Balance Sheet and Statement of
Cost for EPA's Working Capital Fund.
The Required Supplementary Stewardship Information portion provides information on
substantial investments made by the Federal Government for the benefit of the nation - physical
assets not owned by the Government. EPA reports on Stewardship Land (land and easement
acquisitions/withdrawal) as well as Stewardship Investments for Non-Federal Physical Property
(clean water and drinking water facilities), Human Capital (awareness training and fellowships),
and Research and Development.
v
The Supplemental Information portion of Section IV presents the following unaudited
information:
• Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes - provides information on the
Superfund Trust Fund.
• Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-l I, Section 52.4a) - reports
on the Agency's financial management goals and strategies, performance, and systems
framework.
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report - reports on EPA's efforts to
identify and eliminate erroneous payments.
The Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements provides
the 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.
IV-2
-------
Statement of Limitations Regarding the Principal Financial Statements
The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and
results of operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515 (b).
While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for Federal entities and
the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to
monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records.
The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S.
Government, a sovereign entity.
IV-3
-------
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis of
EPA's Fiscal Year 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements
Below is the Chief Financial Officer's analysis of EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 and 2004
Financial Statements reportable conditions, and noncompliance issues. During the audit, OIG
observed and noted nine reportable conditions and one noncompliance issue, none of which are
material.
Reportable Conditions
1. Payroll Internal Controls
OIG found that EPA made payroll payments to separated employees. OIG recommends that
OCFO work with EPA's Administration and Resources Management office to ensure proper
processing of personnel actions, modify automated controls, and reinforce existing controls.
At the beginning of FY 2005, OCFO implemented a new time and attendance system. OCFO
made significant strides to assure system transparency to the Agency and compliance with
established payroll policies and procedures. In FY 2006, OCFO will continue to validate
payroll system internal controls, enforce existing procedures, and take further corrective
actions as necessary.
2. Excess Salary Payments
OIG found the OCFO's payroll system made excess salary payments to employees totaling
$14,891 of a $54 million bi-weekly payroll, which equates to 0.04% of total payroll.
OCFO has automated internal controls in place for the majority of potential causes for salary
overpayments and manual controls in place for many others. OCFO is initiating
enhancements to broaden the scope of automated controls to replace existing manual
controls. We will continue to evaluate the results as part of our bi-weekly payroll review
process.
3. Superfund State Contract (SSC) and Superfund Unbilled Oversight Accruals
The OIG noted areas where increased oversight would improve the management of SSC and
Superfund unbilled oversight accruals.
In the past year, OCFO made considerable progress towards assuring consistency with SSC
and Superfund unbilled oversight accrual calculations. As OCFO continues its efforts to
consolidate accounting operations, we will explore options for centralizing these accrual
processes.
4. General Ledger Account Adjustments for Receivables Transferred to Cincinnati
Finance Center
rv-4
-------
OIG identified regional offices' accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts that
needed adjustment during an OCFO functional consolidation process.
As part of the process to consolidate EPA's financial operations into four finance centers, the
Agency successfully transferred five of the ten regions' accounts receivable functions to one
finance center. An account analysis identified accounting point balances that required
adjustments that are reflected in the financial statements. As the Agency progresses in
transferring the accounts receivable functions from the remaining five regions, OCFO will
continue to monitor appropriate general ledger accounts and assist the Financial Management
Officers in resolving account balance issues.
5. Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews
The OIG recommends increased oversight of the QA program activity to ensure
comprehensive reviews and adequate documentation.
In FY 2005, OCFO made significant progress with the QA program. OCFO updated and
published the QA Guide on the EPA intranet. It reflects current policies, procedures, and
approaches to evaluating accounting functions. In addition, OCFO conducted a specialized
session on QA reviews and their relationship to the revised OMB Circular A-123
requirements. To continue the QA program's success, OCFO is conducting a training class
in December 2005 for Agency finance personnel.
6. Distribution of the Budget Clearing Accounts
OIG identified interagency transactions that were inappropriately distributed.
In this instance, EPA billed other agencies and two transactions were returned two days prior
to the close of the fiscal year. EPA reissued the bills in October 2005 and the FY 2005
financial statements reflect the appropriate accounting adjustments.
7. Documentation of Adjustments to the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS) Entries
The OIG noted instances of adjusting entries made without proper or adequate
documentation.
OCFO's Policy Announcement 93-02, dated November 13,1992, requires adequate source
documentation to support all financial transactions. OCFO will insist that Financial
Management Officers ensure that all adjusting transactions entered into the Agency's
accounting system be adequately documented and easily accessible in accordance with the
Policy Announcement.
IV-5
-------
8. Correcting Rejected Transactions
OIG observed instances of rejected data transfers between PeoplePlus (PPL) and IFMS that
were not resolved in a timely manner.
OCFO took action to identify and correct the rejected data for 16 employees. The Office of
Human Resources implemented a control that should prevent a reoccurrence.
9. Contingency Plans for Financial Applications
OIG noted instances where contingency plans for financial systems did not fully comply with
Federal or EPA continuity guidelines.
OCFO remains firmly committed to securing its system and data in a cost effective manner
and in compliance with Federal guidance, EPA policy, and best practices. In FY 2006,
OCFO will revise current contingency plans to clearly state the critical operations, supporting
resources, and alternate processing procedures for the financial systems identified by the
OIG.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Noncompliance Issues
10. Intragovernmental Transactions
s
As OIG acknowledged, OCFO greatly improved reconciliations of its intragovernmental
transactions during FY 2005. However, at year end, EPA was unable to reconcile a large
difference with one Federal agency.
EPA believes this is a result of differing accounting methodologies between agencies.
EPA will continue efforts to reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental transactions to
comply with Federal financial reporting requirements.
IV-6
-------
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. Consolidated Statement of Financing
7. Statement of Custodial Activity
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balances with Treasury
Note 3. Cash
Note 4. Investments
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
Note 6. Other Assets
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net - Non-Federal
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Note 9. General Plant, Property and Equipment
Note 10. Debt
Note 11. Custodial Liability
Note 12. Other Liabilities
Note 13. Leases
Note 14. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Note 15. Cashout Advances
Note 16. Unexpended Appropriations
Note 17. Amounts Held by Treasury
Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies
Note 19. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Note 20. Environmental Cleanup Costs
Note 21. State Credits
Note 22. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 23. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 24. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 25. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 26. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 27. Offsetting Receipts
Note 28. Statement of Financing
Note 29. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
IV-7
-------
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Note 30. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 31. Imputed Financing
Note 32. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 33. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 34. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 3 5. Other, Statement of Financing
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
1. Deferred Maintenance (Unaudited)
. 2. Intergovernmental Assets (Unaudited)
3. Intragovernmental Liabilities (Unaudited) '
4. Intragovernmental Revenues and Costs (Unaudited)
5. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
6. Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
1. Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
2. Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 52.4a)
3. Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
IV-8
-------
1.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Balance Sheet
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2005
FY2004
ASSETS
Intragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Notes 4 and 17)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Other (Note 6)
Total Intragovernmental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets (Note 3)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Loans Receivable, Net - Non-Federal (Note 7)
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net (Note 9)
Other (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 11)
Other (Note 12)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 14)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 20)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note IS)
Commitments & Contingencies (Note 18)
Payroll & Benefits Payable (Note 32)
Other (Notes 12 and 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations (Note 16) .
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,139,207 $
4,811,065
66,060
2,335
17,018,667 $
10
374,668
39,347
708,716
2,789
18,144,197 $
$
119,836
21,744
142,347
106,530
390,457 $
730,278
39,380
6,989
270,811
1,950
190,394
98,064
1,728^23 $
11,007,589 $
5,408,285
16,415,874
12,065,145
4,534,498
42,770
1,320
16,643,733
10
414,495
48,927
673,363
1,508
17,782,036
104,664
24,101
52,216
78,121
259,102
881,851
40,281
8,407
259,361
1,625
180,746
103,916
1,735,289
10,860,136
5,186,611
16,046,747
18,144,197 S 17,782,036
IV-9
-------
2.
Environmental Protection
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal (Note 19)
Earned Revenues, Non-Federal (Note 19)
Total Earned Revenues
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
$
$
1,238,395 $
7,259,027
8,497,422 $
105,653 $
357,824
$_
$
463.477 S
8,033,945 S
FY 2004
1,205,696
7,649,867
8,855,563
66,262
280,099
346.361
8,509,202
IV-10
-------
3.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30,2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
CletnAir
Costs:
Intragovernmental S 186,667
With the Public 803,822
Total Costs 990,489
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal 20,295
Earned Revenue, non Federal 2,205
Total Earned Revenue 22,500
Clean & Safe Water
$ 209,631
3,297,570
3.507,201
15,444
2,570
18,014
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
$ 376,717
1,639,157
2,015,874
42,567
312.487
355,054
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
$ 280,492
992.360
1.272,852
15,638
32,509
48,147
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
174,321
539,857 i
714,178 i
12,000
1,353
13,353
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
S 967.989
3,489,187 $ 1,660,820
1,224,705
700,825
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue
Not Assigned to
Goals Consolidated Totals
$ 10,567 $
(13,739)
(3,172)
1,238,395
7.259,027
8.497.422
S
(291)
6,700
6,409
S
105,653
357,824
463,477
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
8,033,945
IV-11
-------
3.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30,2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
NET COST OF OPERATIONS $
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
Clean Air
168,684 S
774,151
942,835 S
21,092 S
970
22,062 S
920,773 $
Not Assigned
to Goals
31,146 $
(12,959)
18,187 $
(2,001) S
14,143
12,142 S
6,045 $
Land Healthy Compliance &
Clean and Preservation Communities Environmental
Safe Water & Restoration & Ecosystems Stewardship
177,573 S 411,593 S 257,208 S
3,835,046 1,610,080 885,982
4,012,619 S 2,021,673 S 1,143,190 $
6,320 S 19,877 $ 7,117 $
1,996 227,936 33,556
8,316 S 247,813 S 40,673 S
4,004303 $ 1,773,860 $ 1,102,517 $
Consolidated
Total
1,205,696
7,649,867
8,855,563
66,262
280,099
346,361
8,509^02
159,492
557,567
717,059
13,857
1,498
15,355
701,704
rv-12
-------
4.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Prior Period Adjustments
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out
(Note 30)
Other Adjustments (Note 33)
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue (Note 34)
Transfers In/Out (Note 30)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out (Note 30)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 31)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Net Position - End of Period
Cumulative Cumulative
Results of Results of Unexpended Unexpended Consolidated Consolidated
Operations Operations Appropriations Appropriations Totals Totals
FY2005 FY2004 FY2005 FY2004 FY2005 FY2004
$
S
$
$
$
S
5,186,611 $
5,186,611 S
S
7,787,245
318,662
11,136
8,117,043 $
436 $
138,140
138,576 $
(8,033,945)
221,674
.5,124,926 $ 10,860,136$
5,124,926 $ 10,860,136$
$ 8,005,446 $
4,702
(75,450)
8,162,544 (7,787,245)
299,725
(19,807)
8,442,462 $ 147,453 $
(436) $ - $
128,861
128,425 $ - $
(8,509,202)
61,685 147,453
10,768,236$ 16,046,747 $
10,768,236 $ 16,046,747 $
8,322,860 $ 8,005,446 $
152 4,702
(68,568) (75,450)
(8,162,544)
318,662
11,136
91.900 $ 8,264,496 $
$ 436 $
138,140
$ 138,576 $
(8,033,945)
91,900 369,127
15,893,162
15,893,162
8322,860
152
(68,56g)
299,725
(19,807)
8,534,362
(436)
128,861
128,425
(8,509,202)
153,585
S 5,408^85 S 5,186.611 S 11.007,589 $ 10,860,136 S 16,415,874 $ 16.046,747
IV-13
-------
5.
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2005
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriations Received $ 8,032,620
Borrowing Authority 436
Net Transfers 1,348,725
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period 2,996,708
Net Transfers, Actual
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected $ 557,692
Receivable from Federal Sources 5,311
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received 37,615
Without Advance from Federal Sources 118,144
Transfers from Trust Funds Collected 69,572
Transfers from Trust Funds, Anticipated (20,890)
Total Spending Authority from Collections $ 767,444
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations (Note 25) 174,641
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 25) (11,141)
Permanently Not Available (Note 25) (78,244)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 24)
Resources
and 2004
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 24)
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 26)
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 26)
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS TO OUTLAYS
Obligations Incurred, Net
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning of Period
Accounts Receivable
Unfilled Customer Orders from Federal Sources
Undelivered Orders, Unpaid
Accounts Payable
Total Outlays (Note 24)
Disbursements
Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts (Note 27)
Net Outlays
$ 13,231,189
S 9,573,696
550,737
$ 10,124,433
3,018,689
88,067
13,231,189
$ 9,182,350
11,207,776
64,972
422,012
(10,636,009)
(987.090)
S 9,254,011
$ 9,918,889
(664,878)
(1,334.508)
FY2004
S 8,353,924
5,554
1,336,786
2,865,677
(1,538)
$ 471,777
(23,156)
(31,207)
7,288
67,959
(16,293)
$ 476,368
194,775
(8,254)
(71.203)
S 13,152,089
9,745,606
409,775
7,919,503
10,155,381
2,903,849
92,859
13,152.089
9,484,238
11,420,719
80,554
303,869
(10,467,637)
(1,124,560)
9,697,183
10,205,713
(508,530)
(1.350,841)
8,346,342
IV-14
-------
6.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations incurred
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting
Collections and Recoveries
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts (Note 27)
Net Obligations
Other Resources:
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 31}
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
Resources that Fund Prior Period Expenses (Note 28)
Budgetary Offeetting Collections and Receipts that Do Not
Affect Net Cost of Operations:
Liabilities for Guarantees of Subsidy Allowances
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net
Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations
FY200S
FY2004
$ 10,124,433 S 10,155,381
(942.084) (671,143)
$ 9,182,349 $ 9,484,238
(1,334,508) (1,350,841)
$ 7,847,841 S 8,133,397
138,140 128.861
$ 138,140 S 128,861
$ 7,985,981 $ 8,262,258
(33,501) $
(1,120)
4,337
87,031
(137,277)
192,871
(13,855)
4,142
93,304
(106,185)
(80,530) $ 170,277
7,905,451 $ 8,432,535
IV-15
-------
6.
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
WILL NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN
THE CURRENT PERIOD
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future
Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability (Note 28)
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability (Note 28)
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies (Note 28)
Up/Downward Reestimates of Subsidy Expense (Note 28)
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivable
Other (Note 35)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Requires
or Generates Resources in the Future
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Will Not
Require or Generate Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not
Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period
Net Cost of Operations
FY200S
FY2004
5 3,889 $
99
1,525
3
(101,645)
1,969
> (94,160) $
39,760
182,894
1 222,654 $
1 128,494 $
8,033,945 $
1,244
22,425
(59,937)
(36,268)
• 47,791
65,144
112,935
76,667
8,509,202
IV-16
-------
7.
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2005
FY2004
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Collections
Fines and Penalties
Other
Total Cash Collections
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 23)
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund)
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred
Total Disposition of Collections
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 23)
$
$
$
141,087 $
(53,836)
87,251 $
63,565
150,816 $
162,948
24,463
187,411
(24,865)
162,546
87,334 $
63,482
187,194
(24,648)
150,816 S_
$
162,546
IV-17
-------
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 Financial Reporting Requirements, OMB Circular A-136, 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 by the Agency's strategic
goals.
B. Reporting Entities
The EPA was created in 1970 by executive reorganization from various components of other
federal agencies in order to better marshal and 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 2005, the accompanying financial statements are grouped and presented in a consolidated
manner. The accompanying financial statements include the accounts of all funds described in
this note by their 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 and center supplies, certain operating expenses, grants, contracts,
intergovernmental agreements, and purchases of scientific equipment. These activities provide
the scientific basis for the Agency's regulatory actions. In FY 2005, Superfund research costs
IV-18
-------
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.
/ Payments to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Appropriation: The Payment to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriation Treasury fund group 0250, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted through the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Program.
g. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury fund
group 0118 for the subsidy and administrative support; under Treasury fund group 4322 for loan
disbursements, loans receivable and loan collections on post FY 1991 loans; and under Treasury
fund group 2917 forpre 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
Fund disburses the subsidy to the Financing Fund for increases in the subsidy. The Financing
Fund receives the subsidy payment, borrows from Treasury and collects the asbestos loans.
h. Allocations and Appropriations transferred to the Agency: Allocations and appropriations
transferred to the Agency from other federal agencies include funds from the Appalachian
rv-19
-------
Regional Commission, which provides economic assistance to state and local developmental
activities, and the Agency for International Development, which provides assistance on
environmental matters at international levels. The transfer allocations are accounted for under
Treasury fund group 0200 and the appropriation transfers are accounted for under 0108.
L 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.
j. General Fund Receipt A ccounts: General Fund Receipt Accounts include: Hazardous Waste
Permits; Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures; General Fund Interest; Interest from
Credit Reform Financing Accounts; Downward Reestimates of Subsidies; Fees and Other
Charges for Administrative and Professional Services; and Miscellaneous Recoveries and
Refunds. These accounts are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 0895, 1099,1435,1499,
2753.3,3200 and 3220, respectively.
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 for loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan collections on post FY 1991 loans.
Refer to General Fund Appropriations paragraph g. for details.
d. Working Capital Fund (WCF): The WCF, Treasury fund group, 4565, includes two
activities: computer support services and postage. The WCF derives revenue from these
activities based upon a fee for services. WCF's customers currently consist primarily of Agency
program offices and a small portion from other federal agencies. Accordingly, those revenues
generated by the WCF from services provided to Agency program offices and expenses recorded
by the program offices for use of such services along with the related advances/liabilities, are
eliminated on consolidation.
IV-20
-------
Special Funds (Treasury Fund Group 5000 - 5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt account,
Treasury fund group 5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with
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, 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, 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 hi 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)
Deposit funds include: Fees for Ocean Dumping; Nonconformance Penalties; Clean Air
Allowance Auction and Sale; Advances without Orders; and Suspense and payroll deposits for
Savings Bonds, and State and City Income Taxes Withheld. These funds are accounted for under
Treasury fund groups 6050,6264, 6265, 6266,6275 and 6500.
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.
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.
rv-21
-------
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, 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 adopts 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 Treasury. A
permanent indefinite appropriation is available to finance the costs of subsidy re-estimates that
occur after the year in which the loan was disbursed.
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.
IV-22
-------
Clearing accounts and receipt accounts receive no appropriated funds. Amounts are recorded to
the clearing accounts pending further disposition. Amounts recorded to the receipt accounts
capture amounts collected for or payable to the Treasury General Fund.
Revolving Funds
Funding of the 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 support and postage.
Special Funds
The Environmental Services Receipt Account obtains fees associated with environmental
programs that will be appropriated to the S&T and EPM appropriations.
Exxon Valdez uses funding collected from reimbursement from the Exxon Valdez settlement.
Deposit Funds
Deposit accounts receive no 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 Treasurys Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund when Congress adopts the
appropriation amount.
D. Basis of Accounting
Transactions are recorded on an accrual accounting basis and on a budgetary basis (where
budgets are issued). Under the accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and
expenses are recognized when a liability is incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of
cash. Budgetary accounting facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over the
use of federal funds. Material interfund balances and transactions are eliminated.
IV-23
-------
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), placed in special accounts. Special accounts were previously limited to settlement
amounts for future costs. However, beginning in FY 2001, cost recovery amounts received under
CERCLA Section 122 (b)(3) settlements could be placed hi special accounts. Cost recovery
settlements that are not placed in special accounts continue to be deposited in the Trust Fund.
The majority of all other funds receive funding needed to support programs through
appropriations, which may be used, within statutory limits, for 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 with
statutory limits. The Asbestos Direct Loan Financing fund, an off-budget fund, receives
additional funding to support the outstanding loans through collections from the Program fund
for the subsidized portion of the loan. The last year Congress provided appropriations to make
new loans was 1993.
The FIFRA and 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.
IV-24
-------
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 6).
J. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable
The majority of receivables for non-Superfund funds represent penalties and interest receivable
for general fund receipt accounts, unbilled intragovemmental 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.
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
IV-25
-------
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. States may pay the full amount of their share in advance, or incrementally throughout the
remedial action process. Allowances for uncollectible state cost share receivables have not been
recorded, because the Agency has not had collection problems with these agreements.
K. Advances and Prepayments
Advances and prepayments represent funds advanced or prepaid to other entities both internal
and external to the Agency for which a budgetary expenditure has not yet occurred.
L. Loans Receivable
Loans are accounted for as receivables after funds have been disbursed. Loans receivable
resulting from obligations on or before September 30,1991, 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 OIG, 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.
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.
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
IV-26
-------
the remedy at the site and eventually becomes part of the site itself. Once the response action has
been completed and the remedy implemented, EPA will retain control of the property, e.g., pump
and treat facility, for 10 years or less, and will transfer its interest in the facility to the respective
state for mandatory operation and maintenance - usually 20 years or more. Consistent with
EPA's 10 year retention period, depreciation for this property will be based on a 10 year life.
However, if any property is transferred to a state in a year or less, this property will be charged to
expense. If any property is sold prior to EPA relinquishing interest, the proceeds from the sale of
that property shall be applied against contract payments or refunded as required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
Real property consists of land, buildings, and capital and leasehold improvements. Real property,
other than land, is capitalized when the value is $75 thousand or more. Land is capitalized
regardless of cost. Buildings were valued at an estimated original cost basis, and land was valued
at fair market value if purchased prior to FY 1997. Real property purchased during and after FY
1997 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.
Software for Working Capital Fund, 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 whose acquisition value is $500 thousand or more in accordance with
the provisions of SFFAS No. 10, "Accounting for Internal Use Software." Software is
depreciated using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life ranging from 2 to
10 years.
O. Liabilities
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the
. Agency as the result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can
be paid by the Agency without an appropriation or other collections. Liabilities for which an
appropriation has not been enacted are classified as unfunded liabilities and there is no certainty
that the appropriations will be enacted. Liabilities of the Agency arising from other than
contracts can be abrogated by the Government acting in its 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.
IV-27
-------
Q. Interest Payable to Treasury
The Asbestos Loan Program makes periodic interest payments to Treasury based on its debt to
Treasury. At the end of FY 2004 and FY 2005, there 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 the
Statement of Financial Position as a component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable."
S. Retirement Plan
There are two primary retirement systems for federal employees. Employees hired prior to
January 1,1984, may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On January 1,
1984, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect pursuant to Public Law
99-335. Most employees hired after December 31,1983, are 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. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan to which
the Agency automatically contributes one percent of pay and matches any employee
contributions up to an additional four percent of pay. The Agency also contributes the
employer's matching share for Social Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
accounting and reporting standards were established for liabilities relating to the federal
employee benefit programs (Retirement, Health Benefits and Life Insurance). SFFAS No. 5
requires that the employing agencies recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement benefits
during their employees' active years of service. SFFAS No. 5 requires that the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), as administrator of the Civil Service Retirement and Federal
Employees Retirement Systems, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the
Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program, provide federal agencies with the actuarial
cost factors to compute the liability for each program.
T. Prior Period Adjustments
Prior period adjustments will be made hi 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.
IV-28
-------
Note 2. Fund Balances with Treasury
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30,2005 and 2004, consist of the following:
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill & Misc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Tolenmce
Working Capital
Cr. Reform Finan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
FY2005
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
$ 213,797 $
17,613
9,169
7,970
69,401
489
11,655,287
157.303
$ 213,797
17,613
9,169
7,970
69,401
489
11,655,287
8.178 165.481
FY 2004
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
$ 199,406 $
14,825
10,222
4,913
53,560
492
11,639,189
136.646
$ 199,406
14,825
10,222
4,913
53,560
492
11,639,189
5.892 142.538
$ 12,131,029 $ 8;178 $ 12,139,207 $ 12,059,253 $ 5,892 $ 12,065,145
Entity fund balances, except for special fund receipt accounts, are available to pay current
liabilities and to finance authorized purchase commitments (see Status of Fund Balances below).
Entity Assets for Other Fund Types consist of special purpose funds and special fund receipt
accounts, such as the Pesticide Registration funds and the Environmental Services receipt
account. The Non-Entity Assets for Other Fund Types consist of clearing accounts and deposit
funds, which are either awaiting documentation for the determination of proper disposition or
being held by EPA for other entities.
Status of Fund Balances:
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation
Unavailable for Obligation
Net Receivables from Invested Balances
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 17)
Obligated Balance not vet Disbursed
Non-Budgetary FBWT
Totals
FY200S
FY2004
3.018.690 $
88.066
(2.278,343)
19,965
11,136,112
154,717
2,903.849
92,861
(2,471,574)
201,438
1 1.207.766
130,805
12,139,207 $
12,065,145
The funds available for'obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in
expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing obligations. For FY 2005 and
IV-29
-------
FY 2004 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund
balances with Treasury.
Note 3. Cash
As of September 30,2005 and 2004, cash consists of an imprest fund of $10 thousand.
Note 4. Investments
As of September 30,2005 and 2004 investments consist of the following:
Cost
Unamortized
(Premium)
Discount
Interest
Receivable
Investments,
Net
Market
Value
Intragovernmental Securities:
Non-Marketable FY2005 S 4,762,154$ (16,261)$ 32,650$ 4,811,065$ 4,811,065
Non-Marketable FY2004 $ 4,459,647$ (47,536)$ 27,315$ 4,534,498$ 4,534,498
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund sites
from responsible parties (RP). Some RPs file for bankruptcy 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.)
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30,2005 and 2004, consist of the following:
FY2005 FY2004
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable $ 66,060 $ 42,770
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable $ 89,818$ 93,440
Accounts & Interest Receivable 1,092,376 1,015,721
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles (807,526) (694,666)
Total S 374,668 $ 414,495
The Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts is determined both on a specific identification basis,
as a result of a case-by-case review of receivables, and on a percentage basis for receivables not
specifically identified.
IV-30
-------
Note 6. Other Assets
Other Assets for September 30,2005 and 2004, consist of the following:
Intragovernraental Assets: FY2005 FY2Q04
Advances to Federal Agencies $ 1,102$ 767
Advances to WCF 827
Advances for Postage 406 553
Total Intragovernmental Assets $ 2,335 $ 1320
Non-Federal Assets:
Travel Advances $ (898)$ (1,008)
Letter of Credit Advances 9 271
Grant Advances 1,710 1,164
Other Advances 946 830
Operating Materials and Supplies 183 200
Inventory for Sale 204 51
Securities Received in Settlement of 635
Debt
Total Non-Federal Assets $ 2,789 S 1,508
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 30,2005 and 2004, are as follows:
FY2005 FY2004
Loans Value of Loans Value of
Receivable, Allowance* ^ssets Related Receivable, Allowance* Assets Related
Gross to Direct Loans Gross to Direct Loans
Direct Loans
Obligated Prior to $ 18,118$ - $ 18,118$ 25,243$ - $ 25,243
FY1992
Direct Loans
Obligated After FY 26,427 (5,198) 21,229 30,466 (6,782) 23,684
1991
Total S 44,545 $ (5,198) $ 39347 S 55,709 S (6,782) S 48,927
* Allowance for Pre-Credit Reform loans (prior to FY 1992) is die Allowance for Estimated Uncollectible Loans,
and the Allowance for Post Credit Reform Loans (after FY 1991) is the Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
IV-31
-------
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
Interest Rate Technical
Re-estimate Re-estimate
Total
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2005
Upward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2005
FY 2005 Totals
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2004
FY 2004 Totals
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
The Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities are current liabilities and consist of the following
amounts as of September 30,2005 and 2004.
$
$
$
$
(233) $
129
(104)
(2,660) $
(2,600) S
(203) $
128
(75)
(2,894) $
(2,894) S
(436)
257
(179)
(5,554)
(5,554)
FY2005
FY2004
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
Note 9. General Plant, Property and Equipment
Plant, property and equipment consist of software; real, EPA-Held and Contractor-Held personal,
and capital lease property.
As of September 30,2005 and 2004, Plant, Property and Equipment consist of the following:
$
$
$
S
774 $
19,878
99,184
119,836 S
FY2005
105,027 $
24
7
449,206
176,014
730,278 $
1,808
31,286
71,570
104,664
FY2004
93,262
19
41
594,124
194,405
881,851
IV-32
-------
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
.Capital Leases
Total
Acquisition
Value
$
194,410
146,132
56,746
558,689
50,111
FY2005
Accumulated Net Book
Depreciation Value
$ (109,683) $
(19,777)
(22,706)
(122,012)
(23,194)
84,727
126,355
34,040
436,677
26,917
Acquisition
Value
$ 188,844
105,634
61,571
547,876
49,956
FY2004
Accumulated Net Book
Depreciation Value
$ (112,793) $
(14,881)
(19,385)
(114,184)
(19,275)
76,051
90,753
42,186
433,692
30,681
$ 1,006,088 S (297,372) S 708,716 $ 953,881 $ (280,518) $ 673363
Note 10. Debt
The debt due to Treasury consists of the following as of September 30,2005 and 2004:
FY2005
Beginning Net
Balance Borrowing
Ending
Balance
FY2004
Beginning Net Ending
Balance Borrowing Balance
24,101$ (2,357)$ 21,744$ 21,189$ 2,912$ 24,101
All Other Funds
Intragovernmental:
Debt to Treasury
Note 11. 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.
IV-33
-------
Note 12. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30,2005:
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
$
$
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
12,731
17,392
4,737
41,207
60
(82)
1
_
-
76,046
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
s - $
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,484
22,000
S 30,484 S
Total
12,731
17,392
4,737
41,207
60
(82)
1
8,484
22,000
106,530
59,388 $
(70)
30
38,716
59,388
(70)
30
38,716
59,318$
38,746 S
98,064
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30,2004:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund*
Total Intragovernmental
S
s
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
10,760
3,522
32,724
3
(30)
1
437
_
-
47,417
Not Covered 'by
Budgetary-
Resources
$ - S
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,704
22,000
$ 30,704 S
Total
10,760
3,522
32,724
3
(30)
1
437
8,704
22,000
78,121
IV-34
-------
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal
Note 13. Leases
Capital Leases:
The Capital Leases:
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary
Resources Resources
$
$
56,824 $ - $
5,601
41,491
62,425 $ 41,491 $
Total
56,824
5,601
41,491
103,916
$
$
$
FY2005
40,913 $
2,761
6,437
50,111 $
23,194 $
FY2004
40,913
2,606
6,437
49,956
19,275
Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
Real Property
Personal Property
Software License
Total
Accumulated Amortization
EPA has three capital leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or
computer facilities. All of these leases include abase 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 FYs 2010, 2013, and
2025. These charges are expended out of the EPM appropriation.
EPA also has capital leases terminating in FY 2007 for seven shuttle buses. These leases are
expended out of the EPM 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. These leases terminate hi 2006 and
2009, respectively.
IV-35
-------
During FY 2005, EPA entered into a capital lease for a Storage Area Network. The lease
terminates in FY 2007 and payments are expended from the EPM appropriation. The total nature
minimum capital lease payments are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
Fiscal Year Capital Leases
2006 $ 8,888
2007 8,147
2008 7,866
2009 6,295
2010 6,101
After 5 Years 64,912
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 102,209
Less: Imputed Interest (63,493)
Net Capital Lease Liability S 38,716
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources
(See Note 12) $ 38,716
Operating Leases:
The GSA provides leased real property (land and buildings) as office space for EPA employees.
GSA charges a Standard Level User Charge that approximates the commercial rental rates for
similar properties.
EPA has three direct operating leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories
and/or computer facilities. Most of these leases include abase rental charge and escalator clauses
based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs are
adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the Bureau
- of Labor Statistics. Two of these leases expire hi FYs 2017 and 2020. A third lease, originally
expired in FY 2001, was extended until FY 2007. These charges are expended from the EPM
appropriation. The total minimum future operating lease costs are listed below.
Operating Leases, Land and
Buildings
Fiscal Year
2006 " $ 87
2007 81
2008 74
2009 74
2010 74
Beyond 2010 624
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 1,014
IV-36
-------
Note 14. Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost
protection to covered federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have
incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of 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 30,2005 and 2004, consists of the following:
FY2005 FY2004
FECA Actuarial Liability $ 39,380 $ 40,281
The FY 2005 present value of these estimated outflows are calculated using a discount rate of
4.528 percent in the first year, and 5.02 percent in the years thereafter. The estimated future costs
are recorded as an unfunded liability.
Note IS. Cashout Advances
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a settlement
agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified Superfund site.
Under CERCLA Section 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 hi special accounts may be used without further
appropriation by Congress.
Note 16. Unexpended Appropriations
As of September 30,2005 and 2004, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following:
Unexpended Appropriations: FY2005 FY2004
Unobligated
Available $ 1,887,884$ 1,911,797
Unavailable 40,328 39,591
Undelivered Orders 9,079,377 8,908,748
Total S 11,007,589 $ 10,860,136
IV-37
-------
Note 17. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consist of amounts held in trusteeship by
Treasury in the Superfund Trust Fund and the LUST Trust Fund.
Superfimd (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. Prior to December 31,1995, the
fund was also supported by other taxes on crude oil and petroleum and on the sale or use of
certain chemicals. The authority to assess those taxes and the environmental tax on corporations
also expired on December 31,1995, and has not been renewed by Congress. It is not known if or
when such taxes will be reassessed in the future.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September 30,
2005 and 2004. The amounts contained in these notes have been provided by Treasury and are
audited. As indicated, a portion of the outlays represents amounts received by EPA's Superfund
Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the Superfund Trust Fund
maintained by Treasury.
SUPERFUND FY 2005
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
Treasury
Combined
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
2,204,850
2,204,850 $
2,204,850 $
2,204,850 $
$
-
-
-
-
.
$
1,261,913 $
1,261,913
1,261,913 S
7,212 $
7,212
4,180
88,163
99,555 $
99,555 $
99,555 $
3,663 $
62,978
2,428
69,069
1,247,477
52,540
1,369,086 $
(1,261,913) $
(1,261,913)
107,173 S
7,212
7,212
4,180
2,293,013
2,304,405
2,304,405
2,304,405
3,663
62,978
2,428
69,069
1,247,477
52,540
1,369,086
-
1,369,086
— —
IV-38
-------
In FY 2005, the EPA received an appropriation for Superfund of $1,260.6 million. Treasury's
Bureau of Public Debt (BPD), the manager of the Superfund Trust Fund assets, records a liability
to EPA for the amount of the appropriation. BPD does this to indicate those trust fund assets that
have been assigned for use and, therefore, are not available for appropriation. As of September
30,2005 and 2004, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability to EPA for previously appropriated
funds of $2,204.9 million and $2,402.1 million, respectively.
EPA
Treasury
Combined
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
2,402,074
2,402,074 $
2,402,074 $
2,402,074 $
188,182 $
188,182
38
(184,778)
3,442$
11,061
(7,619) $
3,442$
188,182
188,182
38
2,217,296
2,405,516
11,061
2,394,455
2,405,516
SUPERFUND FY 2004
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Liability for Allocation to CDC
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to EPA
Transfers to CDC
Total Outlays
Net Income
During FY 2004, the Superfund Trust Fund revenue from cost recoveries and investment interest
was less than anticipated. In addition, in FY 2003 the Internal Revenue Service issued
approximately $99.4 million in corporate net tax refunds that were previously deposited in the
Trust Fund. Due to these circumstances, the amount appropriated to EPA for Superfund activities
exceeded the assets available for appropriation in the Trust Fund by $7.6 million at the end of FY
2004.
$
$
$
$
$
-
.
-
-
-
- . $
1,256,790 $
.
1.256.790
1,256,790 $
867 $
74,063
2,818
77,748
1,257,536
27,380
1,362,664 $
(1,256,790) $
(30,763)
(U87.553)
75,111 $
867
74,063
2,818
77,748
1,257,536
27,380
1,362,664
(30,763)
(30.763)
1331,901
IV-39
-------
LUST (Unaudited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In FYs
2005 and 2004 there were no fund receipts from cost recoveries. The following represents the
LUST Trust Fund as maintained by Treasury. The amounts contained in these notes have been
provided by Treasury and are audited. Outlays represent appropriations received by EPA's
LUST Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUST Trust Fund
maintained by Treasury.
LUST FY 2005
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel
Refund Aviation Tax
Cost Recoveries
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
Treasury
Combined
$ - $
-
-
86,584
$ 86,584 $
$ 86,584 $
$ 86,584 $
$ - $
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
$ - $
$ 69,440 $
69,440
S 69,440 $
12,754 $
12,754
28,470
2,398,823
2,440,047 $
2,440,047 $
2,440,047 $_
182,953 $
11,034
456
(1,760)
(2,643)
(342)
(30)
1,455
191,123
77,666
268,789 $
(69,440) $
- (69,440)
199,349 $
12,754
12,754
28,470
2,485,407
2,526,631
2,526,631
2,526,631
=^^^=
182,953
11,034
456
(1,760)
(2,643)
(342)
(30)
1,455
191,123
77,666
268,789
-
268,789
rv-40
-------
EPA
Treasury
Combined
LUST FY 2004
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Aiiport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies
EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions and claims brought by
or against it. These include:
• Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by employees and
others.
• Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by vendors,
grantees and others.
• The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific sites, to
include the collection of fines and penalties from responsible parties.
• Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be settled by a
reduction of future EPA funding to the grantee or the provision of additional grantee
matching funds.
$ - $
-
-
89,725
$ 89,725 $
$ 89,725 $
$ 89,725 $
$ - $
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
$ - $
$ 75,552 $
75,552
S 75,552 $
13,256 $
13,256
27,277
2,200,165
2,240,698 $
2,240,698 $
2,240,698 $
180,763 $
11,678
454
(1,535)
(2,136)
(227)
188,997
66,762
255,759 $
(75,552) $
(75,552)
180,207 $
13,256
13,256
27,277
2,289,890
2,330,423
2,330,423
2,330,423
180,763
11,678
454
(1,535)
(2,136)
(227)
188,997
66,762
255,759
.
255,759
IV-41
-------
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 30,2005, there are currently four CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative
claims and one contract claim. If the claimants are successful, the total losses on the
administrative and judicial claims could amount to approximately $38.2 million. The
Environmental Appeals Board has not yet issued final decisions on any of the administrative
claims; therefore, a definite estimate of the amount of the contingent loss cannot be made. The
claimants' chance of success overall is characterized as reasonably possible.
All Other Funds:
As of September 30,2005, there are five claims which may be considered threatened litigation
involving all other appropriated funds of the Agency. If the claimants are successful, the total
losses of the claims are estimated to range from $5.9 to $15.9 million. The largest claim
(estimated range from $2 to $12 million, deemed reasonably possible) is a Fifth Amendment
taking claim arising out of a Clean Water Act enforcement action.
Judgment Fund:
hi 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 30,2005, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury Judgment Fund.
However, EPA has a $22 million liability to the Treasury Judgment Fund for a payment made by
the Fund to settle a contract dispute claim.
Note 19. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Exchange revenues on the Statement of Net Cost include income from services provided, interest
revenue (with the exception of interest earned on trust fund investments), and miscellaneous
earned revenue.
IV-42
-------
Note 20. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30,2005, EPA has two sites that require clean up stemming from its activities.
Costs amounting to $ 18 thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment Fund. (The $ 18
thousand represents the lower end of a range estimate, of which the maximum of the range will
total $30 thousand.) Both claimants' chance of success is characterized as reasonably possible.
Additionally EPA has one site ($80 thousand) characterized as remote chance of success. EPA
also holds title to a site in Edison, New Jersey which was formerly an Army Depot. While EPA
did not cause the contamination, the Agency could potentially be liable for a portion of the
cleanup costs. However, it is expected that the Department of Defense and General Services
Administration will bear all or most of the cost of remediation. In addition, EPA has one site
that has an unfunded environmental liability of $30 thousand
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has 13 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure. The
estimated costs will be approximately $7 million. Since the cleanup costs associated with
permanent closure are not primarily recovered through user fees, EPA has elected to recognize
the estimated total cleanup cost as a liability and record changes to the estimate in subsequent
years.
The FY 2005 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs decreased by $1.4 million from the FY 2004
estimate. This decrease is due hi large part to completion of cleanup at one facility. EPA could
also be potentially liable for cleanup costs, at a GSA-leased site; however, the amounts are not
known.
Note 21. State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related federal regulations require states to
enter into SSCs when EPA assumes the lead for a remedial action in then- 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, m some cases, states may use EPA
approved credits to reduce all or part of their cost share requirement that would otherwise be
borne by the states. Credit is limited to state site-specific expenses EPA has determined to be
reasonable, documented, direct out-of-pocket expenditures of non-federal funds for remedial
action.
Once EPA has reviewed and approved a state's claim for credit, the state must first apply the
credit at the site where it was earned. The state may apply any excess/remaining credit to another
site when approved by EPA. As of September 30,2005, the total remaining state credits have
been estimated at $10.1 million. The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,2004 was
$5.4 million.
IV-43
-------
Note 22. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Under Superfund preauthorized mixed funding agreements, PRPs agree to perform response
actions at their sites with the understanding that EPA will reimburse the PRPs a certain
percentage of their total response action costs. EPA's authority to enter into mixed funding
agreements is provided under CERCLA Section 11 l(a)(2). Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(l),
as amended by SARA, PRPs may assert a claim against the Superfund Trust Fund for a portion
of the costs they incurred while conducting a preauthorized response action agreed to under a
mixed funding agreement. As of September 30, 2005, EPA had 15 outstanding preauthorized
mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $31 million. A liability is not recognized for
these amounts until all work has been performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for
payment. Further, EPA will not disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's
application, claim, and claims adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
Note 23. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
EPA uses the accrual basis of accounting for the collection of fines, penalties and miscellaneous
receipts. Collectibility by EPA of the fines and penalties is based on the RPs' willingness and
ability to pay.
FY2005 FY2004
Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts $ 150,816 S 162,546
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other
Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable $ 167,533$ 103,847
Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (51,954) (51,630)
TOtSl S 115,579 S 52,217
Note 24. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2005
Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2006
Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of the United
States Government with actual numbers for FY 2005 has not yet been published. We expect it
will be published by March 2006, and it will be available on the OMB website at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006. The actual amounts published for the year ended
September 30,2004 are included in EPA's FY 2005 financial statement disclosures.
IV-44
-------
FY2004
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations, Unfilled
Customer Orders and Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Superfund payment received from BPD recorded in
68X2050
Rounding Differences**
Reported for Budget of the U. S. Government
Budgetary g Out,
Resources
$ 13,152,089 $ 10,155,381 $ 9,697,183
622 (6,727)
19,899 6,322 6,108
(86,572) 8,644 (7)
(1,257,536)
498 1,380 (284)
S 11,829,000 S 10,165,000 S 9,703,000
* Expired funds are not included in Budgetary Resources Available for Obligation and Total New Obligations in the
Budget Appendix (lines 23.90 and 10.00). Also, minor funds are not included in the Budget Appendix.
** Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
Note 25. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations, Temporarily Not Available, and Permanently Not
Available on the Statement of Budgetary Resources consist of the following amounts:
FY2005
FY2004
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations-downward
adjustments of prior years' obligations
Temporarily Not Available-rescinded authority
Permanently Not Available:
Payments to Treasury
Rescinded authority
Canceled authority
Total Permanently Not Available
Note 26. Unobligated Balances Available
The availability of unobligated balances consists of the following as of September 30,2005 and
2004. Unexpired unobligated balances are available to be apportioned by the OMB for new
obligations at the beginning of the following fiscal year. The expired unobligated balances are
only available for upward adjustments of existing obligations.
174,641 S
(11,141)
(2,793)
(64,018)
(11,433)
(78,244) $
194,775
(8,254)
(2,641)
(49,099)
(19,463)
(71,203)
Unexpired Unobligated Balance
Expired Unobligated Balance
Total
FY2005
3,011,341
95,415
FY2004
2,903,849
92,859
FV-45
-------
Note 27. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt
accounts offset gross outlays. For FYs 2005 and 2004, the following receipts were generated
from these activities:
FY2005 FY2004
66,419 $
20,176
436 '
1,247,477
74,063
13,688
5,554
1,257,536
$ 1334,508 S 1350,841
Trust Fund Recoveries
Special Fund Environmental Service
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies
Trust Fund Appropriation
Total
Note 28. Statement of Financing
Specific components requiring or generating resources in future periods and resources that fund
expenses recognized in prior periods are related to changes in liabilities not covered by
budgetary resources. For FYs 2005 and 2004, the following line items are reconciled to the
increases or decreases in those liabilities.
Statement of Financing lines:
Resources that fund prior period expenses
Components requiring or generating resources in
future periods:
Increases in environmental liabilities
Increase in contingencies
Increase in annual leave liabilities
Up/downward re-estimates of subsidy exp.
Total
Increases (Decreases) in Liabilities Not Covered
by Budgetary Resources and Reconciling Items
Unfunded Annual Leave Liability
Unfunded Contingent Liability
Unfunded Judgment Fund Liability
Unfunded Workers Compensation Liability
Actuarial Workers Compensation Liability
Unfunded Clean-up Costs Liability
Unfunded Environmental Liability
Allowance for Subsidy
Subsidy re-estimates
Total
Note 29. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
FY 2005's Statement of Net Cost by Goal has $3 million in gross costs not assigned to goals.
This amount is comprised of decreases of $0.2 million in overhead costs, $22 million in
IV-46
FY2005
(1,120)
99
1,525
3,889
3
4^96$
4,092 $
325
-
(220)
(901)
1,269
' 30
-
(199)
4396$
FY2004
(13,855)
1,244
22,425
-
-
9,814
(7,029)
1,607
22,000
664
(3,815)
61
-
(3,097)
(577)
9,814
-------
operating expenses, $0.7 million in unfunded expenses; offset by increases of $16 million in
undistributed payroll costs, $0.3 in depreciation expenses, $0.6 million in other expenses, and $3
million in loss on disposition of assets.
FY 2004's Statement of Net Cost by Goal has $18.2 million in gross costs not assigned to goals.
This amount is comprised of decreases of $5.7 million in unfunded cleanup costs, $5.6 million in
overhead costs, $27.0 million in other unfunded expenses and $2.9 in subsidy expense; offset by
increases of $13.8 million in undistributed federal payroll costs, $3.7 million in depreciation
expense, $40.1 million in operating expenses, and $1.8 million change in actuarial liability.
Note 30. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2005 and 2004, the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources on the
Statement of Changes in Net Position are comprised of nonexpenditure transfers that affect
Unexpended Appropriations for non-invested appropriations. These amounts are included in the
Budget Authority, Net Transfers and Prior Year Unobligated Balance, Net Transfers lines on the
Statement of Budgetary Resources. Detail of the Appropriation Transfers on the Statement of
Changes in Net Position and a reconciliation with the Statement of Budgetary Resources follow:
Fund/Type of Account
GSA Building Fund
Appalachian Regional
Commission
S&T
EPM
Total Appropriation Transfers
Net Transfers from Invested
Funds
Transfers to Other Agencies
Allocations Rescinded
Total of Net Transfers on
Statement of Budgetary
Resources
FY200S
(992)
5,694
4,702
1,328,667
4,736
10,620
S
1348,725 $
FY2004
(1,538)
60
1,630
152
1,332,342
(5,157)
7,911
1,335,248
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
For FYs 2005 and 2004 Transfers In/Out under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement
of Changes in Net Position consist of transfers to or from other federal agencies and between
EPA funds. These transfers affect Cumulative Results of Operations. Detail of the transfers-in
and transfers-out, expenditure and nonexpenditure, follows:
IV-47
-------
Type of Transfer/Funds FY2005
Transfers-out,nonexpenditure to . ,. _,,.
other federal agencies \ > )
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure, from
Treasury trust fund to CDC "
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure, Oil ., 0_.
Spill 15'872
Total Transfers in (out) without
Reimbursement, Budgetary $ 11,136 S (19,807)
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2005 and 2004 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 FY2005 FY2004
Transfers of negative subsidy,
transfer-in paid and funded in year
following transfer-(out) $ - $ (436)
•Transfers-out of prior year negative
subsidy to be paid following year 436
Total Transfers in (out) without
Reimbursement, Budgetary S 436 S (436)
Note 31. Imputed Financing
In accordance with SFFAS No. 5, "Liabilities of the Federal Government," federal agencies must
recognize the portion of employees' pensions and other retirement benefits to be paid by the
OPM trust funds. These amounts are recorded as 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
2005 were $129.7 million. For FY 2004, the estimates were $126 million.
hi addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records imputed
costs and financing for Treasury Judgment Fund payments on behalf of the agency. Entries are
made in accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 2,
"Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions." For FY 2005 entries for Judgment
Fund payments totaled $8.4 million. For FY 2004, entries for Judgment Fund payments totaled
$2.8 million.
FV-48
-------
Note 32. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30,2005 and
2004, consist of the following:
FY 2005 Payroll & Benefits
Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-
TSP
Other Post-employment Benefits
Payable
Accrued Unfunded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
FY 2004 Payroll & Benefits
Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll and
Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-
TSP
Other Post-employment Benefits
Payable
Accrued Funded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
Note 33. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Other Adjustments under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position consist of rescissions to appropriated funds and cancellations of funds that expired five
years earlier. These amounts affect Unexpended Appropriations.
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary Total
Resources Resources
$
S
$
S
30,881 $
26,977
1,896
36
320
-
60,110 $
29,845 $
22,771
1,583
36
320
-
54,555 $
$ 30,881
26,977
1,896
36
320
130,284 130,284
130,284 S 190,394
$ 29,845
22,771
1,583
36
320
126,191 126,191
126,191 S 180,746
Rescissions to General Appropriations
Canceled General Authority
Total Other Adjustments
FY2005 FY2004
$ 64,017 $ 49,105
11,433 19,463
$
75,450 $
68,568
Note 34. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position for FYs 2005 and 2004 consists of the following items:
IV-49
-------
FY200S
130,206
194,786
(26,506)
20,176
318,662
S
$
FY2004
94,142
189,864
1,973
13,746
299,725
Interest on Trust Fund Investments
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Total Nonexchange Revenue
Note 35. Other, Statement of Financing
The Other balance of $1,9 million in the Statement of Financing represents a portion of the 1993
Cost Recovery received from the Uniroyal bankruptcy judgment that was transferred from the
Treasury Managed Receipt Account 20X8145.4 to the Superfund Trust Account 68-20X8145 in
FY 2005. The transfer was necessary in order to execute an expenditure that was ordered from a
February 2005 consent decree.
IV-50
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
As of September 30,2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
1. 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.
2. Intragovernmental Assets
Intragovemmental amounts represent transactions between all federal departments and agencies
and are reported by trading partner (entities that EPA did business with during FY 2005).
Trading
Partner Accounts Other
Code Agency Investments Receivable Assets
4
11
• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
29
31
36
Government Printing Office
Executive Office of the President
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of the Navy
U. S. Postal Service
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of the Army
Federal Trade Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Department of Veteran Affairs
-
752
194
945
13,707
392
5
135
169
(326)
4,811,065 1,828
9,950
5
375
11
957
-
-
134
-
-
-
-
406
-
-
-
-
-
-
45 Equal Employment Opportunity -
Commission
47 General Services Administration - 301
49 National Science Foundation - 36
57 Department of me Air Force - 222
61 Consumer Product Safety - 8
Commission
64 Tennessee Valley Authority - (5)
IV-51
-------
Trading
Partner
Code Agency
69 Department of Transportation
70 Department of Homeland
Security
7 1 Overseas Private Investment
Corporation
72 Agency for International
Development
75 Department of Health and
Human Services
80 National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
86 Department of Housing and
Urban Development
89 Department of Energy
91 Department of Education
95 Independent Agencies
96 US Army Corps of Engineers
97 US Department of Defense
99 Treasury General Fund
00 Unassigned
Total
Accounts Other
Investments Receivable Assets
. 3,704
23,670
(13) -
(581)
8,256
175
67
3,026
144
726
(7,687)
3,581
210
2,179 838
$ 4,811,065 66,060 2335
3. Intragovernmental Liabilities
Trading
Partner
Code Agency
3 Library of Congress
4 Government Printing Office
10 The Judiciary
1 1 Executive Office of the
President
12 Department of Agriculture
1 3 Department of Commerce
14 Department of Interior
15 Department of Justice
16 Department of Labor
1 7 Department of the Navy
1 8 United States Postal Service
1 9 Department of State
20 Department of the Treasury
2 1 Department of the Army
Accounts Accrued Other
Payable Liabilities Liabilities
107 98
1,040 1,957
(18)
41 16
785 1,851
888 4,704 4,468
901 5,6-12 4,894
617 5,858 9,865
2,258 1,220 8,506
836 2,641
164 97
22
155 36,425
2,992
IV-52
-------
Trading
Partner
Code
24
31
33
36
45
47
49
50
57
59
63
64
69
70
72
73
75
80
86
89
93
95
96
97
99
00
Total
Agency
Office of Personnel
Management
US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Veterans
Affairs
EEOC
General Services
Administration
National Science Foundation
Securities and Exchange
Department of the Air Force
Nat'l Foundation on Arts and
Humanities
Labor Relations Board
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of Transportation
Department of Homeland
Security
Agency for International
Development
Small Business
Administration
Department of Health and
Human Services
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Department of Energy
Federal Mediation Service
Independent Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
Office of the Secretary of
Defense
Treasury General Fund
Unassigned
Accounts Accrued Other
Payable Liabilities Liabilities
625 10,170
15,178
16
13
28
506
22
42,299
539
33
336
17
125
147
28,323
50
(11,377)
9,936
54
4,077
2,303
121
8,773
3
375
11,441
(44,126)
183
100
10,684
153
615
5,149
9
6
11,531
2,323
_
(110)
2,530
-
16,632
- (177)
(734)
3,318
(5,650)
782
12
20,652 99,184 106,530
For remaining intragovernmental liabilities $21,744 thousand in Debt is assigned to the Department of
the Treasury (trading partner Code 20), and $142,347 thousand in Custodial Liability is assigned to the
Treasury General Fund (trading partner Code 99).
IV-53
-------
EPA has confirmed the year-end intragovemmental fiduciary assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses
with the BPD, DOL, and OPM. EPA has also contacted several other federal agencies to confirm
nonfiduciary intragovemmental balances for year-end as required.
4. Intragovemmental Revenues and Costs
EPA's intragovemmental earned revenues are not reported by trading partners because they are
below OMB's threshold of $500 million.
Intragovemmental Earned Revenue $ 105,653
Associated Costs to generate above Revenue (Budget Functional Classification 304) $ 105,653
IV-54
-------
5.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30,2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
STAG
EPM
S&T
FIFRA
LUST
OTHER
TOTAL
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriations Received
Borrowing Authority
Net Transfers
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Transfers from Trust Funds Collected
Transfersf from Trust Funds, Anticipated
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations
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
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS TO OUTLAYS
Obligations Incurred, Net
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning of Pd
Accounts Receivable
Unfilled Customer Orders from Federal Sources
Undelivered Orders, Unpaid
Accounts Payable
Total Outlays
Disbursements
Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts
Net Outlays
$
s
s
$a=
s
s
s
e
LA
$
S
s
s
3,604,182
-
-
1,452,575
7,801
-
.
-
-
-
7,801
42,734
-
(28,833)
5,078,459
3,608,484
26
3,608,510
1,469,949
.
5,078,459
— .. ._• i —— ••-
re
3,557,975
8,272,160
-
.
(7,855,707)
(395,439)
3,578,989
3,586,790
(7,801)
-
3,578,989
$
$
S
s.
$
s
$,
$
$
$
$
2,313,409
-
5,694
331,925
63,476
5,651
2,107
132,679
-
-
203,913
14,880
-
(24,892)
2.844.929
2,315,355
157,961
2,473,316
297,045
74,568
2,844,929
2,254,523
690,182
17,670
257,791
(746,822)
(198,864)
2,274,480
2340,064
(65,584)
-
2,274,480
S
$
S
$
I
$
s
$
1
$
$
s
$
750,350
.
(992)
285,394
8,758
(155)
(334)
(2,300)
55,942
(20,134)
41,777
4,994
(289)
(10,636)
1,070,598
^ass^sssssss
825,674
6,726
832,400
220,896
17,302
1,070,598
785,629
535,704
48,106
6,720
(530,333)
(97,460)
748,366
812,732
(64,366)
-
748366
S
S
$
$
S
s
$
s
a
s
s
s
$
-
-
2,533
23,857
-
4,159
-
-
-
28,016
101
-
-
30,650
JSSS^SSSSSSS
25,663
25,663
4,987
-
30,650
(2,454)
2,348
.
.
(1,413)
(1,536)
(3,055)
24,961
(28,016)
-
(3,055)
S
S
s
s
s
£
S
S
*
S
$
s
s
.
70,000
6,287
17
-
.
-
-
-
17
376
(560)
-
76,120
sssssass^
70,660
70,660
5,460
-
76,120
70,267
85,008
.
.
(76,486)
(8,042)
70,747
70,763
(16)
.
70,747
$ 1,364,679 $
436
1,274,023
917,994
S 453,783 S
(185)
31,683
(12,235)
13,630
(756)
$ 485,920 S
1 1 1,556
(10,292)
(13,883)
$4,130,433 $
$ 2,753,523 S
360,361
S 3,113,884 $
1,020,352
(3,803)
$ 4,130,433 $
$ 2.516,410 $
1,622,374
(804)
157,501
(1,425,248)
(285,749)
$ 2,584,484 $
S 3,083,579 $
(499,095)
11,334,5081
$ 1,249,976 $
8,032,620
436
1,348,725
2,996,708
557,692
5,311
37,615
118,144
69,572
(20,890)
767,444
174,641
(11,141)
(78,244)
13,231,189
i — _. . — .—
9,573,696
550,737
10,124,433
3,018,689
88,067
13,231,189
9,182,350
1 1,207,776
64,972
422,012
(10,636,009)
(987,0901
9.254,01 L
9,918,889
(664,878)
(1,334,5081
7,919,503.
IV-55
-------
6.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Balance Sheet
ASSETS
Intragovemmental
Fund Balance With Treasury
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovemmental
Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
(Unaudited)
FY2005
$ 69,401
55,100
509
S 125,010
4
14,159
205
139,378
(Audited)
FY2004
53,559
27,874
555
81,988
20,426
53_
102,467
LIABILITIES
Intragovemmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Other
Total Intragovemmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
S
$"
28,071
67,191
95,262
14,226
1,556
4,986
116,030
29,788
30,413
60,201
11,108
1,451
6,726
79,486
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
23,348
139,378
22,981
102,467
IV-56
-------
6.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Statement of Cost
FY 2005 (Unaudited) Product or Business Line
Data Processing
Postage
(Profit)/Loss from Operations
Imputed Costs
Net (Profit)/Loss
$
$
Cost of Goods
and Services
Provided
182,720 $
2,171
184,891 $
Related
Exchange
Revenue
183,105 $
2,154
185,259 $
$
Exess of Costs
Over/(Under)
Exchange
Revenue
(385)
17
(368)
779
411
FY 2004 (Audited) Product or Business Line
Data Processing
Postage
(Profit)/Loss from Operations
Imputed Costs
Net (Profit)/Loss
Cost of Goods Related
and Services Exchange
Provided Revenue
150,829 $
2,586
153,415 $
141,445 $
2,581
144,026 $
Exess of Costs
Over/(Under)
Exchange
Revenue
9,384
5_
9,389
804
10,193
IV-57
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30,2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
INVESTMENT IN THE NATION'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
Public and private sector institutions have long been significant contributors to our nation's
environment and human health research agenda. EPA's Office of Research and Development,
however, is unique among scientific institutions in this country in combining research, analysis,
and the integration of scientific information across the full spectrum of health and ecological
issues and across the risk assessment and risk management paradigm. Research enables us to
identify the most important sources of risk to human health and the environment, and by so
doing, informs our priority-setting, ensures credibility for our policies, and guides our
deployment of resources. It gives us the understanding and technologies we need to detect, abate,
and avoid environmental problems. Research also provides the crucial underpinning(s) for EPA
decisions and challenges us to apply the best available science and technical analysis to our
environmental problems and to practice more integrated, efficient and effective approaches to
reducing environmental risks.
Among the Agency's highest priorities are research programs that address the environmental
effects on children's health; the development of alternative techniques for prioritizing chemicals
for further testing through computational toxicology; the 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 2005, the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities totaled over
$741 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
FY 2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005
Programmatic Expenses 555,794 559,218 593,295 581,323 628,467
Allocated Expenses 90,039 123,307 106,971 91,675 112,558
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.
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
IV-58
-------
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):
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005
Construction Grants 63,344 149,841 15,845 48,948 21,148
Clean Water SRF 1,548,270 1,389,048 1,295,394 1,407,345 1,127,883
Safe Drinking Water SRF 728,921 708,528 842,936 802,629' 715,060
Other Infrastructure Grants 282,914 367,259 582,091 341,767 385,226
Allocated Expenses 424,999 576,536 493,349 410,129 402,853
See the Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water portion in Section n of the PAR for more detailed
information on the results of the Agency's investment in infrastructure.
STEWARDSHIP LAND
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in
Section 104 (J) CERCLA related to remedial clean-up sites. The land rights are in the form of
easements to allow access to clean-up sites or to restrict usage of remediated sites. In some
instances, the Agency takes title to the land during remediation and returns it to private
ownership upon the completion of clean-up. A site with "land acquired" may have more than one
acquisition property. Sites are not counted as a withdrawal until all acquired properties have been
transferred.
IV-59
-------
As of September 30,2005, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
Superfund Sites with Easements
Beginning Balance 32
Additions 1
Withdrawals -
Ending Balance 33
Superfund Sites with Land Acquired
Beginning Balance 25
Additions 4
Withdrawals
Ending Balance 29
HUMAN CAPITAL
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of increasing
or maintaining the nation's economic productive capacity. Training, public awareness, and
research fellowships are components of many of the Agency's programs and are effective in
achieving the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment, but the focus is
on enhancing the nation's environmental, not economic, capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars
in thousands):
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Training and Awareness Grants 48,697 49,444 47,827 48,416 46,750
Fellowships 11,451 8,728 6,572 7,553 10,195
Allocated Expenses 9,744 12,827 9,808 8,826 10,199
IV-60
-------
1.
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet For Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005 FY 2004
ASSETS
Intragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note SI)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovenunental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets
Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovemmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Custodial Liability
Other
Total Intragovemmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
213,797 S
2,297,193
28,160
9,859
2,549,009 $
260,736
49,530
1,533
2.860,808 S
199,406
2,217,334
27,212
6,781
2,450,733
369,148
47,821
699
2,868,401
105,386 $
26,763
46,809
178,958 S
126,898
7,037
270,811
35,597
43,392
662,693 $
2,200,115
2,200,115
2,862,808 S
140,781
-
37,752
178,533
145,369
7,263
259,361
31,695
46,211
668,432
2,199,969
2,199,969
2,868,401
IV-61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2005
FY2004
COSTS
Intragovemmental
With the Public
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal
Earned Revenues, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
330,839 S
1,250,009
90,167
24,827 $
312,052
336.879 S
368,045
1,262,540
82,776
1,671,015 $ 1,713,361
27,450
233,171
260,621
1,334,136 S 1,452,740
IV-62
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue
Transfers In/Out
. Trust Fund Appropriations
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out
Imputed Financing Sources
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Net Position - End of Period
$
s
$
s
$
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY2005
2,199,969 $
2,199,969 $
29,697 $
(53,418)
1,247,477
90,167
1,313,923 $
$
20,359
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY2004
2,350,037
2,350,037
30,239
(87,586)
1,257,537
82,776
1,282,966
0)
19,707
20,359 $
19,706
(1,334,136) (1,452,740)
146 (150,068)
S 2.200,115 $' 2,199.969
IV-63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2005 FY2004
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Net Transfers S 1,274,023 S 1,259,096
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period 823,713 766,805
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected $ 250,487 S 229,658
Receivable from Federal Sources 648 (7,853)
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received 25,798 (44,218)
Without Advance from Federal Sources 5,789 5,978
Total Spending Authority from Collections S 282,722 $ 183,565
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations 104,852 98,848
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (10,060) (7,464)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note S6) S 2,475,250 $ 2,300,850
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 2,475.250 S 2,300,850
RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS TO OUTLAYS
Obligations Incurred, Net S 1,157,284 S 1,194,724
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning of Period 1,569,360 1,838,503
Accounts Receivable (5,240) (5,886)
Unfilled Customer Orders from Federal Sources 83,474 77,685
Undelivered Orders, Unpaid (1,320,488) (1,374,232)
Accounts Payable (225,698) (266,926)
Total Outlays S 1.258,692 ' S 1,463.868
Disbursements S 1,534,977 $ 1,649,308
Collections (276,285) (185,440)
Less: Offsetting Receipts (64,964) (74,063)
Net Outlays (Note S6) S 1,193,728 S 1389,805
S
$
1,369,647
175,211
1,544,858
930,373
S
S
1,328,864
148,273
1,477,137
823,694
IV-64
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting
Collections and Recoveries
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts
Net Obligations
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement,
Property
Imputed Financing Sources
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
Resources that Fund Prior Period Expenses
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts
that Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations:
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition
that Do Not Affect Net Cost
FY2005
$ 1,544,858$
(387,574)
$ 1,157,284$
(64,964)
$ 1,092,320:$
; ;
$ - $
20,359 ;
90,167! *
$ 110,526$
$ 1,202,846 ;$
$ 82,049:$
(278)
: 64,964
r: (iT^iioTT
; (48,682) ;
FY2004
1,477,137
(282,413)
1,194,724
(74,063)
1,120,661
0)
19,707
82/776
102,482
1,223,143
199,979
(2,243)
74,063
"~ (16,104)
(51,666)
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not
Part of the Net Cost of Operations
80,465 $ 204,029
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net
Cost of Operations
1,283,311 $ 1,427,172
IV-65
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30,2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY200S FY2004
TH^TWnXNO^ ^
J^O^ ~ "~ """ "' ~
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in
Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability $ 990 $
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivable (87,714) (41,446)
"6tner'(Note"S8) "" " 1,969 ~ " -~ ""
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that
Requires or Generates Resources in the Future • $ _ (84,755) $ (41,446)
Comp onents Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization^ 7,849 7,939
E^ensesNot Requiring Budgetary Resources 127,730 59.075
Total Components of Net CostLofpperat_ions
that Will Not Require or Generate Resources $ 135,579 $ 67,014
Total Component£ofNe^Cosi^ofOperations
that WUl Not Require or Generate
Resources in the Current Period $ 50,824 $ 25,568
Net Cost of Operations S 1,334,136 $ 1,452,740
IV-66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Related Notes to Superfund Trust Financial Statements
Note SI. Fund Balance with Treasury for Superfund Trust
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30,2005 and 2004 consist of the following:
FY2005 FY2004
Fund Balance S 213,797 $ 199,406
Fund balances are available to pay current liabilities and to finance authorized purchase
commitments (see Status of Fund Balances below).
Status of Fund Balances: FY 2005 FY 2004
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation $ 930,373 $ 823,694
Unavailable for Obligations 19 19
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,191,759) (2,381,849)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund 7,212 188,182
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 1,467,952 1,569,360
Totals $ 213,797 $ 199,406
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in
expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing obligations.
NoteS2. 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.
rv-67
-------
Note S3. Superfund State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related federal regulations require states to
enter into SSCs when EPA assumes the lead for a remedial action in their state. The SSC defines
the state's role in the remedial action and obtains the state's assurance that they will share in the
cost of the remedial action. Under Superfund's authorizing statutory language, states will provide
EPA with a 10 percent cost share for remedial action costs incurred at privately owned or
operated sites, and at least 50 percent of all response activities (i.e., removal, remedial planning,
remedial action, and enforcement) at publicly operated sites. In some cases, states may use EPA
approved credits to reduce all or part of their cost share requirement that would otherwise be
borne by the states. Credit is limited to state site-specific expenses EPA has determined to be
reasonable, documented, direct out-of-pocket expenditures of non-federal funds for remedial
action.
Once EPA has reviewed and approved a state's claim for credit, the state must first apply the
credit at the site where it was earned. The state may apply any excess/remaining credit to another
site when approved by EPA. As of September 30,2005, the total remaining state credits have
been estimated at $10.1 million. The estimated ending credit balance on September 30, 2004 was
$5.4 million.
Note 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 11 l(a)(2). Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(l),
as amended by SARA, PRPs may assert a claim against the Superfund Trust Fund for a portion
of the costs they incurred while conducting a preauthorized response action agreed to under a
mixed funding agreement. As of September 30,2005, EPA had 15 outstanding preauthorized
mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $31 million. A liability is not recognized for
these amounts until all work has been performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for
payment. Further, EPA will not disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's
application, claim, and claims adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
NoteSS. 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 2005 and 2004, the EPM appropriation funded a variety of programmatic and
non-programmatic activities across the Agency, subject to statutory requirements. This
appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits, travel, procurement, and
contract activities.
IV-68
-------
This distribution is calculated using a combination of specific identification of expenses to
Reporting Entities, and a weighted average that distributes expenses proportionately to total
programmatic expenses. As illustrated below, this estimate does not impact the consolidated
totals of the Statement of Net Cost or the Statement of Changes in Net Position.
Income From
Other
Appropriations
FY2005
Expenses From
Other
Appropriations
Net
Effect
Income From
Other
Appropriations
FV2004
Expenses From
Other
Appropriations
Net
Effect
Superfund $
All Others
Total $
90,167
(90.167)
(90,167)
90.167
82,776
(82,776)
(82,776)
82,776
S
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund from
the S&T and EPM funds are $6.9 million for FY 2005 and $14.1 million for FY 2004.
Note S6. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2005
Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2006
Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of the United
States Government with actual numbers for FY 2005 has not yet been published. We expect it
will be published by March 2006, and it will be available on the OMB website at
www.wMtehouse.gov/omb/budiget/rV2006. The actual amounts published for the year ended
September 30,2004 are included in EPA's FY 2005 financial statement disclosures.
FY2004
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Expired Funds41
Rounding Differences**
Reported for Budget of the U. S. Government
as
$ 2,300,850$ 1,477,137$ 1,463,868
18,714 5,137 6,108
5,885 5,904
(449) (178) _ 24
2325,000 $ 1,488,000 S 1,470,000
* Expired funds are not included'in Budgetary Resources Available for Obligation and Total New Obligations in the
Budget Appendix (lines 23.90 and 10.00).
** Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
IV-69
-------
NoteS7. 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:
FY2005 FY2004
Advances $ 9,256 $ 6,749
Expenditure Transfers Payable $48,903 $69,793
Accrued Liabilities $ 6,398 $ 3,916
Expenses $29,674 $22,663
Transfers $49,097 $52,008
Note S8. Other, Statement of Financing
The Other balance of $1.9 million in the Statement of Financing represents a portion of the 1993
Cost Recovery received from the Uniroyal bankruptcy judgment that was transferred from the
Treasury Managed Receipt Account 20X8145.4 to the Superfund Trust Account 68-20X8145 in
FY 2005. The transfer was necessary in order to execute an expenditure that was ordered from a
February 2005 consent decree.
IV-70
-------
2.
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-ll, Section 52.4a)
For the Year Ended September 30,2005
The information contained in this section addresses the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) compliance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-ll,
Section 52.4(a). These issues, including financial management goals and strategies, financial
management performance, and financial management systems framework, are discussed below.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES
EPA has assembled a talented cadre of financial managers whose strategic vision and
tactical planning have expanded the financial management frontier within EPA. Based on their
vision, the Agency embarked on an ambitious program of improvements in financial
management processes, information quality and accessibility, and the financial management
system. In addition, EPA successfully planned and implemented financial management
initiatives in response to new legislation and new or revised requirements from central guidance
agencies. With such a future-and results-oriented culture already established, it was easy for
EPA to embrace the principle of continuous improvement embodied in the President's
Management Agenda (PMA).
EPA constantly reassesses its financial management goals and its progress in achieving
them. Externally, our success is measured by:
• our continued ability to meet the evolving PMA standards for a "Green" status score
for the initiative on unproved Financial Performance,
• our continued progress toward a "Green" status score for the initiative on Budget and
Performance Integration, and
• our upgrade from a "Red" to "Yellow" status score for the initiative on Eliminating
Improper Payments.
In addition, EPA has met major financial management milestones that support the
maintenance of a "Green" status score for the initiative on E-Govemment and a "Green"
progress score for the initiatives on Human Capital and Competitive Sourcing. Although EPA is
proud of its record of success, it recognizes that it must continue to "push the envelope" hi order
to help the Agency achieve its environmental objectives in a cost effective manner.
In the near term, the enhanced internal control requirements hi OMB Circular
A-123 will strengthen our existing management integrity efforts and provide a platform to
broaden our scope and expand our focus on programmatic efficiency and effectiveness. This
activity will complement efforts planned or underway to achieve economies of scale and develop
and enhance financial information tools to meet the decision making needs of EPA managers.
IV-71
-------
EPA's financial management strategy focuses on running environmental programs in a
fiscally responsible manner, so that government's resources are used wisely and effectively to
protect human health and the environment. Implementation of the strategy requires effective
stewardship of the Agency's resources by:
carefully overseeing, capturing, and recording the full costs of transactions,
maintaining strong internal controls and proper accounting practices,
maintaining clean audit opinions,
producing timely, accurate financial information,
making timely and appropriate payments, and
ensuring that resources are appropriately expended and linked to results.
Year after year, EPA has set ambitious milestones and sought innovative and efficient
techniques to continually improve and achieve strong performance. The Agency's vision for
improving its financial management performance consists of continuing improvement efforts in
the areas described below.
• Streamline Financial Management Processes—EPA is implementing more
responsive financial management processes to utilize the Agency's resources more effectively
and meet the needs of financial managers. A consolidation of financial functions is currently
underway, and a modern financial management system framework is in the development phase.
• Develop Useful Information for Decision Making—EPA managers make decisions
every day that directly and indirectly affect the Agency's ability to protect human health and the
environment. EPA's challenge under the PMA is to ensure that decision makers have access to
the financial information necessary for informed decisions. To accomplish this, EPA established
a strategic approach to enhance the decision making in grants management; redefined the
Agency's accounting output to better capture cost information; worked to integrate budget and
performance data; and provided a Web-based reporting tool (ORBIT) to more managers.
• Improve Financial Operations and Increase Accountability—Continuous
improvement is central to all financial management activities in EPA: internal control programs,
financial management operations and practices, and customer service. In FY 2006, EPA will add
the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) as a new business line in the Working
Capital Fund on a pilot basis, and will establish base-line performance measures and build on
internal controls to enhance business operations. This change will allow regional and
Headquarters offices to receive better information on the financial management costs associated
with their programs.
• Provide Support to Other PMA Initiatives—As an Agency that strives for
continuous improvement, EPA supports financial efficiencies for other PMA initiatives such as
competition, technical innovation, and a knowledgeable and competent workforce. To foster
competition and to encourage continual evaluation of the Agency's problem solving capabilities,
competitive sourcing initiatives are incorporated into financial management proposals to foster
the highest quality of cost-effective services. E-gov initiatives, like competitive sourcing
initiatives, look beyond EPA's current capabilities and consider how to meet future needs.
IV-72
-------
EPA's initiatives are reliant upon an effective workforce that proactively examines
environmental challenges and offers versatile solutions.
• Develop the Competencies and Leadership to Meet Future Financial Management
Requirements—The ability to establish and achieve ambitious targets and goals is crucial to
continuous improvement, and the key to achieving the Agency's financial management goals is
our employees. To ensure that EPA continues to have the skills, the vision, and the leadership it
needs to meet current and future financial management requirements, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO) has developed and implemented a human capital strategy. During FY
2005, OCFO focused on hiring strategies that take into account both current and long-term skill
needs. Training and development of existing staff in core competency and leadership areas
continues to be a high priority.
EPA has laid the foundation to develop many of the tools that will support the Agency in
the coming years. For instance, a high-level vision has been established to replace legacy system
that integrate how the Agency captures and conveys financial and performance information. In
addition, EPA will ensure that the Agency's internal controls are effective in achieving the
Agency's strategic goals. Building upon this foundation, EPA expects to continue demonstrating
that its financial management operations, programs, and staff are flexible and adaptable enough
to meet current and future financial management needs.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
This section summarizes EPA's progress in improving financial management
performance and describes EPA's approach for ensuring continuing favorable audit opinions and
plans for developing and maintaining relevant and timely financial reporting practices.
Streamline Financial Management Processes
Consolidation of Financial Functions. To take the Agency to the next level of
performance, EPA is re-aligning financial functions from regional offices into Finance Centers
of Excellence to focus on major accounting functions and customer service responsibilities. By
consolidating these functions from 14 locations to the four finance centers, EPA will improve
efficiency by streamlining operations; increasing uniformity and consistency in the interpretation
and application of policies, rules, and regulations; eliminating communication problems; and
saving tax-payers dollars. During FY 2005, three regions transferred some or all of their finance
operations for grants, travel, and accounts receivable to the Centers of Excellence. In addition,
major union issues were resolved. The remaining accounting functions will be transferred to the
four Centers of Excellence by the end of CY 2006.
Financial System Modernization. EPA plans to implement a state of the art financial
system in 2008 to replace IFMS, the core accounting system. The new system environment will
support the Financial Management Line of Business by providing that the system be operated by
a Center of Excellence outside EPA. During FY 2005, a Financial System Modernization Team
was staffed, focus groups were created to develop requirements for the new system, and an
IV-73
-------
acquisition strategy and Concept of Operations (CONOPS) were developed. The CONOPS and
other documents are available at the EPA Internet at http://www.epa. gov/ocfopage/.
Develop Useful Information for Decision-Making
Budget and Performance Integration. Budget and performance integration (BPI) is a
key component of EPA's quest for better performance, increased accountability, better informed
decision making, and more transparent, comprehensive reporting of environmental results to the
public. This initiative aligns the management of EPA's financial and human resources with the
effective delivery of environmental results.
A comprehensive Agency-wide performance measurement improvement strategy was
developed to promote improved measures through consideration of environmental indicators,
assessment of program management requirements, and establishment of measurement
implementation plans. This strategy has supported the efforts of the program offices to establish
more outcome-oriented annual performance goals and measures as well as efficiency measures.
EPA is in the process of revising its Strategic Plan under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) covering the timeframe from 2006-2011. The Strategic Plan will be the
basis for EPA's FY 2008 President's Request and for the FY 2007 execution and performance
reporting under GPRA. Our goals for this revision include strengthening the linkage between
and integration of budget and cost information, enhancing the availability and use of this
information in setting priorities and making resource allocation decisions, and in promoting
accountability for results within the Agency.
The Performance Accountability Report (PAR), which consolidates Agency-wide
programmatic performance information, is one of the primary methods for sharing EPA's
progress on environmental protection with citizens and EPA employees, and therefore must
describe a clear, comprehensive picture of EPA's major achievements. EPA is redesigning the
PAR as part of a larger effort to merge information systems housing performance data with those
containing budget data. This effort will enhance public access to highly technical information,
make that information more meaningful to EPA employees, and increase the public's
understanding of the costs and expected results from EPA's programs.
The most recent PMA Scorecard (September 30,2005) rated EPA "Yellow" for status
and "Green" for progress made in reaching BPI milestones and goals during the Fourth Quarter.
EPA continues its efforts to improve performance measurement and integrate budget and
performance information to manage and deliver the Agency's environmental protection results.
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) administered by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), is a core element of the BPI initiative and a systematic method of assessing the
performance of program activities across the federal government. As a diagnostic tool, the
PART is used to evaluate program performance and identify areas for program improvement.
Programs subject to a PART assessment are required to have OMB-approved annual, long-term
efficiency measures. The PART assessments process has heightened the Agency's attention,
adoption, and utilization of new performance and efficiency measures to strengthen resource and
program management and deliver environmental results.
IV-74
-------
Since many of these efficiency measures are new - adopted as recently as the FY 2006
budget formulation process — the Agency does not, in all cases, have data to support these
measures. Currently, the Agency has completed PART assessments of 32 programs (including
12 new programs in the FY 2006 annual planning and budgeting process), covering more than 60
percent of the Agency's budget. The Agency has OMB-approved efficiency measures for 28 of
the 32 programs that were assessed by the PART during the FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006
budget formulation processes. For those measures currently without data, the Agency is working
hard to collect the necessary data and establish performance baselines and ambitious targets.
The Agency made significant progress in developing outcome-oriented performance and
efficiency measures and in demonstrating the ability to calculate the marginal cost of changing
performance goals. As a result of the PART exercise, organizations across the Agency have an
increased awareness and dedication to program performance by using performance data to
inform management of then* environmental programs. Through these initiatives and other
actions to tie Agency resources to performance and results, EPA can point to significant
accomplishments against the PMA's standards of success.
Data Integration. In a complementary PMA effort to produce useful information, EPA
has undertaken a multi-office data integration effort highlighting the use of financial information
to improve program efficiency and ensure sound financial management. The development and
application of the Agency's strategic plan for Data Integration is an iterative process.
Given the magnitude and complexity of EPA's mission, the Agency has committed to
focusing on one business process at a time. Grants management was chosen as the first area for
review. EPA is focused on reviewing and understanding the integration of financial and grants
management information. The Agency's focus on Unking grants management and financial data
will produce better information to ensure that projects funded by grants achieve EPA's
environmental objectives and grant recipients are technically competent to carry out the work.
EPA has developed baselines, targets, and milestones to measure its success. The
collective implementation and completion of these milestones will help to ensure the integration
of IFMS (or its replacement) and Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) data, ultimately
resulting in the elimination of duplicate data entry and maximum availability of Pre-Award and
Post-Award data.
In FY 2006, the Agency will focus on finalizing the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Numbering System Number Integration task under the Vendor Table Integration milestone;
defining the requirements of an Integrated Reporting Platform; and configuring the Websphere
application integration interface under the IGMS/IFMS Interface milestone, hi addition, the
Agency will refine its baseline estimate of unliquidated obligations for closed (or expired) grants
by reconciling the remaining (99) unmatched records between IGMS and IFMS. EPA also will
continue its efforts to finalize the identification of FY 2004 erroneous payments to non-profit
recipients.
IV-75
-------
In future efforts, the Agency anticipates undertaking similar analyses of other key risk
areas, including debt management, contracts management, and relevant areas captured by the
CFO metrics.
Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Council Government-wide Metrics. The CFO Council
Metric Tracking System (MTS) has been tracking government-wide results with nine metrics in
six financial management categories for all CFO Act Agencies since FY 2003. During the fourth
quarter of FY 2005, MTS tracked Agency performance, and EPA has achieved a "Green" status
for four of the CFO Council Government-wide Metrics tracked by MTS. We have corrective
action plans are in place for the remaining metrics.
OCFO Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT). ORBIT assimilates EPA's
financial, administrative, and program performance information and provides an enterprise-wide,
Web-based interface to assist Agency managers in making more informed decisions about their
programs and operations. In FY 2005, EPA established program and regional office information
centers and developed core budgeting and financial standard reports for ORBIT. This initiative
provided the Agency business consistency and a common platform to build the same reports
using the same data parameters from the same data source. EPA also worked to develop
ORBIT's Commitment Tracking Module, which will make program performance data more
readily available across the Agency and establish the foundation to emphasize the linkage of cost
and performance information. Finally, EPA implemented a new version of ORBIT, which added
a new data source for budget and financial reports, enhanced functionality.
For FY 2006, Phase HI development will focus on business intelligence analytics,
program cost accounting reporting, resources management, customization of program and
regional "information centers," and will begin to provide available Commitment System
performance data and PART assessment information. An outreach campaign will help the
Agency executives, managers, and staff to integrate ORBIT into daily management and decision
processes.
Improve Financial Operations and Increase Accountability
Eliminating Improper Payments. The PMA initiative on Eliminating Improper
Payments is focused on identifying, preventing, and eliminating erroneous payments. An
improper payment occurs when federal funds are paid to the wrong person or entity, the recipient
is paid an incorrect amount, or the recipient uses the funds improperly. This initiative is
important because taxpayers need to know that the government is using their tax dollars for their
intended purpose. Although the magnitude of improper payments government-wide is unknown,
17 agencies reported over $45 billion of improper payments in 41 programs in FY 2004.
The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) and subsequent guidance from
OMB required federal agencies to analyze the risk of improper payments for their highest risk
programs and prepare corrective action plans for those programs with significant risk.
Significant risk is defined as improper payments to either primary recipients or their sub-
recipients in excess of 2.5 percent of total program dollars and $10 million.
IV-76
-------
To comply with IPIA requirements, EPA assessed its rate of improper payments in FY
2003 by performing risk assessments on grants, contracts, payroll, and travel cards/purchase
cards. All four areas were determined to be "low risk" for improper payments based on the legal
guidelines. Across all programs, EPA's error rate for primary recipients was less than 1 percent.
In addition, the findings confirmed strong business management practices throughout the
Agency.
Even though EPA's improper payments were minimal, EPA espouses the notion of
continuous improvement. Because the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) are former Section 57 programs, EPA is
required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for them. The Agency's corrective action
proposed to reduce the error rate of improper payments in the CWSRF and DWSRF from 0.51%
to 0.35% over a three-year period.
EPA's challenge for the CWSRF and DWSRF improper payments initiative is to broaden
the scope of payment reviews. Through FY 2004, the Agency reviewed only direct payments
and found an error rate of 0.00 percent. For FY 2005, EPA is including a judgmental sample of
sub-recipient payments in the review process, hi FY 2006, EPA will conduct statistically valid
samples of grants payments to sub-recipients in New Hampshire and South Carolina and assess
the results of a Single Audit in Texas.
Consistent with IPIA requirements, EPA implemented a recovery audit program.
Although the final report is not due until the end of October, preliminary results indicate that the
error rate was less than 0.01 percent. (For more information on this initiative see the IPIA Report
on page 86.)
Clean Audit Opinions. Because a clean audit opinion is a top management priority, all
financial statements have been submitted timely and with clean opinions for the last five years.
EPA's approach to guarantee that the Agency obtains clean audit opinions in the future is as
follows:
• Strengthen the Quality Assurance Program. EPA's Quality Assurance Program
focuses on management's responsibility for internal control through effective quality
assurance processes and reviews, hi FY 2005, EPA revised its Quality Assurance Guide
(QA Guide) to reflect new or revised government-wide requirements and EPA policies and
procedures. The QA Guide is available at the OCFO website. To continue the QA
program's success, OCFO is conducting a training class in December 2005 for Agency
finance personnel.
• Automate the Statement Preparation Process. The Agency is in the process of
developing an automated procedure for identifying abnormal general ledger balances.
Implementing the new procedure will ensure the reh'ability of the underlying data and allow
EPA to shift resources from the mechanics of report preparation to detailed transaction
analysis and explanation of results.
IV-77
-------
• Resolve Audit Issues Quickly and Completely. The Office of Inspector General
(OIG) made 32 audit recommendations subsumed under ten reportable conditions, none of
which is material, and four noncompliance issues in its audit report on the FY 2004 financial
statements. EPA submitted corrective action plans for all reportable conditions and
compliance issues within ten months of OIG's FY 2004 Financial Statements Audit. EPA
will continue to emphasize quick resolution of audit issues and implementation of corrective
actions that avoid recurrences.
• Implement OMB Circular A-123 Aggressively. EPA is evaluating its existing
internal control programs to comply with the standards defined in OMB Circular A-123,
Management's Responsibility for Internal Control. EPA has developed and submitted to
OMB an implementation plan that ultimately will provide reasonable assurance that internal
controls for financial reporting are adequate to carry out the Agency's mission effectively
and efficiently. EPA's approach to implementing OMB Circular A-123 involves the
following four steps: (1) Incorporate new requirements into the Agency's existing
management integrity process and communicate changes to Agency managers and staff; (2)
Conduct a high-level assessment and identify areas of risk and concern in the Agency's
management integrity process by applying the fine control standard outlined in OMB
Circular A-123; (3) Develop test plans and evaluate results in key risk areas and areas of
concern agreed to by the Senior Management Council; and (4) Take necessary action to
establish the ability to provide reports of reasonable assurance. In the future EPA will use its
Quality Assurance Program in conjunction with the implementation of OMB Circular A-123
to ensure that internal controls are in place and adequate to ensure that the Agency's
strategic goals are achieved.
Relevant and Timely Financial Reporting Practices. EPA has successfully managed its
financial statement acceleration effort, which is critical to achieving a clean audit opinion. If this
information is to be optimally useful to Agency managers, Congress, and others, data must be
produced as quickly as possible after the reporting period ends. The Agency adopted
government-wide "best practices," such as ensuring senior management commitment, tracking
progress, using estimates and accruals to facilitate reporting, and holding bi-weekly audit status
meetings with the Chief Financial Officer and the Inspector General. In FY 2005, EPA produced
accurate and timely accelerated interim quarterly financial statements, completed Quality
Assurance Reviews to ensure the accuracy of Agency financial data, and automated preparation
of the Statement of Net Costs by Goal.
EPA will continue to produce accelerated audited statements, timely, accurate, and useful
interim statements, and timely financial data to assess program costs and aid the annual budget
formulation process. To make financial data more readily available for reconciliation purposes,
EPA will utilize ORBIT, EPA's business intelligence reporting tool. EPA's Closing Package,
needed for the preparation of the Financial Report (FR) of the U. S. government will continue to
be submitted to an Internet-based application used to aid in the preparation of the FR in
accordance with Government-wide Financial Reporting System (GFRS) requirements.
Furthermore, EPA is working towards automating preparation of the Statement of Budgetary
Resources and Intra-govemmental (Trading Partner) report data. By consistently meeting the
IV-78
-------
accelerated due dates for the Annual Report and completing interim financial statements (first
quarterly, subsequently monthly), EPA provides timely and reliable information to the public.
Provide Support to Other PMA Activities
Competitive Sourcing. EPA utilizes competitive sourcing to ensure effective use of the
federal workforce and the highest quality of services. In FY 2005, as part of the first Agency
standard competition, 26 employees providing vendor payment services were placed in head-to-
head competition against private sector businesses. EPA's finance center at Research Triangle
Park (RTP) convincingly demonstrated that its process for handling the Agency's vendor
payments is the most cost-effective for EPA. As a result, the Agency will consolidate all vendor
payment services, currently done in eight locations, into RTP. This streamlined, consolidated
approach to the work is expected to save EPA approximately $3.5 million over a five-year
period.
E-Gov. EPA made great strides this year to advance finance related e-government and
line of business initiatives based on the PMA.1 EPA's Financial Management System
Framework leverages today's technology to support efficiencies across government. A general
theme is gaining economies of scale by reducing the number of financial systems operated by
individual agencies. Instead, agencies will purchase hosting and other services from external
providers. E-gov initiatives are discussed below in the Financial Management Systems section.
Human Capital Management. All financial managers linked then* performance
standards to the five goals in the Agency's Strategic Plan. In addition, we adopted the new
Performance Appraisal Management System for managers and employees.
Develop Leadership and Provide Staff with Adequate Tools
OCFO Human Capital Strategy. OCFO continues to implement its Human Capital
Strategy. During FY 2005, OCFO established a workforce team to assist in developing the
action plan to enhance communication of Human Capital initiatives throughout OCFO. OCFO
completed a comprehensive review of its workforce requirements, identified skills and
competencies needed for success, and established training programs to address skill gaps. For
example, OCFO initiated a series of project management courses leading to a Project
Management Certificate. As a result, several participants in this training have assumed
leadership roles in high-visibility projects or management activities within OCFO. In addition,
OCFO focused on aligning its hiring strategies with its strategic workforce plan. Offices within
OCFO were challenged to develop hiring plans that address both current and long-term skill
needs. OCFO expanded its use of alternative means to fill vacancies through details, term
positions, and telework arrangements. In addition, OCFO continues to target a diverse student
population for internships and other part-time positions and take advantage of the Agency's
entry-level programs. Consequently, OCFO benefits from their contributions.
1 See "Expanding E-Govetnment: Partnering for a Results Oriented Government" issued by the White House
December 2004 http://www.whitehouse. gov/omb/budintegration/expanding^egov 12-2004.pdf
IV-79
-------
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK
Nowhere is EPA's commitment to continuous improvement more apparent than in the
Agency's financial management system. The system architecture contributed to EPA's winning
of the 2003 Presidential Quality Award for Improved Financial Performance. EPA is in the
process of developing a modem financial system infrastructure to help EPA better manage the
resources that support our environmental mission, more accurately measure the true costs of
environmental programs, and better inform the public. EPA's new system architecture will be
based on commercial off-the-shelf software that complies with today's standards for usability,
functionality, security, and internal controls. Our long term vision for financial systems is laid
out in detail at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/modernization/index.htm. Readers are referred in
particular to the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the Financial System Modernization
Project posted on this website.
Financial Management Line of Business. The Financial Management Line of Business,
sometimes termed e-finance, seeks to achieve process improvements and cost savings in
acquisition, development, implementation, operation of the financial management systems
through shared services, joint procurements, consolidation, and other means; standardize
business processes and data elements; promote seamless data exchange among federal agencies;
and strengthen internal controls through real-time interoperability of core financial systems. To
achieve these goals, federal agencies will purchase financial system hosting services from a
Center of Excellence (external host) in either the public or private sector. EPA's financial
management systems vision and strategy follow this approach.
Financial System Modernization. EPA plans to implement a state of the art financial ,
system in FY 2008. IFMS is EPA's current core financial system. It dates back to the late
1980s. Over the years it has been enhanced to meet various growing needs. At the same time,
government-wide requirements have become far more stringent. For example, today's greater
emphasis on financial accountability, internal controls, and security coupled with the accelerated
deadlines for agency financial statements place increasing stress on the legacy system. Today's
market offers a range of modern products that have been certified as acceptable for use by
federal agencies.2
EPA's objectives for the new core financial system include aligning with the
government-wide Financial Management Line of Business; improving agency financial
performance through streamlining and automation; improving financial service to internal and
external customers; facilitating compliance with today's information security standards;
improving financial accountability; and improving integration of budget and performance.
In FY 2005, EPA developed an acquisition strategy to obtain hosting services from a
Center of Excellence, financial system software, and a contractor to implement the new core
financial system. To support the acquisition and guide system development, a Financial System
Modernization Team was staffed, focus groups were created to develop requirements for the new
system, and a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) was developed. The CONOPS and other
! See .
IV-80
-------
documents are available on the EPA Internet. Vendor selection is scheduled for spring 2006, and
full implementation of the new system is scheduled for 2008.
E-Payroll. E-Payroll seeks to gain economies of scale by reducing the number of civilian
agencies that process their own payroll. In FY 2005, EPA implemented a fully integrated, Web-
based payroll-human resource system. The new system uses commercial software to streamline
and automate business processes and provides the technical foundation for EPA's participation in
e-payroll. EPA made technical preparations to migrate the payroll processing portion of the
payroll-human resources system to the Defense Financial and Accounting Service (DFAS),
scheduled for completion hi FY 2006. In addition, EPA began preparations for migrating certain
human resource processing functions to a central service center pursuant to the Human
Resources Line of Business.
E-Travel. E-Travel seeks to reduce the costs of processing employee travel by using
centralized electronic travel service providers to automate the entire process from making
reservations to reimbursing travelers. In FY 2005, EPA selected a service provider and began
implementing the service provider's reservations process. Full implementation is scheduled for
the end of CY 2006.
Data Warehousing and Reporting Tools. Data Warehousing and Reporting Tools bring
data from different applications to user desktops to guide management resource decisions and to
link cost with performance. In FY 2005, EPA rolled out a flexible Administrative Data Mart
(ADAM) to serve as a source for ORBIT and added new reports to the ORBIT menu. FY 2006
and FY 2007 efforts will focus on business intelligence analytics and improved reports.
Budget and Planning. One of the major financial tools used by the Agency for
improving financial performance and budget management is the Budget Automation System
(BAS). BAS accomplishes "horizontal fusion" of budget and performance data throughout the
10 EPA regions and headquarters program offices, totaling 2,507 users. By using cutting-edge
database technology, BAS provides Agency-wide, real-tune access to budget planning,
formulation, and analysis tools. BAS links budget dollars directly to the achievement of the
Agency's strategic goals and objectives, which directly supports EPA's Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA) compliance efforts.
Cost Recovery and Imaging. The existing application summarizes spending on
Superfund cleanup sites and supports the recovery of the costs. EPA is exploring options for
replacing this system with a more modern commercial product.
Application Integration. Application integration middleware is the switchboard
mechanism that allows applications to communicate with each other without costly system
specific interfaces, hi FY 2005, EPA implemented an application integration tool as part of the
deployment of our Web-based integrated payroll-human resource system and ADAM and
developed a strategy for Unking other information.
IV-81
-------
In conclusion, EPA expects to remain in the forefront of federal financial management.
Further, the Agency will maximize the benefits from its PMA initiatives to ultimately protect the
environment and save taxpayers' dollars.
rv-82
-------
3.
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
For the Year Ended September 30,2005
I. RISK ASSESSMENTS: After reviewing and sampling disbursements made in the highest risk
susceptible inventories, EPA determined that its programs do not have "significant erroneous
payments," defined by the IPIA as payments exceeding $10 million and 2.5% of program
payments. Because the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are
former Section 57 programs, EPA is required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for them.
The Agency's corrective action proposed to reduce the error rate of improper payments in the
SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.35 percent over a three-year period. EPA surpassed the FY 2005
target of 0.45 percent. The error rates for these two programs were as follows:
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Fiscal
Year
2004
2005
Outlays
$2.1 billion
$ 1.9 billion (est.)
Erroneous Payments
$10.3 million
$3.1 million
Error Rate
0.47 percent
0.1 6 percent
E. STATISTICAL SAMPLING PROCESS: In FY 2005, EPA revised its corrective action plan
for the two SRFs. Based on the FY 2005 Measurement Plan approved by OMB, EPA pulled a
statistical random sample of 252 direct payments from a population of 8,538 direct grant
payments (126 transactions for each SRF). The error rate for the direct payment sample was 0.00
percent. Additionally, the Agency committed to reviewing a judgmental sample of at least 100
sub-recipient level payment transactions for each SRF during FY 2005. Only $3.1 million of the
$555.1 million sub-recipient SRF payments reviewed were erroneous (0.23 percent). In FY 2006,
EPA will provide OMB with a statistical methodology for sampling sub-recipient payments. The
Agency plans to review a statistical sample of sub-recipient payments for each SRF in South
Carolina and New Hampshire as well as a statistical sample of direct grant payments.
m. 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 n, EPA will continue reviewing direct and sub-recipient SRF
payments. In the FY 2005 corrective action plan for the Clean Water and Drinking Water
SRFs, EPA also committed to:
• Continue to review and enhance internal controls, as needed, in the Agency's overall
payment processes,
• As part of the post award process, continue to monitor payments made to sub-recipients,
IV-83
-------
• Comply with reporting requirements for improper payments, and
• Implement and operate the Agency's audit recovery program.
In FY 2005, the Office of Grants and Debarments (OGD) identified modifications needed to
enable tracking erroneous payments by grant recipient in the Grantee Compliance Database.
These modifications will allow tracking and maintaining data on the dollar value of
erroneous payments by grant recipient.
During FY 2005, OGD performed an erroneous payments review for calendar year (CY)
2004 using judgmental risk-based sampling to select 267 grant recipients for administrative
reviews including 111 non-profit grantees. Only 19 of these non-profit grantees had potential
erroneous payments. All identified erroneous payments have been recovered
Preliminary results of the review of CY 2004 non-profit recipient reports provided the
following results:
Review/Audit Results
All potential erroneous payments cited
Questioned costs determined allowable
Actual erroneous payments (unallowable costs)
Costs that have been recovered
Costs still in recipient appeal process (no final determination - may not to be erroneous)
Dollars
$650,799
$1,789
$4,575
$4,575
$644,435
In FY 2006 the OGD will complete the final identification of CY 2004 non-profit recipient
erroneous payments still in the appeal process. They will implement modifications to the
Grantee Compliance Database to enable capturing questioned costs and confirmed erroneous
payments by grant recipient. OGD will introduce a new statistical sampling approach for the
review of CY 2005 non-profit grantee monitoring/audit reports for erroneous payments and
will identify reduction targets based on the results of this review. Those results also will be
used to develop a performance monitoring metric that will serve as the baseline against
which future results can be measured. EPA also reports on these OGD initiatives for the
Improved Financial Management Initiative of the President's Management Agenda.
B. Contracts: EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate
improper payments. The appropriate Contracting Officer Representatives or On Scene
Coordinators are notified of all improper payments discovered. In January 2003, EPA
implemented a monthly Improper Payment Report. The report categorizes the number of
improper payments per month and provides information on each improper payment including
the reason. In FY 2005, EPA identified 21 improper payments (0.01 percent error rate) due to
keypunch errors or invoice error. Billing numbers received on contracts are now verified
prior to entering information in Contract Payment System. Staff review identified keying
errors and efforts are made to prevent or detect these types of errors hi the future.
IV-84
-------
Fiscal Year
2003*
2004
2005
Number of Erroneous
Payments
25 (of 24,056)
21 (of 24,886)
21 (of 26,305)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$206.1
$748.5
$121.5
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.02 percent
0.08 percent
0.01 percent
* FY2003 only included data from January through September.
Other actions include the addition of an improper payment review element for the Quality
Assurance Review for invoices and the initiation of the Recovery Audit process which was
completed in October 2005. The Audit Recovery contractor reviewed 86,217 contract
payments totaling $51.6 million and found 11 erroneous payments ($12 thousand) - less than
a 0.02 percent error rate.
The continued proactive process of reviewing and implementing changes as needed when an
improper payment occurs should continue to reduce the number of improper payments. The
Contracting Officer Representatives, On-Scene Coordinators or Contracting Officers will
continue to be notified of all improper payments that involve their contract. Suggested
actions will be provided and if the problem continues, actions will be elevated. Previously
documented keying errors are being noted by the staff at EPA to assist in the detection by the
initial data entry personnel as well as the sample reviewer and the certifying officer.
C. Commodity Payments: Since no high risk areas have been identified, no corrective action is
required. EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate any
improper payments. The Recovery Audit contractor reviewed 249,879 invoices paid totaling
$124.0 million and found 41 improper payments ($129 thousand) - less than a 0.10 percent
error rate. These improper payments have been attributed to duplicate payments, returns not
deducted, overpayments, and cash discounts not taken. The payment and certifying staff have
been alerted to this fact and are making an effort to double check all vendor codes to prevent
this in the future. All invoices marked past due are being reviewed to determine if they are
duplicate invoices.
EPA put a tracking mechanism in place in January 2004 to gather improper payment data in
anticipation that purchase order payments would be included in the erroneous payment
process. The tracking system provides the data for a monthly Improper Payment Report. In
FY 2005,40 (of 42,698) commodity payments were erroneous. The improper payments
represent $416 thousand of the $239 million payments processed (error rate of 0.17 percent).
D. Payroll: A payroll workgroup completed the following tasks:
1. Reviewed Payroll internal control documentation.
2. Reviewed personnel interviews to verify/test whether internal controls are understood and
being utilized.
3. Summarized the results of the review of the internal controls.
IV-85
-------
EPA continues to provide training to its managers and staff in this area.
E. Travel Card/Purchase Card: The Agency will continue to monitor the charge card
transactions and employee accounts using the tools described above to ensure that the cards
are used in accordance with the Agency policies and procedures.
The Agency will continue to monitor the issuance of purchase cards to ensure that spending
limits and span of control are kept to a minimum. The Office of Acquisition Management is
in the process of implementing a monitoring program that is to be performed by each of the
Senior Resource Officials in the Agency. This program will mandate that each office perform
yearly reviews of the purchases made within their program offices. These reviews will ensure
the integrity of the purchase card program.
IV. IMPROPER PAYMENT (IP) REDUCTION OUTLOOK FY 2004 - FY 2008
(Dollars in millions)
Program
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
FY2004
Outlays
$2,182
(actual)
FY
2004
rp%
0.47
FY
2004
IPS
SI 0.3
FY2005
Outlays
$1,928
(est)
FY2005
IP'/.
0.45
target
0.16
actual
FY
2005
IPS
S3.1
FY2006
Outlays
S1.580
(est)
FY
2006
n>%
0.40
FY
2006
IPS
S6.3
(est)
FY2007
Outlays
$1,543
(est)
FY
2007
IP%
0.35
FY
2007
IPS
S5.4
(est)
FY2008
Outlays
$1.565
(est)
FY
2008
IP%
0.30
FY2008
IPS
$4.7
(est.)
Approximately $10 million of the FY 2004 improper payments were due to states drawing funds
too soon. The states have taken appropriate action to improve their internal controls so fund
draws are properly timed.
V. RECOVERY AUDIT PROGRAMS: The Agency hired a contractor, Business Strategy, Inc
(BSI), to conduct the recovery audit. BSI completed its preliminary interviews as part of the
discovery phase of its work. This phase involved discussions with key individuals in the contract
obligation and payment process and individuals knowledgeable about EPA's financial system.
BSI analyzed data received from the Integrated Financial Management System and in September
2005 completed its field work to identify and collect contract overpayments. BSI completed its
final Recovery Audit report at the end of October 2005. As reported above in the Contracts and
Commodities sections, BSI did not uncover any material erroneous payments (only $130 thousand
identified).
IV-86
-------
Dollars in Millions
Agency
Component
Contracts
Commodities
Amount Subject to
Review for FY
2005 Reporting
$4,284.8
$2,175.2
Actual
Amount
Reviewed
and
Reported
S51.6
$124.0
Amounts
Identified for
Recovery
$0.01
$0.12
Amounts
Identified /
Actual Amount
Reviewed
0.02 percent
0.10 percent
Amounts
Recovered
FY2005
$0.01
$0.129
Amounts
Recovered
Prior Years
N/A
N/A
In the first quarter of FY 2006, EPA will work with BSI to further strengthen payment processes
and internal controls to prevent erroneous payments. The Agency will suggest to OMB that
future Recovery Audit reviews be performed at three to five year intervals.
VI. ENSURING MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: As previously outlined in the
corrective action plans, the Agency continues to strengthen already strong internal controls in
key payment processes. Information on erroneous payments from reviews and audits for the two
SRFs, our largest grant programs, is reported quarterly to management in both the Office of
Water and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, hi all cases, action is taken with the
appropriate officials to ensure improper payments are recovered and to avoid future improper
payments.
Vn. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The Agency's information
system and related processes are sufficient to reduce improper payments to targeted levels.
Vffl. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS: Currently, EPA includes in the Office
of Water's SRF state review process examination of sub-recipient invoices. The Agency also
reviews audit reports on sub-recipient financial operations. In FY 2006, we will determine to
what extent we can gather erroneous payment information from Single Audit Act reports. EPA's
challenge for the SRF improper payments initiative is to broaden the scope of payment reviews.
Through FY 2004, the Agency reviewed only direct payments. For FY 2005, EPA included a
judgmental sample of sub-recipient payments in the review process. In FY 2006, EPA will
conduct statistically valid samples of grants payments to sub-recipients in New Hampshire and
South Carolina and assess the results of a Single Audit Act report for Texas.
DC. CONCLUSIONS: EPA is exceeding its erroneous payment reduction targets. The Agency
has committed to the following FY 2006 erroneous payment actions:
• Provide to OMB a detailed sampling methodology for South Carolina and New Hampshire
SRF sub-recipient payments;.
• Review documentation for the State of Texas Single Audit Act report as a basis for
determining whether such audits can be used to identify improper payments issues;
• Provide results of South Carolina and New Hampshire reviews, and direct payment reviews;
• Provide results of reviews of payments made to non-profit grantees;
• Assess the final October 2005 results of the recovery audit and establish reduction and
recovery targets, if appropriate; and
• Report on improper payments in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).
IV-87
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-1-00015
November 14,2005
Why We Did This Audit
We performed this audit in
accordance with the Government
Management Reform Act, which
requires EPA to prepare, and the
Office of Inspector General to
audit, the Agency's financial
statements each year, Our
primary objectives were to
determine whether
• EPA's consolidated financial
statements were fairly
presented 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 agencies9 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.aov/oiaJreports/2006/
200S1114-2006-1 -0001 S.pdf
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Financial Statements
EPA Receives Unqualified Opinion
We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial
Statements for fiscal 2005 and 2004, meaning that they were fairly presented
and free of material misstatement.
Internal Control Reportable Conditions Noted
EPA converted to a new payroll system in fiscal 2005. While EPA was able to
resolve many issues arising from the conversion, we noted several reportable
conditions. Most significantly, EPA made inappropriate payments to separated
(transferred, retired, or resigned) employees and made excess salary payments
to current employees. These conditions occurred because EPA's automated
controls and manual processes were not effective in identifying and preventing
these overpayments, or alerting EPA officials to take corrective actions in a
timely manner.
In addition to these conditions, we noted seven other reportable conditions
including overstated State Superfund Contract unearned revenue and unbilled
Superfund oversight costs, improperly adjusted general ledger accounts,
inadequate documentation for adjustments made to entries in EPA's Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS), and uncorrected data that IFMS
rejected.
Noncompliance With Laws and Regulations Noted
The Agency still is in noncompliance with laws and regulations relating to
implementing the cost accounting standard and reconciling intragovernmental
transactions, though we do not consider EPA to be in substantial
noncompliance.
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Evaluation
In a memorandum received on November 10, 2005, from the Chief Financial
Officer, the Agency agreed with the issues raised and stated it has begun to
evaluate the best methods to address each issue to achieve a timely resolution.
IV-88
-------
^
I t^R?7 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ -irn^ ^ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
November 14,2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 2006-1-0001 5
FROM: Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Audit (2422T)
TO: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer (2710A)
CC: Luis A. Luna
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management (3 1 0 1 A)
Attached is our audit report on the Agency's fiscal 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial
statements. Management is presenting the financial statements for fiscal 2005 and 2004 in a
consolidated format which is a change from prior years' presentations where the Superfund Trust
Fund was presented separately. The Agency continues to make improvements hi cost
accounting; however, it is still not in full compliance with the managerial cost accounting
standard. In our view, the level of compliance does not meet the Office of Management and
Budget's definition of substantial noncompliance. The audit report also contains other findings
that describe issues the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified and corrective actions
the OIG recommends.
This audit report represents the opinion of the OIG, and the findings contained hi this report do
not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers hi accordance with established
EPA audit resolution procedures will make final determinations on matters hi this audit report.
Accordingly, the findings described hi this audit report are not binding upon EPA hi any
enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice. We have no objections to
the further release of this report to the public.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Process, the primary action official is
required to provide us with a written response to the final audit report within 90 days of the final
audit report date. Since this report deals primarily with financial management issues, we are
requesting the Chief Financial Officer, as the primary action official, to take the lead hi
IV-89
-------
coordinating and providing us a written response to this report. The response should address all
issues and recommendations contained in Attachments 1 and 2. For corrective actions planned
but not completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist us in
deciding whether or not to close this report in our audit tracking system.
Should you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me at
(202) 566-2523, or Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General, Office of Audit, at
(202) 566-0899.
Attachment
cc: See Appendix ffl, Report Distribution List
IV-90
-------
Table of Contents
At a Glance
Inspector General's Report on EPA's
Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements iv-93
Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information, Required
Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and Management's Discussion
and Analysis IV-94
Evaluation of Internal Controls IV-94
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations IV-98
Prior Audit Coverage IV-100
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation IV-101
Attachments
1. Reportable Conditions
2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Noncompliance Issues
3. Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations
Appendices
I. EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
II. Agency's Response to Draft Report
IV-91
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
IV-92
-------
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005
and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, or the Agency) as of September 30,2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of net cost, net cost by goal, changes in net position, financing and custodial liability,
and the combined statement of budgetary resources for the years then ended. These financial
statements are the responsibility of EPA's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based upon our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the standards
applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Bulletin 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other Federal agencies.
Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. Audits of grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements performed at a later date may disclose questioned costs of
an amount undeterminable at this time. 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 hi net position, reconciliation of net cost to budgetary obligations, custodial
activity, and combined budgetary resources of EPA, as of and for the years ended September 30,
2005 and 2004, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America.
IV-93
-------
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 2005 and 2004, which are being presented
for additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Management
has elected to omit certain disclosures required by OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting
Requirements, that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States have
determined are necessary. 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. OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, requires agencies to report,
as Required Supplementary Information, their intra-governmental assets and liabilities by
Federal trading partner. We found that EPA was able to reconcile its records with its trading
partners, except for Health and Human Services (see Attachment 2 for additional details on this
issue).
Evaluation of Internal Controls
As defined by OMB, internal control, as it relates to the financial statements, is a process,
affected by the Agency's management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the following objectives are met:
Reliability of financial reporting - Transactions are properly recorded, processed, and
summarized to permit the timely and reliable preparation of the financial statements and
RSSI in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and assets are
safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.
Reliability of performance reporting - Transactions and other data that support
reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to
permit the preparation of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by
management,
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations - Transactions are executed in
accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority and other laws and
regulations that could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or
RSSI; and any other laws, regulations, and government-wide policies identified by OMB.
IV-94
-------
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 in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion
on the financial statements. We limited our internal control testing to those controls necessary to
achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal
Financial Statements, as supplemented by an OMB memorandum dated January 4,2001,
Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. We
did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982, such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient
operations. The objective of our audit was not to provide assurance on internal controls and,
accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal controls.
Our consideration of the internal controls over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose
all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be reportable conditions.
Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, reportable
conditions are matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of the internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the Agency's
ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions by
management in the financial statements. Material weaknesses are reportable conditions in which
the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to
the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Because of inherent
limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses, or noncompliance may nevertheless occur
and not be detected. We noted certain matters discussed below involving the internal control and
its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions, although none of the reportable
conditions is believed to be a material weakness.
In addition, we considered EPA's internal control over the RSSI by obtaining an understanding
of the Agency's internal controls, determined whether these internal controls had been placed in
operation, assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls as required by OMB Bulletin
No. 01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on these internal controls
and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.
Finally, with respect to internal controls related to performance measures presented in EPA's
Fiscal Year 2005 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. 01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance
on internal control over reported performance measures and, accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on such controls.
Reportable Conditions
Reportable conditions are internal control weaknesses coming to the auditor's attention that, in
the auditor's judgment, should be communicated because they represent significant deficiencies
IV-95
-------
in the design or operation of internal controls that could adversely affect the organization's
ability to meet the OMB objectives for financial reporting discussed above, hi evaluating the
Agency's internal control structure, we identified rune reportable conditions, as follows:
Payroll Internal Controls
EPA inappropriately made payroll payments to separated (transferred, retired, or
resigned) employees. EPA's controls over processing time and attendance records for
separated employees were not effective hi identifying and preventing overpayments
because automated controls were not implemented and manual controls were not
followed. In particular, PeoplePlus* automated controls do not allow timekeepers to halt
all future payments or limit the number of default payroll payments to separated
employees with a single transaction. Manual processes, such as processing personnel
action requests and reviewing exception reports, did not effectively alert EPA officials to
take corrective actions in a timely manner. As a result of the identified weaknesses, EPA
made approximately $74,000 in payroll payments to separated employees for which the
Agency must attempt to recover the funds.
Excess Salary Payments
EPA employees received salary payments in excess of the biweekly maximum earnings
limitations prescribed in Federal regulations. Under 5 CFR §550.105, an employee may
receive premium pay only to the extent that the payment does not cause the total of his or
her basic pay and premium pay for any biweekly pay period to exceed the greater of: the
maximum biweekly rate of basic pay for a GS-15 (including any applicable locality-
based comparability payment under section 5304 or similar provision of law and any
applicable special rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5305 or similar provision of law), or the
biweekly rate payable for Level V of the Executive Schedule.
State Superfund Contract and Superfund Unbilled Oversight Accruals
We found errors on the third quarter State Superfund Contract calculation spreadsheet
and/or the Superfund unbilled oversight spreadsheet hi 9 of 10 regions. These errors led
to overstating State Superfund Contract unearned revenue by $31 million and unbilled
oversight by $14 million. Although the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
required the regions to certify that they reviewed their accrual calculations, the
certification process did not prevent or discover the errors. As a result, EPA could not
ensure the accuracy of the unearned revenue and the unbilled oversight accounts.
General Ledger Account Adjustments for Receivables Transferred to
Cincinnati Finance Center
EPA's general ledger accounts for accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful
accounts were materially misstated because certain regional offices did not properly
adjust those accounts when transferring receivables to the Cincinnati Finance Center.
IV-96
-------
Quality Assurance Reviews
While EPA made several advances to improve the financial management quality
assurance (QA) program performed by the regions and finance centers, problems
continue in its Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs). We found the QARs performed were
limited in scope and less comprehensive than the QA Guide suggests. We also found that
the reviews did not adequately document the work performed or other methods used to
evaluate internal controls and accounting events. Further, we found that QARs were not
performed for all applicable accounting events. As a result, there is limited assurance
that the QARs provide a sufficient basis to evaluate and certify the assessment of internal
accounting and administrative controls.
Distribution of Budget Clearing Accounts
The fiscal 2005 year-end distribution of amounts recorded in a budget clearing account
was overstated. The Agency treated charge backs on collections on certain Interagency
Agreements as if they were distributions rather than reductions in receipts.
Documentation of Adjustments to IFMS Entries
EPA made adjustments to entries in the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS), the Agency's accounting system, without proper and adequate documentation.
During our review of collections and receivables recorded in various EPA regions, we
found 33 adjustments to entries in IFMS - totaling $89,446,286 - that were not supported
by sufficient documentation, such as schedules of collections or IFMS screen prints. The
documentation did not always identify other relevant documents, such as the consent
decree, which was the basis for the adjustment. We also found three adjustments -
totaling $47,540,900 - where documentation supporting the change was not easily
accessible. EPA staff had documentation to support the adjustment, but did not attach it
to the entry or otherwise provide an audit trail to locate the support. These entries also
did not contain evidence of an adequate review to ensure the adjustments were reasonable
and supported.
Correcting Rejected Transactions
The OCFO did not correct PeoplePlus data that the IFMS rejected during the transfer
process in a timely manner. We identified nonprocessed transactions in a suspense file
that existed for several pay periods without management action. Federal requirements
stipulate that agencies promptly record, classify, and account for transactions to prepare
timely accounts and reliable financial reports. Without having the processes hi place to
reconcile and correct data that failed to transfer from PeoplePlus to IFMS, the financial
statements could be misstated.
IV-97
-------
Contingency Plans for Financial Applications
A review conducted by a contracted public accounting firm noted that contingency plans
did not fully comply with EPA or Federal guidelines for several OCFO applications at the
Research Triangle Park campus hi North Carolina. The firm identified where EPA had
not documented: (1) key contingency plan elements, (2) critical hardware and software
requirements, and (3) primary and secondary contacts. These weaknesses occurred
because of inconsistency in training for relevant contingency planning officials.
Incomplete contingency plans could present significant challenges for EPA should an
unforeseen event occur, particularly since the organization may believe these systems
have sufficiently documented procedures to expedite recovery. Further, without adequate
planning, management may not be able to mitigate the negative effects of interrupted
operations and determine how long specific operations may be suspended or postponed.
Attachment 1 describes each of the above reportable conditions in more detail, and contains our
recommendations on actions that should be taken to correct these conditions. We have reported
less 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. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, requires us to
compare material weaknesses disclosed during the audit with those material weaknesses reported
in the Agency's Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA, or Integrity Act) report that
relate to the financial statements and identify material weaknesses disclosed by audit that were
not reported in the Agency's FMFIA report.
For reporting under FMFIA, material weaknesses are defined differently than they are for
financial statement audit purposes. OMB Circular A-123, Management Accountability and
Control, defines a material weakness as a deficiency that the Agency head determines to be
significant enough to be reported outside the Agency.
For financial statement audit purposes, OMB defines material weaknesses in internal control as
reportable conditions in which the design or operation of the internal control does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors, fraud, or noncompliance in amounts that would be
material hi relation to the financial statements or RSSI being audited, or material to a
performance measure or aggregation of related performance measures, may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.
The Agency did not report, and our audit did not detect, any material weaknesses for fiscal 2005.
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations
EPA management is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the
Agency. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Agency's financial
IV-98
-------
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. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial
Statements, as supplemented by an OMB Memorandum dated January 4,2001, Revised
Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. The OMB
guidance requires that we evaluate compliance with Federal financial management system
requirements, including the requirements referred to in the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. We limited our tests of compliance to these provisions and
did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an
objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 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. In addition, the
Agency reported that the approximately 9,000 confidential financial disclosure forms filed by
EPA employees by November 1,2005, will be reviewed by the deputy ethics officials no later
than January 23,2006. Since the Agency has not had time to review such reports and disclose
matters that would require further inquiry, resolution, or reporting, we did not perform any tests
or additional inquiries about those reports. Had the Agency been able to review the reports and
we had been able to perform tests or make additional inquires, matters may have come to our
attention that would require reporting.
None of the noncompliances discussed below would result in material misstatements to the
audited financial statements.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Noncompliance
Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Agency's financial management systems
substantially comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable
Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the
transaction level. OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, as supplemented by an OMB memorandum dated
January 4,2001, Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act, substantially changed the guidance for determining whether an Agency
substantially complied with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable
Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the
transaction level. The document is intended to focus Agency and auditor activities on the
essential requirements of FFMIA. The document lists the specific requirements of FFMIA, as
well as factors to consider in reviewing systems and for determining substantial compliance with
FFMIA. It also provides guidance to Agency heads for developing corrective action plans to
bring an Agency into compliance with FFMIA. To meet the FFMIA requirement, we performed
tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements and used the OMB guidance,
revised on January 4,2001, for determining substantial noncompliance with FFMIA.
The results of our tests did not disclose any instances where the Agency's financial management
systems did not substantially comply with the applicable Federal accounting standard.
IV-99
-------
As described in Attachment 3, OCFO has redefined it cost accounting outputs and made other
improvements. However, during Fiscal Year 2005, the Agency was not in compliance with
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4 that requires EPA to provide full
costs per output to management in a timely fashion. Subsequent to completing our audit work,
the Agency developed a report to show full costs of its outputs; we will evaluate that report
during Fiscal Year 2006.
We identified a FFMIA noncompliance related to reconciliation of intragovemmental
transactions. However, this noncompliance does not meet the definition of substantial
noncompliance as described in OMB guidance. Attachment 2 provides additional details, as well
as recommendations on actions that should be taken on this matter.
We have reported other less significant matters involving compliance with laws and regulations
in position papers during the course of our audit. We will not be issuing a separate management
letter.
Prior Audit Coverage
During previous financial or financial-related audits, weaknesses that impacted our audit
objectives were reported in the following areas:
• Complying with FFMIA requirements.
• Reconciliation and reporting intragovemmental transactions, assets and liabilities by
Federal trading partner.
• Complying with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, including
accounting for the cost to achieve goals and identifying and allocating indirect costs.
Interagency Agreement invoice approval process.
Documenting EPA's IFMS.
Complying with Federal financial management system security requirements.
Preparation and reconciliation of Statements of Transactions.
Documentation and approval of journal and standard vouchers.
Reconciling Unearned Revenue for State Superfund Contracts.
Managing Accounts Receivable.
Recording of Marketable Securities.
Accounting for Obligations.
Accounting for Contractor-Held Property.
Assessing automated application processing controls for IFMS.
Security Screenings for Non-Federal Personnel.
Change Control Procedures for IFMS.
System Certification, Accreditation, and Development for Grant and Inter-Governmental
Systems.
• Compliance of financial system security plans.
Attachment 3, Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations, summarizes the current status of
corrective actions taken on prior audit report recommendations with corrective actions in
process.
rv-ioo
-------
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In a memorandum dated November 10, 2005, OCFO responded to our draft report.
The rationale for our conclusions and a summary of the Agency comments are included in
the appropriate sections of this report, and the Agency's complete response is included as
Appendix n to this report.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of EPA, OMB, and
Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.
Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Audit
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 14, 2005
IV-101
-------
Attachment 1
Reportable Conditions
Table of Contents
1 - EPA Should Improve Payroll Internal Controls IV-103
2 - EPA Employees Received Excess Salary Payments IV-107
3 • Improvement Needed for State Superfund Contract and Superfund Unbilled
Oversight Accruals IV-108
4 - Regions Should Make General Ledger Account Adjustments for Receivables
Transferred to Cincinnati Finance Center IV-109
5 - EPA's Quality Assurance Reviews Need Further Improvement IV-111
6 - EPA Could Improve the Distribution of the Budget Clearing Accounts IV-113
7 - Documentation of Adjustments to IFMS Entries Needs Improvement IV-114
8 - EPA Needs to Improve Correction of Rejected Transactions IV-116
9 - EPA Needs to Improve Contingency Plans for Financial Applications IV-117
IV-102
-------
1 - EPA Should Improve Payroll Internal Controls
EPA inappropriately made payroll payments to separated (transferred, retired, or resigned)
employees. Specifically, EPA's controls over processing time and attendance records for
separated employees were not effective in identifying and preventing overpayments because
automated controls were not implemented and manual controls were not followed. In particular,
PeoplePlus' automated controls do not allow timekeepers to halt all future payments or limit the
number of default payroll payments to separated employees with a single transaction. In
addition, manual processes, such as processing personnel action requests (PAR) and reviewing
exception reports, did not effectively alert EPA officials to take corrective actions in a timely
manner. As a result of the identified weaknesses, EPA made approximately $74,000 in payroll
payments to separated employees for which the Agency must attempt to recover the funds.
PeoplePlus Automated Controls Need Improvement
Automated controls in PeoplePlus do not allow timekeepers to stop all future payments to
separated employees by entering the "DTNPY" code just one time. To prevent PeoplePlus from
inappropriately paying separated employees, the system currently requires the timekeeper to re-
enter this code every pay period until the human resources department processes the PAR,
separating the employee from EPA. The DTNPY code is a time reporting code used for
separated employees to tell the system not to pay them. We also found that timekeepers did not
consistently enter the code into PeoplePlus each pay period, which contributed to several
instances where employees received payroll payments although they separated from EPA.
This problem is compounded by the fact that EPA does not limit the number of payments it
makes to separated employees. EPA's management chose to configure the PeoplePlus system to
pay employees for working then" standard hours (e.g., 80 hours for a full-time employee) by
default, even if a timesheet was not submitted (entered and attested to by an employee,
timekeeper, or manager) for multiple pay periods. As a result of these two issues, a separated
employee could receive payroll payments after leaving EPA for every pay period that the
timekeeper does not enter the time reporting code into PeoplePlus until the human resources
department processes the PAR.
Processing of Personnel Action Requests Needs Improvement
The time required to process PARs resulted in delays in deactivating separated employees' time
and attendance records. The Office of Human Resources (OHR) developed procedures to
process personnel actions for term appointments and transferred employees without a PAR and
informal procedures to do the same for retiring employees. The procedures allow OHR to
initiate the necessary transaction to deactivate separated employees' future time and attendance
records. However, the procedures were not implemented across the Agency and not consistently
followed where they were implemented. As a result, the manual preparation of the PAR by the
EPA office and the OHR processing, in several cases, took from 1 to 3 months to complete.
Furthermore, in almost all the cases where the Agency made overpayments to separated
employees, the PAR was processed after the employee separated from EPA.
IV-103
-------
Use of Exception Reports Needs Improvement
EPA offices did not effectively use the PeoplePlus-generated "Missing Time & Attendance"
report to identify employees without entered or certified and approved time and attendance
records. EPA implemented this standard report hi PeoplePlus to provide offices a tool to manage
their employees' tune and attendance records. However, offices did not run the reports in a
timely manner nor take actions to prevent inappropriate payments. Therefore, in May 2005, the
OCFO issued OFM Policy Announcement No. 05-05, Responsibility of Supervisors to Approve
Time and Attendance, to compensate employees despite missing or unapproved biweekly time
and attendance information.
Policy Announcement No. 05-05 states that "employees who fail to enter their tune will be paid
based upon their standard hours (default hours). Employees who have entered time that was not
approved by his/her supervisor will be paid based upon the time reported (mass approval). When
employees are paid based upon then* default hours or the mass approval process, supervisors
should ensure PeoplePlus corrections are made, and then indicate their approval by signing the
Tune Certification Reports. The Regional Comptroller/Program Management Officer certifies
that the appropriate actions were taken by the supervisor and then sends, by fax, the appropriate
signed report to the Washington Finance Center before the end of the following pay period.
We examined the Mass Approval Time and Attendance Reports and Default Hours Reports for
the pay period ending July 9,2005. We found that
• The Washington Finance Center used the mass approval process to complete the
PeoplePlus pay calculation for 21 Headquarters and regional offices, but did not receive
required mass approval certifications from 10 offices and an 11th submitted the
certification late.
• For default hours, employees in 14 Headquarters and regional offices were paid based
on their standard hours; however, the required default hours certifications were not
received from 9 offices and 2 other offices submitted the certifications late.
We believe the failure of Agency managers to comply with Policy Announcement No. 05-05 is
an internal control weakness that could contribute to Agency employees being improperly
compensated.
Our review of Default Hours Reports identified other concerns. We found that
• Separated employees were listed on multiple Default Hours Reports.
• The OCFO also did not generate or provide Default Hours Reports for program offices
for seven pay periods during fiscal 2005. Based on a preliminary review, Agency
officials estimated that there were 72 instances (totaling approximately $74,000) where
employees were paid after separation from EPA. This approximation is most likely
understated because the Agency's preliminary review excluded seven pay periods from
fiscal 2005.
rv-104
-------
• Offices certified Default Hours Reports that contained separated employees, but did not
have the timekeeper correct each employee's time and attendance record to prevent
payment or annotate on the report that the employee had left the Agency.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO and the Office of Administration and Resources Management
(OARM) work together to
1. Develop and implement a policy that would hold the supervisors and Regional
Comptrollers/Program Management Officers accountable for ensuring that all required
procedures associated with the processing of payroll and personnel actions are properly
followed in a timely manner.
We recommend that the OCFO have the Director, Office of Financial Services (OFS),
2. Modify PeoplePlus and associated procedures to enable timekeepers to enter the
DTNPY code into PeoplePlus one time to stop the system from making any future
payments to separated employees.
3. Develop and implement procedures to facilitate identifying separated employees and
implement an automated control to limit the number of default payments to these
employees.
4. Complete the analysis of default payments for all fiscal 2005 pay periods to determine
the number of payroll payments to separated employees and take appropriate action to
collect the overpayment.
We recommend that the OARM have the Director, OHR,
5. Reinforce the use of established standard operating procedures to process PARs for
separated term appointments and transferred employees, and implement the process
across the entire Agency.
6. Formalize and implement the standard operating procedures for processing PARs for
retiring employees and implement the process across the entire Agency.
7. Reinforce with Agency Officials that they need to (1) forward written resignation notices
to OHR immediately upon receipt, and (2) prepare and forward PARs in a timely manner
to prevent overpayments.
IV-105
-------
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
The OCFO and OARM generally concurred with our findings and recommendations. The
Agency indicated that it would continue to validate payroll system internal controls, enforce
existing procedures, and take further corrective action as needed. However, the Agency's
response did not address the need for an automated control. Based on the problems described
above, the current procedures have not been effective in identifying and preventing inappropriate
payments to separated employees. Therefore, we believe improvement is needed in this area and
that the Agency should implement automated controls to limit the potential harm caused by a
breakdown in the current manual procedures.
IV-106
-------
2 - EPA Employees Received Excess Salary Payments
Because the internal controls for EPA's PeoplePlus system did not effectively identify and
prevent excess salary payments, Agency employees received salary payments in excess of the
biweekly maximum earnings limitations prescribed in Federal regulations. Under 5 CFR
§550.105, an employee may receive premium pay only to the extent that the payment does not
cause the total of his or her basic pay and premium pay for any biweekly pay period to exceed
the greater of:
1) The maximum biweekly rate of basic pay for a GS-15 (including any applicable
locality-based comparability payment under section 5304 or similar provision of law
and any applicable special rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5305 or similar provision of law);
or
2) The biweekly rate payable for Level V of the Executive Schedule.
We examined individual employee gross salary payments for two pay periods. We found 37
employees received salary payments totaling $14,891 in excess of the biweekly maximum
earning limitation for one pay period, and 24 employees received excess salary payments totaling
$5,152 for the other pay period. The Agency has recently advised us that it has developed a
manual process for checking for overpayments. However, due to the late receipt of this
information, we have not been able to verify the process or its effectiveness.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO
8. Develop and implement an automated control which would prevent employee salary
payments in excess of maximum earnings limitations.
9. Verify that all overpayments have been researched for their cause and amount, and if
due back to the Government, receivables established.
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
The OCFO agreed with the issues we raised and stated that it is initiating enhancements to
broaden the scope of automated controls to replace existing manual controls. It plans to continue
to evaluate the results as part of its payroll review process.
IV-107
-------
3 - Improvement Needed for State Superfund Contract
and Superfund Unbilled Oversight Accruals
EPA needs to improve its oversight of State Superfund Contract (SSC) and Superfund unbilled
oversight accruals. We found errors on the third quarter SSC calculation spreadsheet and/or the
unbilled oversight spreadsheet in 9 of 10 regions. These errors led to overstating SSC unearned
revenue by $31 million and unbilled oversight by $14 million. Although the OCFO required the
regions to certify that they reviewed their accrual calculations, the certification process did not
prevent or discover the errors. As a result, EPA could not ensure the accuracy of the unearned
revenue and the unbilled oversight accounts.
When EPA assumes the lead for a Superfund site remedial action in a State, the SSC clarifies
EPA's and the State's responsibilities to complete the remedial action. EPA records a liability
(unearned revenue) when billing a State for its share of the estimated site costs, and recognizes
earned revenue when costs are incurred on the site. EPA incurs oversight costs while overseeing
cleanup work being performed and paid for by potentially responsible parties at Superfund sites.
EPA seeks to recover its oversight costs from the potentially responsible parties in a settlement
agreement and recognizes revenue when it bills oversight costs. The unbilled oversight accrual
is an asset established to properly match revenues and expenses.
EPA developed a review and certification process as a result of last year's position paper entitled
"EPA Needs to Further Improve State Superfund Contracts' Unearned Revenue and Superfund
Unbilled Oversight Cost Accruals." However, the number of errors found during the cumulative
third quarter spreadsheets indicates that EPA's oversight of the accruals was not effective. For
SSC unearned revenue, we found errors in cumulative disbursements, cumulative billings, and
formula changes in the SSC calculation. For the unbilled oversight accruals, in addition to
missing formulas, we found errors in formulas, cost amounts, billing percentages, and untimely
accrual entries. EPA could have detected these errors with an effective review process. EPA
needs to reassess its oversight and develop further instruction for preparing and reviewing these
accrual calculations.
Recommendations
We recommended that the OCFO have the Director, OFM,
10. Provide more complete instructions and clarification to the regional offices to ensure
the regions have an adequate preparation and review process.
11. Supplement the regional review process for SSC and Unbilled Oversight accruals with
a centralized review function.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
OCFO agreed with the OIG recommendations. OCFO stated that it made considerable progress
towards assuring consistency with the SSC and Superfund unbilled oversight accrual issues.
OCFO stated it will explore options for centralizing these accrual processes.
IV-108
-------
4 • Regions Should Make General Ledger Account Adjustments
for Receivables Transferred to Cincinnati Finance Center
EPA's general ledger accounts for accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts were
materially misstated because certain regional offices did not properly adjust those accounts when
transferring receivables to the Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC).
The Agency is in the process of consolidating financial operations into four finance centers. As
part of this process, 5 of 10 regions had transferred accounts receivables to CFC by
September 30,2005. During our review of CFC's allowance for doubtful accounts, we noted
that a Region had an allowance for doubtful accounts balance of $130,763,195 even though it did
not have a receivables balance. Another Region had erroneously reduced its receivable balance
hi excess of the balance available, resulting in a negative balance of $2,914,484. Because of the
transfers to CFC, the accounts receivable and allowance balances at those accounting points
should have been adjusted to reflect a $0 balance.
These errors resulted because the regional accounts receivable staff did not properly review the
general ledger account balances or perform analytical reviews that would have exposed the
discrepancies. We did note that the agency has made the appropriate adjustments to the financial
statements to adjust the allowance for doubtful accounts.
The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal
Government, dated November 1999, identified "control activities" as one of the five standards of
internal control. According to GAO, management reviews (analytical reviews) at the functional
or activity level are commonly performed internal control activities. GAO's Internal Control
Management and Evaluation Tool, dated August 2001, identified the following analytical
reviews as common control activities: 1) managers at all activity levels review performance
reports, analyze trends, and measure results against targets, and 2) both financial and program
managers review and compare financial, budgetary, and operational performance to planned or
expected results.
Recommendations
We recommended that the OCFO have the Director, OFM,
12. Require quarterly general ledger analytical reviews for finance centers and/or
accounting points with receivable balances or activity.
13. Ensure appropriate adjustments are made to general ledger account balances when
regional activity is transferred to finance centers.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised. The Agency stated it successfully transferred 5
of 10 regions' accounts receivable functions to one finance center. An account analysis
identified several accounting point balances that required adjustments that were subsequently
IV-109
-------
reflected in the financial statements. As the Agency progresses in moving the accounts
receivable functions from the remaining five regions, OCFO agreed to continue to monitor
appropriate general ledger accounts.
rv-no
-------
5 - EPA's Quality Assurance Reviews Need Further Improvement
While EPA made several advances to improve the financial management QA program performed
by the regions and finance centers, the Agency must continue to improve its QARs. The OCFO
updated the QA Guide in September 2005, increased oversight of the QA program, and provided
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act training to appropriate personnel. However, we found
the QARs performed were limited hi scope and less comprehensive than the QA Guide suggests.
We also found that the reviews did not adequately document the work performed or other
methods used to evaluate internal controls and accounting events. Further, we found that QARs
were not performed for all applicable accounting events. As a result, there is limited assurance
that the QARs provide a sufficient basis to evaluate and certify the assessment of internal
accounting and administrative controls.
EPA's quality assurance program was designed to implement the requirements of the Federal
Managers'Financial Integrity Act of 1982 and OMB Circular No. A-123, Management
Accountability and Control EPA's revised QA Guide describes a structured approach to
conduct quality assurance reviews and provides a model framework for evaluating and reporting
on finance office compliance with internal control standards and relevant accounting principles
and standards, hi addition, the OCFO's Fiscal Year 2005 Quality Assurance Workplan guidance
recommends the regions and finance centers ensure that the QARs test the accounting events as
appropriate, and document the rationale for any accounting events not tested.
During our analysis, we found QARs performed in fiscal 2005 that were more limited in scope
than what was indicated in the QA Guide. The QA Guide provides specific control objectives
and test procedures for each accounting event. For example, for accounts receivable, the QA
Guide identifies 8 control objectives and 19 test procedures to evaluate internal controls.
However, one accounts receivable QAR addressed only one control objective and test procedure.
hi another QAR, for property, only 1 control objective and test procedure were addressed, while
the QA guide identified 10 objectives and 21 test procedures.
hi addition, the QAR work was not adequately documented. The QA Guide states that
workpapers should provide written evidence of the work performed, support the validity of
conclusions reached, and provide a record of the methodology used. The QAR workpapers we
reviewed did not document objectives of the review, the nature and extent of work performed,
conclusions reached, and appropriate cross-references to other workpapers. We also noticed that
the QAR workpapers we reviewed did not document other methods used to evaluate internal
controls and accounting events, such as monthly travel audits.
We found that a regional office performed QARs for only 7 of the 13 applicable accounting
events during the last 3 years. The QA Guide requires QARs to be performed for all applicable
accounting events at least once every 3 years.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO have the Director, OFM, to continue to improve the QA program
by requiring field locations to
IV-lll
-------
14. Perform more comprehensive QARs that define and address all the control objectives
for applicable accounting events.
15. Adequately document the work performed and methods used to evaluate internal
controls.
16. Perform a QAR for each applicable accounting event at least once every 3 years.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised. OCFO believes it has made significant progress
with the QA program and will conduct a training class in December 2005 for Agency finance
personnel.
IV-112
-------
6 - EPA Could Improve the Distribution of the
Budget Clearing Accounts
The fiscal 2005 year-end distribution of amounts recorded in a budget clearing account was
overstated. The Agency treated charge backs on collections on certain Interagency Agreements
as if they were distributions rather than reductions in receipts.
The Cincinnati Finance Center records all Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC)
transactions in a budget clearing account pending interagency agreement Project Officer
approval/disapproval. Once approved, the payment is removed from the clearing account and
recorded in the appropriate account. EPA is required by the U.S. Treasury to reconcile and
distribute budget clearing accounts by the end of the fiscal year. EPA has also adopted
procedures to allocate costs. EPA's Year End Closing Instructions state "the amounts being
recorded, at the end of the fiscal year need to be prorated among applicable appropriations in
order to provide a more realistic distribution of charges via IP AC."
At year end, the Cincinnati Finance Center distributed $37,608,039 from the clearing account to
expenditure accounts in various U.S. Treasury funds. Included in the distribution was
$15,334,554 that should have been recorded as cash receipts, but was processed through IP AC as
expenditures. As a result, the amounts recorded in expenditure and receivable accounts were
overstated, and the amount recorded in the cash receipt account was understated by $15,334,554.
Recommendations
We recommend the OCFO have the Cincinnati Finance Center
17. Remove any receipt transactions from the year end distribution of the clearing
account.
We recommend the OCFO have OFM's Reporting and Analysis Staff
18. Record an on-top adjustment to the financial statements to correct the $ 15,334,554
error and properly reflect expenditure, receivable, and receipt activity.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised and made the appropriate accounting adjustments
to the financial statements.
rv-113
-------
7 - Documentation of Adjustments to IFMS
Entries Needs Improvement
EPA made adjustments to entries in the IFMS, the Agency's accounting system, without proper
and adequate documentation. During our review of collections and receivables recorded in
various EPA regions, we found 33 adjustments to entries in IFMS - totaling $89,446,286 - that
were not supported by sufficient documentation, such as schedules of collections or IFMS screen
prints. The documentation did not always identify other relevant documents, such as the consent
decree, which was the basis for the adjustment. We also found three adjustments - totaling
$47,540,900 - where documentation supporting the change was not easily accessible. EPA staff
had documentation to support the adjustment, but did not attach it to the entry or otherwise
provide an audit trail to locate the support. These entries also did not contain evidence of an
adequate review to ensure the adjustments were reasonable and supported.
EPA Comptroller Policy Announcement 93-02 requires "that all financial transactions recorded
in the accounting system be supported by adequate source documentation, and that this
documentation be easily accessible." These requirements apply to initial transactions 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 persons who made and/or
approved the entry."
'"Easily accessible' means the entry should contain sufficient information to identify the
supporting documentation, and the documentation should be organized and filed in a manner
to facilitate its retrieval."
The GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that "all transactions
and other significant events are to be clearly documented, and the documentation is to be readily
available for examination." The Standards also state "qualified and continuous supervision is to
be provided to ensure that internal control objectives are achieved."
Lack of adequate supporting documentation may raise questions about the validity and integrity
of the financial information contained in IFMS. Failure to require adequate documentation
before adjusting entries are input in the Agency's accounting system increases the risk of fraud,
waste, and abuse by increasing the possibility that unauthorized or inaccurate information is
entered.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO
19. Require adequate documentation to support all adjustments to entries in IFMS. This
documentation should include an adjustment date and justification for the correction, be
easily accessible, and reference the original entry.
rv-114
-------
20. Require all adjustments to entries in IFMS be properly reviewed to ensure the policies
are followed.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised.
IV-115
-------
8 - EPA Needs to Improve Correction of Rejected Transactions
The OCFO did not correct PeoplePlus data that the IFMS rejected during the transfer process.
We identified nonprocessed transactions in a suspense file that existed for several pay periods
without management action. This occurred because the OCFO had not corrected and cleared
PeoplePlus transactions transferred to IFMS in a timely manner. Federal requirements stipulate
that agencies promptly record, classify, and account for transactions to prepare timely accounts
and reliable financial reports. Without having the processes in place to reconcile and correct data
that failed to transfer from PeoplePlus to IFMS, the financial statements could be misstated.
EPA accumulates nonprocessed data in a suspense file during data transfer between the two
systems. Our review determined that the OCFO had not timely corrected nonprocessed data for
the following group of items in the suspense file:
• Non-processed payroll transactions for 16 EPA employees remained in the suspense
file because the employees did not have assigned Fixed Account Numbers in
PeoplePlus. Our review indicated that some of the transactions go back as far as pay
period 2, which ended October 16,2004. The total of these transactions is $177,786
and the OCFO took no action to correct/reprocess the transactions.
Recommendation
We recommend that the OCFO have the Director, OFS,
21. Establish and implement policies and procedures to ensure the identification and timely
processing of non-processed/rejected payroll transactions between PeoplePlus and
IFMS.
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
The Director, OFS, concurred with our recommendation and indicated that the office took action
to correct the payroll records for the 16 employees with missing Fixed Account Numbers.
IV-116
-------
9 - EPA Needs to Improve Contingency Plans for
Financial Applications
A review conducted by a contracted public accounting firm noted that contingency plans did not
fully comply with EPA or Federal guidelines for several OCFO applications at the Research
Triangle Park campus hi North Carolina. The firm identified where EPA had not documented:
(1) key contingency plan elements, (2) critical hardware and software requirements, and (3)
primary and secondary contacts. These weaknesses occurred because of inconsistency in
training for relevant contingency planning officials. Incomplete contingency plans can present
significant challenges for EPA should an unforeseen event occur, particularly since the
organization may believe these systems have sufficiently documented procedures to expedite
recovery. Further, without adequate planning, management may not be able to mitigate the
negative effects of interrupted operations.
The contracted public accounting firm's review identified the following specific contingency
plan weaknesses:
• The Budget Automation System is not referenced in the OCFO's Office of Budget
contingency plan. Agency officials did not fully document key contingency elements,
such as an emergency telephone list and a listing of vendors, suppliers, and other
service providers hi the OCFO Annual Planning and Budget Division Disaster
Preparedness and Recovery Guide - Budget Automation System.
• The PeoplePlus contingency plan does not identify the primary and secondary contacts,
although the information is included in the Critical Applications Disaster Recovery
Plan. Neither plan specifies which of the two plans takes priority should an outage
occur.
• The firm noted inconsistency as to whether an application contingency plan was
prepared for applications not subscribing to the National Computer Center Disaster
Recovery Service. If a contingency plan was prepared, the level of detail within the
plan was not consistent. For example, the Travel Manager +, Financial Data
Warehouse, and Bank Card systems do not have separate contingency plans. Although
the security plans for these systems address contingency planning, these security plans
do not document detailed steps to recover application hardware, software, and
telecommunications, nor do the plans identify alternative processing locations for the
applications.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO
22. Have responsible office directors provide training to all application owners on the
importance of developing, maintaining, and testing contingency plans in accordance
with EPA and Federal guidelines and ensure the plans clearly define necessary recovery
steps for each application.
IV-117
-------
23. Have the Director, Office of Budget, revise the Budget Automation System's
contingency plan to contain (a) complete contact information for key personnel, and
(b) alternate processing and return to normal operations procedures.
24. Have the Director, OFS, revise the PeoplePlus' contingency plan so it clearly describes
whether the PeoplePlus plan or the Critical Applications Disaster Recovery Plan takes
precedence during a recovery process.
25. Have the Director, OFM, revise contingency plans for all of their applications not
subscribing to the National Computer Center Disaster Recovery Services (e.g.,
Financial Data Warehouse), in accordance with relevant Federal and EPA criteria and
best practices.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The OCFO concurred with our recommendations and provided details on corrective measures
that would address some of the recommendations.
IV-118
-------
Attachment 2
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Table of Contents
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
Noncompliance Issue'
10 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intragovernmental Transactions.... IV-120
1 We are reporting this noncompliance issue under FFMIA as it directly relates to FFMIA reporting requirements;
however, the issue does not meet the OMB criteria for substantial noncompliance under FFMIA.
IV-119
-------
10 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile
Intragovernmental Transactions
While EPA improved reconciliations of its intragovemmental transactions during fiscal 2005, the
Agency was unable to reconcile a material difference of $149 million with one Federal agency -
the Department of Health and Human Services. Without the proper confirmations from its
trading partners, EPA has limited assurance that intragovemmental balances are accurate. EPA
had experienced similar occurrences in the past that prohibited it from fully complying with the
applicable requirements.
»
Intragovemmental transactions have been classified by the Government Accountability Office as
a Government-wide material weakness due to the lack of standardization hi recording and
processing intragovemmental activities. To resolve the issue, OMB established standard
business rules (Memorandum M-03-01, October 4,2002) to be used in intragovemmental
exchange activities. OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, which was
updated August 2005, requires Federal agencies to report intragovemmental assets, liabilities,
revenue, and certain reporting entities with then- trading partners. This information is to be
presented in the financial statements as Required Supplementary Information and should agree
with line items reported on the balance sheet.
The U.S. Treasury's Federal Intragovernmental Transactions Accounting Policies Guide was
updated hi July 2005 and provides Government-wide accounting policies for Federal agencies to
account for and reconcile intragovemmental transactions. The Guide provides tools (procedures
and examples) to facilitate quarterly reconciliation of intragovemmental activities. EPA has
taken action to reconcile its intragovemmental activity on a quarterly basis. At yearend, the
Agency had one material difference of $149 million in unreconciled activity with the Department
of Health and Human Services.
Recommendation
We recommend that the OCFO
26. Require OFM to continue its efforts in reconciling the Agency's intragovernmental
transactions to comply with Federal financial reporting requirements.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with the audit issue raised and believes that the unreconciled amount was a
result of differing accounting methodologies between agencies. The Agency stated that will
continue efforts to reconcile the Agency's intragovemmental transactions to comply with Federal
financial reporting requirements.
IV-120
-------
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 Audit Follow-Up Official and is responsible for ensuring that corrective actions are
implemented. To resolve long-standing audit recommendations, the Deputy Chief Financial
Officer formed an Audit Follow-Up Council in July 2000. The Council reviews the progress on
audit findings, discusses approaches to resolving audit issues, and provides coordination and
support across OCFO on audit-related matters. Council membership consists of the Deputy
Chief Financial Officer, the OCFO Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, and all of the OCFO Office
Directors.
The Agency has continued to make substantial progress in completing corrective actions from
prior years. These issue areas from prior financial statement audits, with corrective actions in
process, are listed in the following table.
Audit Issue Areas with Corrective Actions in Process
Automated Application Processing Controls for IFMS:
EPA has made progress towards replacing IFMS. However, until EPA implements the
planned replacement automated accounting system that addresses past issues, we will
continue to disclose a reportable condition concerning documentation of the current
accounting system and its automated application processing controls.
EPA Needs to Strengthen Practices Regarding Security Screening for Non-Federal
Personnel:
An audit report issued during fiscal 2004 found that there are still some weaknesses
regarding contractor access to IFMS. The Agency's 1999 Remediation Plan is still not
completely implemented. The Agency expects to issue policy on security certifications for
contractor and grantee personnel in October 2006.
EPA Continues Actions to Improve Cost Accounting:
Since our last report, EPA has redefined its cost accounting outputs, improved the OCFO's
Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool, continued to make progress in its data
integration efforts, and has recently developed a report to show the full costs of its outputs.
However, because the Agency did not produce reports that show the full costs of its outputs
during fiscal 2005, the Agency was still not in full compliance with Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and
Standards for the Federal Government, although we do not consider the noncompliance to
be substantial.
IV-121
-------
Audit Issue Areas with Corrective Actions in Process
Further Improvement Needed for State Superfund Contract and Superfund Unbilled
Oversight Accruals:
EPA developed a review and certification process as a result of the fiscal 2005 Reportable
Condition, but oversight of the accruals was still not effective. Please see Attachment 1 for
additional information.
EPA Did Not Promptly Record Marketable Securities:
The Agency began performing quarterly reconciliations of noncash assets in fiscal 2005 in
response to our finding in fiscal 2004. However, we found an instance where marketable
securities received from one company in settlement of debts for receivables at one region
were not recorded promptly. We made recommendations to the Agency during this year's
audit to improve its reconciliation procedures, but have not included it as a Reportable
Condition in Attachment 1 because we found only one nonmaterial instance of a problem.
EPA Continues to Experience Difficulties in Reconciling Intragovernmental
Transactions:
EPA improved reconciliations of its intragovernmental transactions during fiscal 2005;
however, the Agency was unable to reconcile a material difference with one Federal
agency. Please see Attachment 2 for additional information.
Weaknesses in Change Control Procedures for Integrated Financial Management
System:
EPA has a Plan of Action and Milestones to correct these weaknesses. The Agency reports
that a number of actions have been completed, and the remaining actions are targeted for
completion by March 31.2006.
IV-122
-------
Appendix II
Agency's Response to Draft Report
KOV 1 0 2QQ5
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report: Response to Audit of EPA's Fiscal Years 2005 and
2004 Financial Statements
FROM: Lyons
Chief Financial Officer (2710A)
TO: Paul C. Curtis, Director
Financial Audit (2422T)
My staff and I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Audit Report
of the Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year 2005 and 2004 Financial
Statements. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's (OCFO) perspective on the
audit's observations and recommendations is provided in the attached document.
We agree with the audit issues raised. EPA has effective internal controls with
strong policies and procedures in place and I believe that corrective actions will
strengthen compliance with existing policies and procedures. We are evaluating the best
method to address each issue that will achieve a timely resolution of audit issues.
As a result of increased vigilance in FY 2005, our internal assessments uncovered
some areas mat required strengthening. We worked proactively to devise and implement
long-term corrective actions for these issues. We believe the issues raised by the OIG
during the FY 2005 audit validated our internal "self assessments" and corrective actions.
We appreciate OIG acknowledgement of our efforts and progress in this audit report.
We look forward to another productive year working with the OIG. If you have
any questions, please contact Lorna McAllister, Director of the Office of Financial
Management at 202-564-4905.
Attachment
Cc: Mike Ryan
Maryann Froehlich
Lorna M. McAllister
Dennis Nolan
OCFO Office Directors
OFM Staff Directors
IV-123
-------
Attachment I
OCFO's Response to the FY 2005 and FY 2004 Draft Audit Report
Reportable Conditions
1. Payroll Internal Controls
OIG found that EPA made payroll payments to separated employees. OIG
recommends that OCFO work with EPA's Administration and Resources
Management office to ensure proper processing of personnel actions, modify
automated controls, and reinforce existing controls.
At the beginning of FY 2005, OCFO implemented a new time and attendance system.
OCFO made significant strides to assure system transparency to the Agency and
compliance with established payroll policies and procedures. Li FY 2006, OCFO will
continue to validate payroll system internal controls, enforce existing procedures, and
take further corrective actions as necessary.
2. Excess Salary Payments
OIG found the OCFO's payroll system made excess salary payments to employees
totaling $14,891 of a $54 million bi-weekly payroll, which equates to .04% of total
payroll.
OCFO has automated internal controls in place for the majority of potential causes for
salary overpayments and manual controls in place for many others. OCFO is
initiating enhancements to broaden the scope of automated controls to replace
existing manual controls. We will continue to evaluate the results as part of our bi-weekly
payroll review process.
3. Superfund State Contract (SSC) and Superfund Unbilled Oversight Accruals
The OIG noted areas where increased oversight would improve the management of
SSC and Superfund unbilled oversight accruals.
hi the past year, OCFO made considerable progress towards assuring consistency
with SSC and Superfund unbilled oversight accrual calculations. As OCFO continues
its efforts to consolidate accounting operations, we will explore options for
centralizing these accrual processes.
4. General Ledger Account Adjustments for Receivables Transferred to Cincinnati
Finance Center
OIG Identified regional offices' accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful
accounts that needed adjustment during an OCFO functional and consolidation process.
IV-124
-------
As part of the process to consolidate EPA's financial operations into four finance
centers, the Agency successfully transferred five of the ten regions' accounts
receivable functions to one finance center. An account analysis identified accounting
point balances that required adjustments that are reflected in the financial statements.
As the Agency progresses in transferring the accounts receivable functions from the
remaining five regions, OCFO will continue to monitor appropriate general ledger
accounts and assist the Financial Management Officers in resolving account balance
issues.
5. Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews
The OIG recommends increased oversight of the QA program activity to ensure
comprehensive reviews and adequate documentation.
In FY 2005, OCFO made significant progress with the QA program. OCFO updated
and published the QA Guide on the EPA intranet. It reflects current policies,
procedures, and approaches to evaluating accounting functions. In addition, OCFO
conducted a specialized session on QA reviews and their relationship to the revised
OMB Circular A-123 requirements. To continue the QA program's success, OCFO is
conducting a training class in December 2005 for Agency finance personnel.
6. Distribution of the Budget Clearing Accounts
OIG identified interagency transactions that were inappropriately distributed.
In this instance, EPA billed other agencies and two transactions were returned two
days prior to the close of the fiscal year. EPA reissued the bills in October 2005 and
the FY 2005 financial statements reflect the appropriate accounting adjustments.
7. Documentation of Adjustments to the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS) Entries
The OIG noted instances of adjusting entries made without proper or adequate
documentation.
OCFO's Policy Announcement 93-02, dated November 13,1992, requires adequate
source documentation to support all financial transactions. OCFO will insist that
Financial Management Officers ensure that all adjusting transactions entered into the
Agency's accounting system be adequately documented and easily accessible in
accordance with the Policy Announcement.
8. Correcting Rejected Transactions
OIG observed instances of rejected data transfers between PeoplePlus (PPL) and
IFMS that were not resolved in a timely manner.
IV-125
-------
OCFO took action to identify and correct the rejected data for 16 employees. The
Office of Human Resources implemented a control that should prevent a
reoccurrence.
9. Contingency Plans for Financial Applications
OIG noted instances where contingency plans for financial systems did not fully
comply with Federal or EPA continuity guidelines.
OCFO remains firmly committed to securing its system and data in a cost effective
manner and in compliance with Federal guidance, EPA policy, and best practices. In
FY 2006, OCFO will revise current contingency plans to clearly state the critical
operations, supporting resources, and alternate processing procedures for the financial
systems identified by the OIG.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Noncompliance Issues
10. Intragovernmental Transactions
As OIG acknowledged, OCFO greatly improved reconciliations of its
intragovemmental transactions during FY 2005. However, at year end, EPA was
unable to reconcile a large difference with one Federal agency.
EPA believes this is a result of differing accounting methodologies between agencies.
EPA will continue efforts to reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental transactions to
comply with Federal financial reporting requirements.
IV-126
-------
Appendix A
Annual Performance Goals Results for
FY 2002-2004
November 15, 2005
-------
APPENDIX A: PRIOR YEAR RESULTS
Introduction
To supplement the performance trend charts and graphs presented with FY 2005 annual performance goal (APG)
results, this appendix provides actual and externally reported results for FY 2001-2004. These data, along with an
explanation of the results, are also reported in previous EPA annual performance reports, available at
www.epa.qov/ocfo/finstatement/apr.htm. EPA continues to improve and refine its performance measures, and as a
result, some annual performance goals and measures have changed over the years. To enable readers to align
prior year results with current year results, APGs listed in this appendix are numbered to correspond with FY 2005
APGs.
Goal I
APG I.I Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, Lead (Pb) Planned Actual
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, SO-,, NO-,, or Pb
concentrations below the NAAQs for the standard will increase by 4% (relative to
2003) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1992). More information about this
result can be found in Section 2 of this report. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with 53% 49%
ambient CO, SO,. NO2, or Pb concentrations below the level the NAAQs as
compared to 1992.
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient CO. SO1( NO2, 87% 99%
or Pb concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean 174 M 173.3 M
Air Standards for CO, SO,. NO,, or Pb.
- Areas newly designated to attainment for CO. SO,. NO,, or Pb standards. 19 areas 14 areas
- Additional people livinz in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment 6.2 M 5.4 M
of the CO. SO,. NO,, or Pb standards.
- Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. 12.6 M 12.6 M
FY 2003 Maintain healthy air quality for 167.8 million people living in monitored areas attaining
the CO. SO,, NO,, or Pb: increase by 435 thousand the number of people living in areas
with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient 47%
CO, SO,. NO,, or Pb concentrations below the level the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb 91 %
concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean Air 167.8 M
Standards for CO, SO,, NO,, or Pb.
- Areas newly designated to attainment for CO, SO,, NO,, or Pb standards. 16 areas 5 areas
- Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of the 435 K
CO. SO,, NO,, or Pb standards.
- Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. 11.3 M 11.3 M
FY 2002 Maintain healthy air quality for 167 million people living in monitored areas attaining the
CO. SO,. NO,, or Pb; increase by 16 million the number of people living in areas with
healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient 47%
CO. SO,, NO,, or Pb concentrations below the level the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient CO, SOZ, NO2, or Pb 87%
concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
A-l
-------
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean Air 167.4 M
Standards for CO. SO,. NO,, or Pb.
- Areas newly designated to attainment for CO. SO,. NO-,, or Pb standards. 10 areas 12 areas
- Additional people livine in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of 16.5 M
the CO. SO,. NO,, or Pb standards.
- Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. 11.0 M 11.0 M
APG 1.2
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-IO
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations
below the NAAQs for the PM,n standard will increase by less than I % (relative to
2003) for a cumulative total of 6% (relative to 1992). Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with 6%
ambient PM|0 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient PM,0 concentra- 40%
tions below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated attainment of the Clean Air 120 M
Standards for PM,0.
- Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of 380 K
the PM,o standard.
- Areas newly designated to attainment. 9 areas
- Percent of areas with improving ambient PM,n concentrations. 76 %
- Tons of PM,,) Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART) 18.100
- Tons of PMu Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART) 13,500
Maintain healthy air Quality for 120 million people living in monitored areas attaining the
PMm standards: increase by 252 thousand the number of people living in areas with
healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient
PM,n concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient PM,0 concentrations
below the level of the NAAQs as compared to (992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean Air
Standards for PMm.
- Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment
of the PM,n standard.
- Areas newly designated to attainment 8 areas
- Tons of PMIO Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART] 25.000
- Tons of PMjj Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART) 18,000
Maintain healthy air Quality for 120 million people living in monitored areas attaining
the PM,n standards: increase by 2.7million the number of people
living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient
PM,n concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared .to 1991
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient PM,0 concentrations
below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean Air
Standard for PM,*.
- Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of the
PM10 standard.
Planned Actual
6%
54%
120.5 M
126 K
6 areas
62%
18,100
13,500
6 a/
/o
50%
120.4 M
252 K
5 areas
25.000
18,000
5%
40%
120 M
2.7 M
A-2
-------
• Areas newly desienated to attainment for PMm.
• Tons of PM|0 Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
• Tons of PM,« Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
6 areas
23,000
17.250
APG 1.3 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PMjj
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM, t concentrations
below NAAQs will increase by less than I % (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total
of less than I % (relative to 200 \). Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of people who live in ambient PMiS
concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 2001.
- Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM,t concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 2001.
APG 1.4 Reduce SO2 Emissions
FY 2004 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make
progress toward achievement of Year 2010 SO, emissions cap for utilities.
Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9 million tons from the 1990 baseline.
Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Planned
SM
4 areas
23,000
17.250
20%
46%
Actual
7.1 M
FY 2003 Maintain or increase annual SO, emission reduction of
approximately 5 million tons from the 1980 baseline. Keep annual
emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make
progress toward achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Goal Met
FY 2002 Same goal. Goal Met
SM
5M
6.8 M
7M
APG 1.5 Reduce Air Toxic Emissions Planned
FY 2004 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be
reduced by an additional 2% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6 million tons for a
cumulative reduction of 37%. Due to a multi-year data lag there is no FY 2002 -
FY 2004 information for this APG.
Performance Measures:
- Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions.
- Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
- Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
- Area and All other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
FY 2003 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be
reduced by an additional I % of the updated 1993 baseline of 6 million tons for a
cumulative reduction of 35%.
Performance Measures:
- Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions.
- Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
- Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
- Area and All other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
FY 2002 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be
Actual
2% Data Available
.71 tons 2012
1.59 tons
+.13 tons
I % Data Available
.68 tons 2009
1.57 tons
+.12 tons
A-3
-------
FY 2001
FY 2000
FY 1999
reduced by 5% from 2001 (for a cumulative reduction of 40% from the 1993 level
of 4.3 million tons per year).
Performance Measures:
- Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions.
Same goal, cumulative target of 35% reduction from the 1993 level. Goal Not Met.
Same goal, cumulative target of 30% reduction from the 1993 level. Goal Not Met.
Reduce air toxic emissions by 12% in FY 1999, resulting in cumulative reduction
of 25% from 1993 levels. Goal Met.
5% Data Available
2006
5%
3%
12%
1.7%
1.7%
APG 1.6 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 hour
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations
below NAAQs for the 8-hour standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a
cumulative total 7% (relative to 2001). Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report..
Performance Measures:
- Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient < I 19%
8-hour concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 2001.
- Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of areas with ambient 8-hour < I 31 %
concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 2001.
APG 1.7
FY2004
APG 1.8
FY2004
Acid Rain - Reduce Sulfur Deposition
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations
25% from baseline. Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient
nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. (PART) Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Acid Rain - Reduce Nitrogen Deposition
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations
25%
5%
Planned
5%
31%
7%
Actual
7°'
/ /&
FY2003
5 % from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored
levels. (PART) Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Two million tons of NOX from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced from levels that 2 M
would have been emitted without implementation of Title IV of the CAA. Goal Met.
3.5M
APG 1.9 Healthier Residential Indoor Air
FY 2004 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
FY 2003 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments. Goal Mec.
Planned
834,400
Actual
834,000
834.400 834,000
FY 2002 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments. Goal Met
834,400 834,000
A-4
-------
APG 1.10 Healthier Indoor Air in Schools Planned Actual
FY2004 1,500,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor 1.5 M 1.63 M
air quality (IAQ) in their schools. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 1 of this report..
FY2003 1,050,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor 1.05 M i.05 M
air quality (IAQ) in their schools. Goal Met.
FY 2002 1,228,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in 1.2 M 1.2 M
their schools. Goal Met.
APG 1.1 I Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
FY 2005 150,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their
workplaces. This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 1.12 Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class 11 HCFCs Planned Actual
FY 2004 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP MTs and restrict
domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons
below 10,000 ODP Mts. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs. <9,9060 5,500
- Newly produced Domestic Exempted Production and Import of class I CFCs and < 10,000 1,225
halons.
FY 2003 Same goal, same targets. More information about this result can be found in Section 2
of this report Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs. <9,9060 7,110
- Newly produced Domestic Exempted Production and Import of class 1 CFCs and < 10,000 2,049
halons.
FY 2002 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 15,240 ODP MTs and restrict
domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons
below 60,000 ODP MTs. Goal Met.
Perforrnance_M easyres:
. -Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs.
-------
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
6,000
22,800
APG 1.14
FY2004
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
Planned
EPA will purchase 60 state of the art radiation monitoring units thereby increasing 60
EPA radiation monitoring capacity and population coverage from 37% of the contiguous
U.S. population in FY 2002 to 50% in FY 2004. Goal Not Met.
APG 1.15 Homeland Security—Readiness and Response
FY 2005 Verify that 50% of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members
meet scenario based response criteria. This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no
prior year data for this APG.
APG 1.16 Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Actual
0
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
FY 2004 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 90 mmtce per
year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments,
and other organizations. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Annual GHG Reductions- All EPA Programs. 81.0 M 87.9 M
• GHG Reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs (ENERGY STAR). (PART) 21.4 M 26.2 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste Management Programs. (PART) 7.3 M 9 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach Programs. (PART) 18.1 M I9.9M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial HFCIPFC Programs. (PART) 29.6 M 28.2 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART) 2.6 M 2.6 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs. (PART) 2.0 M 2.0 M
FY 2003 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 72.2 mmtce per
year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments,
and other organizations.
Performance Measures:
- Annual GHG Reductions- All EPA Programs. 72.2 M 82.4 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Bui/dings Sector Programs (ENERGY STARJ. (PART) 19.2 M 23.0 M
• GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency Waste Management Programs. (PART) 6.7 M 7.4 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach Programs. (PART) 17.0 M 17.9 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial HFCIPFC Programs. (PART) 24.9 M 29.8 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART) . 2.4 M 2.3 M
- GHG Reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs. (PART) 2.0 M 2.0 M
FY 2002 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 65.8 mmtce 65.8 M 71 M
per year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments,
and other organizations thereby offsetting growth in GHG above 1990 levels by about
20%. Goal Met.
APG 1.17 Reduce Energy Consumption
Planned
Actual
FY 2004 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 110
billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to over $7.5 billion (B) in energy
savings to consumers and businesses. Goal Met
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
FY 2003 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 95
billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to over $6.5 billion (B) in energy
HOB
95 B
145 B
122.8 B
A-6
-------
savings to consumers and businesses. Goal Met.
FY2002 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 85 billion kilowatt- 85 B
hours, contributing to over $10 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
Goal Met.
100 B
APG 1.18 Clean Automotive Technology Planned Actual
FY2004 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car
applications, to meet size, performance, durability, and towing requirements of
sport utility vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with an average fuel
economy improvement of 25% over the baseline. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Fuel Economy of typical SUV with EPA-developed hybrid technology 25.2 25.2
over EPA driving cycles tested.
APG 1.19 PM Effects Research Planned Actual
FT 2005 By FY 2005, deliver and transfer improved receptor models and data on chemical
compounds emitted from sources so that by 2006, EPA's office of Air and Radiation
and the states have the necessary new data and tools to predict, measure, and reduce
ambient PM and PM emissions to attain the existing PM NAAQs for the protection
of public health. This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING FY 2005
GOALS
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations Planned
below the NAAQs for the I-hour ozone standard will increase by 4%
{relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 47% (relative to 1992).
Goal Not Met
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures: 47%
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient I-hour ozone concentrations below the level of the
NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient I-hour ozone 55%
concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
- Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of the Clean
Air Standards for ozone.
- Areas newly designated to attainment for the ozone standards. 5 areas
- Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of 5.8 M
ozone standards.
-Millions of tons of VOCs reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
- Millions of tons of NOx reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
2.0 M
I.65M
Actual
44%
96?
167.3 M 165.4M
3 areas
3.9 M
2.0 M
I.65M
A-7
-------
GOAL 2
APG 2.1
FY2004
FY 2003
FY2002
APG 2.2
FY 2005
APG 2.3
FY 2004
FY2003
APG 2.4
Safe Drinking Water Meeting All Standards — Population
Pooulation served by community water systems will
receive drinking water meeting all health-based standards, up from
83% in 1994. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met
Same goal, different targets. Goal Me:.
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards — Population
Ninety-four percent of the population served by community water systems
will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards with which
systems need to comply as of December 200 1 .
This APG is new for FY 2005.
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards - Population
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking water
meeting health-based standards promulgated in 1 998. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Same goal. Goal Met.
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards — Systems
Planned
92%
92%
91%
Planned
Planned
85%
85%
Planned
Actual
90%
90%
94%
Actual
Actual
97%
96%
Actual
FY 2005 Ninety-four percent of community water systems will provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of
December 2001.1
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 2.5 Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards - Systems
FY 2005 Seventy-five percent of community water systems will provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 2.6 Safe Drinking Water - Tribal Communities
FY 2005 Ninety percent of the population served by community water systems in Indian
country will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
water standards. This APG is new for FY 2005.
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
APG 2.7 Source Water Protection
FY 2004 Advance states' efforts with community water systems to protect their
surface and ground water resources that are sources of drinking water
supplies. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Planned
Actual
For FY 2007, the Agency will be reporting on a measure which combines the current APGs ~LA and 2.5. It measures the percent of community water
systems in compliance with all drinking water standards. This measure arose from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund PART.
A-8
-------
Number of community water systems and percent of population served
by those CWSs that are implementing source water protection programs.
7,500
25%
13,891
42%
FY2003
APG2.8
FY2004
39,000 community water systems (representing 75% of the nation's service
population) will have completed source water assessments and 2,600
of these (representing 1 0% of the nation's service population) will be
implementing source water protection programs.
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Fish Consumption
Reduce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to
2,600
10%
Planned
6,570
25%
Actual
states, tribes, local governments, citizens, and decision-makers. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and compilation of state-issued 35% 35%
fish consumption advisory methodologies (cumulative).
- River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption advisories and compilation 16% 24%
state-issued fish consumption advisory methodologies(cumulative).
FY 2003 Reduce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the
information available to states, tribes, local governments, citizens,
and decision-makers. Goal Met
Performance Measures:
- Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and compilation of 29% 33%
state-issued fish consumption advisory methodologies (cumulative).
- River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption advisories 15% 15%
and compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies (cumulative).
APG 2.9 Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Shellfish Consumption Planned Actual
FY 2005 Eighty percent of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or
conditionally approved for use. This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior
year data for this APG.
APG 2.10 Improve Water Quality to Allow Increased Safe Swimming Planned Actual
FY 2005 Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2% of the stream miles
and lake acres identified by states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 2.11 Increase Beach Safety
FY 2004 Reduce human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing
the information available to the public and decision-makers. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measure:
Beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available to the public at
www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/ (cumulative).
FY 2003 Reduce human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing
the information available to the public and decision-makers. Goal Met
Performance Measures
- Beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available to the
public at www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/ (cumulative).
Planned Actual
2,823
1,857
2,550
1,823
A-9
-------
FY2002
APG2.I2~
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
APG2.I3~
FY2005
Same goal, different target Goal Met.
2,354
2,445
Watershed Protection Planned Actual
By 2005, water duality will improve on a watershed basis such that 500 of the nation's 500 450
2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80% of assessed waters meeting all water
quality standards. Goal Not Met
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
By FY 2003, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 600 of the 600 453
nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80% of assessed waters meeting all
WQSs, up from 500 watersheds in 1998. Goal Not Met.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met 600 453
— —^—_— ^___^ _
Watershed Protection - Waterbodies Planned Actual
Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by
2012, with an interim milestone of restoring 2% of these waters-identified in 2000
as not attaining standards by 2005. This APG is new for FY 2005.
APG 2.14 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards - Monitoring
FY 2003 Assure that states and tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards
programs adopted in accordance with the regulation and the WQSs program
priorities. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- States with new or revised WQSs that EPA has reviewed and approved or
disapproved and promulgated federal replacement standards.
- Tribes with WQSs adopted and approved (cumulative).
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Planned Actual
20
33
20 states
27 tribes
27
25
25 states
22 tribes
APG 2. 1 5 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards - Sanitation Access
FY 2005 In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 11%, households on tribal
lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
APG 2. 1 6
FY 2005
Coastal Aquatic Conditions - Ecological Health
Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each
coastal region,. is improved on the good/fair/poor scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report by at least O.I point. This APG is new for FY 2005. There is
no prior year data for this
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
APG 2.17 Coastal Aquatic Conditions - Use Attainment
FY 2005 Improve ratings reported on the national good/fair/poor scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0. 1 point;
contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least O.I point; benthic
quality by at least 0. 1 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 0. 1 point.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned Actual
APG 2.18 Water Quality Research
Planned Actual
A-10
-------
FY2004 Provide final reports on the performance of arsenic treatment technologies and/or 9/30/04 9/30/04
engineering approaches to the Office of Water and water supply utilities to aid in the
implementation of the arsenic rule and the protection of human health. Goal Met.
GOAL 3
APG3.I
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
Divert an additional I % (for a cumulative total of 33% or 79 million tons) of
municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita
generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
Due to a multi-year data lag the FY 2004 result is not available.
Performance Measures:
- Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.
- Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. (PART)
Planned
Actual
79 M Data
4.5 Ibs Available
FY2006
FY2003
FY2002
APG3.2
FY2004
Same Goal, different target. Goal Not Met
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Same Goal, different target. Goal Mac.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleui
74 M
4.5 Ibs
69 M
4.5 Ibs
Planned
n
72.3 M
4.4 Ibs
70 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
products properly. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved
controls. (PART)
- Confirmed UST releases nationally.
- Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with leak
detection requirements.
- Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with spill,
overfill and corrosion protection regulations.
2.4%
< 10,000
4%
4%
Increase the number of waste and petroleum facilities with acceptable or approved controls
in place to prevent releases to the environment. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other 77.2%
approved controls.
- Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with leak detection 3%
requirements.
- Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with spill, overfill and 3%
corrosion protection regulations.
75.8% of the hazardous waste management facilities will have approved controls in 75.8%
place to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater, representing an
average increase of 39 additional facilities per year. Goal Men.
APG 3.3 Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land Planned
FY 2004 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties
3.7%
7,848
-4%
-6%
83.2%
-8%.
6O/
/o
79.0%
Actual
A-ll
-------
or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land available for reuse.
Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report
Performance Measures:
- Sutoerfund final site assessment decisions. (PART) 500
- Sufcerfund construct/on completions. (PART] 40
- Suderfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled. (PART) 10
- Suberfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled. (PART) 10
- Final remedies (cleanuo tareets) selected at Suoerfund sites. 20
- High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins contro//ed. (PART) 16.6
- High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater 129
controlled.. (PART)
- LUST cleanups completed.
548
40
15
18
30
195
ISO
21,000 14.285
FY2003
FY2003
FY2002
FY2002
FY2002
Assess waste sites. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions.
- Number of Superfund removal response actions initiated.
Clean up and reduce risk at waste sites. Goal Not Met.
475
275
Performance Measures:
- Number of Superfund construction completions. 40
- Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures (HE) controlled. (PART) 10
- Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled. (PART) 10
- Number of"high priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled. (PART) 197
- Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled. (PART) 158
- Number of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups completed. 21,000
(Superfund Cleanup)
EPA and its partners will complete 40 Superfund cleanups (construction completions). 40
Goal Met
(RCRA Corrective Actions)
172 (for a cumulative total of 995 or 58%) of high priority RCRA facilities will have
human exposure (HE) controlled and 172 (for a cumulative total of 882 or 51 %) of
high priority RCRA facilities will have groundwater releases (GWR) controlled.
Goal Met
917
380
40
28
54
230
175
18,518
42
172 HE 205 HE
172 GWR 171 GWR
(Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups)
EPA and its partners will complete 22,000 LUST cleanups for a cumulative total of 22,000
approximately 290,000 cleanups since 1987. Goal Not Met
15,769
APG 3.4
FY2004
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation
Planned
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at 90%
90% of those Superfund sites having known non-Federal, viable, liable parties. Goal Met.
Actual
98%
APG 3.5 Superfund Cost Recovery
FY 2004 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and
recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address cost
recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations on total past
costs equal to or greater than $200,000. Goal Met
Planned
100%
Actual
100%
A-12
-------
FY2003 Same Goal. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Same goal. Goal Met.
FY2003
FT 2002
100%
100%
100%
!00%
APG 3.6 Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases Planned Actual
FY 2004 Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases or harmful
substances by improving our nation's capability to prepare for and respond more
effectively to these emergencies. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Superfund removal response actions initiated. 350 385
- Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA 300 308
- Percentage of emergency response readiness improvement. 10% 56%
FY2003 Improve homeland security response readiness and continue assessment of critical
facility vulnerability. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Develop baseline data for response readiness, incorporation of Homeland Security Baseline 823
into community contingency plans, and critical facilities requiring vulnerability data (Baseline)
assessments.
- Number of oil facilities in compliance with spill prevention, control and counter-
measure provisions of oil pollution prevention regulations. 600 525
FT 2002
APG 3.7
FY2004
Respond to or monitor 300 significant oil spills in the inland zone. Goal Met.
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Clean-up
Provide risk assessors and managers with site-specific data sets on 3 applications
300
Planned
322
Actual
detailing the performance of conventional remedies for contaminated sediments to
help determine the most effective techniques for remediating contaminated sites and
protecting human health and the environment. Goal Met
Performance Measure:
Reports on performance data for conventional sediment remedies for three sites.
3 reports 3 reports
To ensure cost-effective and technically sound site clean-up, deliver state-of-the-science
reports and methods to EPA and other stakeholders for risk management of fuel oxygenates;
organic and inorganic contamination of sediments, groundwater and/or soils; and oil spills.
Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Complete draft of the FY 2002 Annual Superfund Innovation Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Report to Congress.
Provide at least 6 innovative approaches that reduce human health and ecosystem exposures
from dense non-aqueous phase liquids and methyl-tertiary butyl ether in soils and
groundwater, and from oil and persistent organics in aquatic systems. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Deliver the Annual SITE Program Report to Congress detailing 4-6 innovative approaches, I
their cost savings and future direction; reports summarizing pilot scale evaluation of in situ
remedies for solvents.
A-13
-------
GOAL 4
APG4.I
FY2004
FY2003
APG4.2
FY2004
FY2003
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
Ensure that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active in£redients and the
products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for human
health and the environment taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as
subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Product Reregistration.
- Rereeistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (cumulative).
- Tolerance Reassessment (cumulative).
- Tolerance Reassessments for too 20 foods eaten by children (cumulative).
- Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed.
Planned Actual
400 actions
81.7%
78%
83%
100
127
77.6%
73.0%
68.9%
28
Assure that pesticides' active ingredients registered prior to 1984 and the products that
contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the
environment Also consider the uniaue exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of
Native Americans in regulatory decisions. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Product Registration.
- Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (cumulative).
- Tolerance Reassessment
- Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children.
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met
Performance Measures:
- Product Reregistration.
- RED (cumulative).
350 actions
76%
68%
75%
750
76.4%
FY 2002 By the end of 2002 EPA will reassess a cumulative 66% of the 9,721 pesticide 66%
tolerances required to be reassessed more than 10 years. This includes 67% of the 893 67%
tolerances having the greatest potential impact on dietary risks to children. Goal Met
306
75%
68%
65.6%
314
72.7%
66.9%
65.6%
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report
Performance Measures:
- Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
- Occurrences of residues on a core set of 19 foods eaten by children relative to
occurrence levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Planned Actual
8.5%
25%
13%
34%
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels and assure that new pesticides
that enter the market are safe for humans and the environment through ensuring that all
registration actions are timely and comply with standards mandated by law. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Percentage of acre treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
- Occurrences of residues on a core of 19 foods eaten by children relative to
occurrence levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met
Performance Measure:
- Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
8.1%
20%
8.0%
34.3%
105
107
A-14
-------
- Detections of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase inhibitinz neurotoxic
pesticides on foods eaten by children will have decreased by 15% (cumulative) 15%
from their average 1994 to 1996 levels. Goal Met
- At least I % of acre-treatments will use applications of reduced risk pesticides. Goal Met. I %
20%
7.5%
APG4.3 Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
FY2004 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial
chemicals.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Certified nationally to perform lead-based paint abatement
- Children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> I Ougldt). (PART)
- Safe disposal of transformers.
- Safe disposal of capacitors
- Number of participants in Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
(cumulative).
FY2003 Reduce lead exposure in housing units and in the deleading of bridges and structures.
Goal Met
Performance Measure:
Certified nationally (federally-administered and state-administered program).
FY2002 Implement certification and training of lead abatement professionals. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Certified nationally (federally-administered and state-administered programV
Planned Actual
FY2003
FY2002
APG4.5~
FY2004
18.000
270K
8.000
6,000
2,000
5,000
APG 4.4 Process and Disseminate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Information
FY 2004 The increased use of the TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden
reduction of 5% for FY 2003 from FY 2002 levels. Goal Not Met
Performance Measure:
Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using TRI-ME and the 50%
CDX
Expanded information on releases and waste management of lead and lead compounds 8,000
will be reported by 8,000 facilities in TRI in Reporting Year 2001 and increased usage of 25%
TRI-ME will result in total burden reduction of 25% for Reporting Year 2002. Goal Met
EPA will reduce reporting burden, improve data quality, lower program costs, and speed 85%
data publication by increasing the amount of TRI electronic reporting from 70% to 85%.
Goal Met
Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
Goal Met
Performance Measures:
- TSCA pre-manufacture notice reviews (annual).
- Number of Notice of Commencements (NOCs) received as percentage of total
number of chemicals in TSCA inventory (cumulative).
- Make screening level health and environmental effects data publicly available for
sponsored HPV chemicals (cumulative).
1,700
22.6%
1,300
24,000
Data
Available
FY2006
2.930
5.561
•ogramV
i
al burden
4.000 4,574
Planned Actual
50% 36%
38%
8.561
25%
92%
Planned Actual
1,377
A-15
-------
-Annual number of TSC A Section 5 Pre-Manufacturer Notices (PMNs) received
self-audited using complete battery of P2 Framework/PBT Profiler screening tools. 40 71
- Reduction in current year production-adjusted risk screening environmental 2% Data Available
indicators risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. (PART) FY 2006
Due to a multi-year data lag FY 200-4 data is not available.
- Cumulative number of chemicals for which AEGL values proposed. 128 134
- High Production Volume chemicals with complete Screening Information Data 75 98
Sets (SIDS) submitted to OECD SIDS Initial Assessment Meeting (annual).
FY 2003 Of the approximately 1,800 applications for new chemicals and microorganisms 1,800 1,633
submitted by industry, ensure those marketed are safe for humans and the
environment. Increase proportion of commercial chemicals that have undergone
pre-manufacture notice review to signify they are properly managed and may be
potential green alternatives to existing chemicals. Goal Met.
FY2002 Same goal. Goal Met. 1,800 1,943
FY 2003 Provide information and analytical tools to the public for accessing the risk posed by
toxic chemicals. Goal Met
Performance Measure:
Make existing screening level health and environmental effects information and plans to 1,200 1,235
develop needed data publicly available for high production volume (HPV) chemicals
sponsored in the US HPV Challenge.
FY 2002
APG 4.6
FY2004
APG 4.7
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
Same goal. Goal Met. 10% data
(280
chemicals)
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks Planned
Standardization and validation of screening assays. Goal Not Met. 1 1
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks Planned
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase- 25%
inhibiting neurotic pesticides on foods eaten by children from their average
1994- 1996 levels. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met. 20%
Detections of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase inhibiting neurotoxic pesticides! 5%
on foods eaten by children will have decreased by 1 5% (cumulative) from their average
1 994 to 1 996 levels. Goal Met.
843
chemicals
Actual
0
Actual
34%
34.3%
20%
APG 4.8 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks Planned Actual
FY 2004 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases
throuzh facility risk reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measure:
Risk management plan audits completed. 400 730
APG 4.9 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
FY 2004 Reduce wildlife incidents and mortalities. Goal Not Met.
Planned Actual
A-16
-------
Performance Measure:
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by the -25%
15 pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife (cumulative). (PART)
FY 2003 Reduce public and ecosystem risk from pesticides. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measure:
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by the 15 -20%
pesticides responsible for the greatest morta/ity to such wildlife (cumulative). (PART)
FY 2002 Implementation of 10-15 additional model agricultural partnership projects that 10-15
demonstrate and facilitate the adoption of farm management decisions and practices
that provide growers with a "reasonable transition" away from the highest risk pesticides.
Goal Met
APG 4.10 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks.
FY 2004 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients,
new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.
Goal Not Met.
Insufficient
data for
analysis
Planned Actual
Performance Measures:
- Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
- New Chemicals (cumulative). (PART)
- New Uses (cumulative).
131
74
3,079
FY 2003 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels and assure that new pesticides
that enter the market are safe for humans and the environment through ensuring that all
registration actions are timely and comply with standards mandated by law. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
- New Chemicals. (PART)
- New Uses.
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
113
67
350
105
143
79
3,142
124
72
425
107
APG 4.1 I Assess and Cleanup Brownfields Planned Actual
FY 2004 Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, leveraging cleanup
and redevelopment funding and jobs. Leverage or generate funds through revitalization
efforts. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Brownfields cleanup grants awarded. 25 75
- Brownfield properties assessed. (PART) 1,000 1,076
- Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding. - no target 17
- Brownfield property acres available for reuse or continued use. no target 129
-Jobs generated from Brownfields activities (annual). 2,000 2,250
- Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed. :65% 61 %
- Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfield sites. $0.9B .7B
FY 2003 Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, leveraging cleanup
and redevelopment funding and jobs. Leverage or generate funds through revitalization
efforts. Goal Met.
A-I7
-------
Performance Measures:
- Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites. $0.9B $ 1.49B
- Number of Brownfie/d properties assessed (PART) 1,000 1,052
- Jobs generated from Brownfields activities (annual). 2,000 5,023
- Percentage of Brownfields job trainees placed. 65% 62%
FY2002 EPA will provide additional site assessment funding to 38 new communities, and to 38 3,100 3,807
existing communities, resulting in a cumulative total of 3,100 properties assessed, the 19,300 21,737
generation of 19,300 jobs, and the leveraging of $4.0 B in cleanup and redevelopment $4.0B $4.8B
funds since 1995. Goal Met.
APG4.I2
FY 2004
US-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
Planned Actual
Increase the number of residents in the Mexico border area who are protected from 990,000 1, 163,000
health risks, beach pollution, and damaged ecosystems from nonexistent and failing
water and wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved water and
wastewater service. Goal Met.
APG 4.13 Sustain Community Health
FY 2005 Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental reviews.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned Actual
APG 4.14 Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
FY 2004 Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs). Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
- Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National
Estuary Program (annual).
Planned Actual
25,000 107,000
APG 4. 15
FY2005
APG 4.16
FY2004
Increase Wetlands
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
FY2003
contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic status. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
Performance Measures:
- Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator
fish.
- Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
- Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie Central Basin.
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish.
- Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
- Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie Central Basin.
5%
5.8%
7%
10
5%
7%
10
8.4%
2l.2Ug/l
Data Available
FY2006
8.3%
18.4
A-18
-------
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish, declining declining
- Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air. declining declining
- Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie Central Basin, improving mixed
APG 4.17 Chesapeake Bay Habitat
FY 2004 Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. Goal Not Met
Planned
Performance Measure:
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation present in the Chesapeake Bay (cumulative). 90,000
Actual
64,709
APG 4.18 Chesapeake Bay Habitat
FY 2005 Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year, phosphorus loads by 8.7
million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1.06 million tons per year from
entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned
Actual
APG 4.19 Gulf of Mexico Planned Actual
FY2004 Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 71 (5-year 71 71.2
rolling average) priority impaired coastal river and estuary segments. Goal Met.
FY 2003 Same Goal, different target. Goal Met. 14 95
4.20 Conduct Relevant Research Planned Actual
FY2005 By 2005, provide high quality exposure, effects, and assessment research results that
support the August 2006 reassessment of current-use pesticide tolerances so that,
by 2008, EPA will be able to characterize key factors influencing children's and other
subpopulations* risks from pesticide exposure.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
4.21 Conduct Relevant Research Planned Actual
FY 2005 By FY 2005, provide information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants
from utility boilers so that, by 2010, there is an extensive set of data and tools
available to help industry and federal, state, and local environmental management
officials make decisions on the most cost effective ways to reduce or prevent
mercury releases into the environment.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
4.22
FY2005
Conduct Relevant Research
Planned Actual
By 2005, provide risk assessors and managers with methods and tools for measuring
exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and reducing risks to children from
environmental agents in schools so that, by 2014, EPA will be able to demonstrate why
some groups of people, defined by life stage, genetic factors, and health status, are more
vulnerable than others to adverse effects from exposure to environmental agents.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 4.23 Human Health Risk Assessment Research
FY 2004 Contribute to protecting children from harmful environmental agents in their daily
lives by providing risk assessors and managers with better data on children's
aggregate exposures in their home and daycare settings. Goal Met
Planned Actual
A-19
-------
Performance Measure:
Analysis of the "Children Total Exposure to Pesticides and Persistent Organic
Pollutants (including EDCs) Study" to estimate aggregate exposures and identify
critical exposure factors that can be used by the Agency to improve exposure and
risk assessments.
APG 4.24 Risk Assessment Research Planned Actual
FY 2004 Through FT 2005 initiate or submit to external review 28 human health assessments
and complete 12 human health assessments through the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). This information will improve EPA's and other decision-makers' ability
to protect the public from harmful chemical exposure. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Complete 4 human health assessments and publish their results on the IRIS website. 4 4
- Initiate or submit to external peer review human health assessments of at least 20 20
20 high priority chemicals.
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING FY 2005
GOALS
FY 2000 Administer federal programs and oversee state implementation of programs Planned Actual
for lead-based paint abatement certification and training in 50 states, to 50 50
reduce exposure to lead-based paint and ensure significant decreases in
children's blood levels by 2005. Goal Met.
FY 1999 Complete the building of a lead-based paint abatement certification and training 50 30
in 50 target states, to ensure significant decreases in children's blood lead levels
by 2005.
A-20
-------
GOALS
APG S. I Compliance Assistance
FY 2005 Through compliance assistance. EPA will increase the understanding of regulated
entities, inwove the Environmental Management Practices, and reduce pollutants.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
APG 5.2 Compliance Incentives
FY 2005 Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of some audits
or other actions reducing pollutants or improving environmental management practices.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
APG 5.3 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
FY 2005 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions.
pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental management practices.
This APG is new for.FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned Actual
APG 5.4 Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
FY 2005 In 2005 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction
of 600 million gallons in water use: 2.5 million MMBTUs in energy use: 15,000 tons
of solid waste: 6,000 tons of air releases: 10,000 tons in water discharges; and
15,000 tons of materials use compared with 2001 results.
This APG is new for FY 2005. There is no prior year data for this APG.
Planned Actual
APG 5.5 Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention
and Innovation
FY2004 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and municipal
solid wastes.
Performance Measures:
- Reduction of TKI non-recycled waste (normalized).
- Alternative feed stocks, processes, or safer products identified through
Green Chemistry Challenge Award (cumulative).
- Quantity of hazardous chemicals/solvents eliminated through the Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program
- For eco-friendly detergents, track the number of laundry detergent
formulations developed.
Planned Actual
200 M Lbs
210 prod/proc
1 50 M Lbs
36
Data
avail FY 2006
429
460 M
38
Lbs
FY2003 The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy -200 M -622 M
recovery in 2003 (normalized for changes in industrial production) will be reduced by
200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2002. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this report.
FY2002 The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for
energy recovery in 2002 (normalized for changes in industrial production) will be
reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2001. Goal Not Met.
-200 M +366 M
APG 5.6 Build Tribal Capacity
Planned Actual
A-21
-------
FY 2004 Percent of Tribes will have an environmental presence (e.2.. one or more persons
to assist in buildin£ Tribal capacity to develop and implement environmental
programs. Goal Met
Performance Measures:
- Tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (cumulative). 5% 28%
- Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring 20% 44%
(cumulative).
- Tribes with EPA-approved multimedia work plans (cumulative). 18% 26%
FY 2003 In 2003 the American Indian Environmental Office will evaluate 20 20
non-Federal sources of environmental data pertaining to conditions
in Indian Country to enrich the Tribal Baseline Assessment Project.
Goal Met
FY 2002 Baseline environmental information will be collected for 38% of tribes 217 tribes 331 tribes
(covering 50% of Indian Country). Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
- Environmental assessments for tribes (cumulative).
APG 5.7 Enhance Science and Research Planned Actual
FY 2004 Verify 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies (through the 35 35
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program) so that states, technology
purchasers, and the public will have highly credible data and performance analyses on
which to make technology selection decisions. Goal Met
FY 2003 Develop 10 testing protocols and complete 40 technology verifications for a cumulative 10 10
ETV program total of 230 to aid industry, states, and consumers in choosing effective 40 40
technologies to protect the public and environment from high risk pollutants. Goal Met
FY 2002 Formalize generic testing protocols for technology performance verification, and provide
additional performance verifications of pollution prevention, control and monitoring
technologies in all environmental media. Goal Met
Performance Measure:
Complete 20 stakeholder approved and peer-reviewed test protocols in all 20 20
environmental technology categories under ETV, and provide them to testing
organizations world-wide.
A-22
-------
ESP
APGESP-I
Information Exchange Network
Planned Actual
FY 2004 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound
environmental decision-making through the Central Data Exchange (CDX). Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Number of private sector and local government entities, such as water authorities,
using CDX to exchange environmental data with EPA.
- CDX offers online data exchange for all major national systems by the end of
FY 2004.
- Number of states using CDX as the means by which they routinely exchange
environmental data with two or more EPA media programs or regions.
FY 2003 Decision makers have access to the environmental data that EPA collects and manages to
make sound environmental decisions while minimizing the reporting burden on data
providers. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
- States using the CDX to send data to EPA.
- In preparation for increasing the exchange of information through CDX, implement 4
data standards in 13 major systems and develop 4 additional standards in 2003.
FY 2002 The CDX, a key component of the environmental information exchange network, will
become fully operational and 15 states will be using it to send data to EPA thereby
improving data consistency with participating states. Goal Met!
2,000 7,050
13 13
46 49
APG ESP-2
Data Quality and Accessibility
FY 2004 EPA increasingly uses environmental indicators to inform the public and manage for
results. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Establish the baseline for the suite of indicators that are used by EPA's programs and
partners in the Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process.
FY 2003 The public will have access to a wide range of federal, state, and local environmental
conditions and features in an area of their choice. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
Window-to-My-Environment nationally deployed and provides citizens across the
country with Federal, state, and local environmental information specific to an area
of their choice.
FY 2002 100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems accessible on
the EPA Website will be part of the Integrated Error Correction Process, reducing
data error. Goal Met.
46
8
15
49
7
45
Planned Actual
I report I report
Nationally
Deployed
100% 100%
Nationally
Deployed
APG ESP-3
Information Security
FY2004 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for
security. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security programs
reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act.
- Percent of intrusion detection monitoring sensors installed and operational.
Planned Actual
75
75%
91
100%
A-23
-------
FY 2003 Same Goal. Goal Met. 75 75
75 100
FY 2002 Complete risk assessments on the Agency's critical infrastructure systems, critical
financial systems, and mission critical environmental systems. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Critical infrastructure systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented 12 12
and transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document.
- Critical financial systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented and 13 13
transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document.
- Mission critical environmental systems risk assessment findings will be formally 5 5
documented and transmitted to system owners and managers in a formal Risk
Assessment document.
APG ESP-4 Fraud Detection and Deterrence
Planned Actual
FY 2004 Improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommendations, risks, 240 390
and best practices; contributing to potential savings and recoveries equal to 150% 150% 48%
of the annual investment in the OIG; 100 actions for greater efficiency and 100 133
effectiveness, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing the risk of 80 108
loss or integrity. Goal Not Met.
FY 2003 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met 155 264
150% 856%
75 138
50 83
APG ESP-5 Audit and Advisory Services Planned Actual
FY 2004 Improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 80 recommendations, 80 116
risks, or best practices; and contributing to the reduction or elimination of 18 18 45
environmental risks, and 42 actions influencing positive environmental or health 42 49
impacts. Goal Met
FY2003
FY2002
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met
80
20
60
50
IS
15
312
92
185
100
18
16
APG ESP-6 Strengthen EPA's Management
Planned Actual
FY 2004 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's mission while
addressing the challenges included in the President's Management Agenda. Goal Met
Performance Measures:
- Offices using workforce planning model which identifies skills and competencies 10 10
needed by the Agency for strategic recruitment, retention, and development.
- Percentage of total eligible service contracting dollars obligated as performance- 20% 21 %
based in FY2004.
- The number of financial and resource performance metrics where the Agency has 14 14
met pre-established Agency or Government-wide performance goals. The inventory
of financial performance metrics are found in the Agency's Financial Performance
Measures and the Government-wide Performance Metrics. The inventory of
resource performance metrics are found in the Senior Resource Official Performance
A-24
-------
Measures.
- Agency audited financial statements are timely, and receive an unqualified opinion.
FY 2003 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing
the challenges included in the President's Management Agenda. Goal Not Met
Performance Measures:
- Offices using workforce planning model which identifies skills and competencies needed 5 5
by the Agency for strategic recruitment, retention, and development.
- Percentage of total eligible service contracting dollars obligated as performance-based 30 19
in FY2003.
- Agency audited financial statements are timely, and receive an unqualified opinion. I I
FY 2002 EPA strengthens goal-based decision making by developing and issuing timely planning
planning and resource management products that meet customer needs. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
- Agency's audited financial statements and Annual Report are submitted on time. 3/01/02 1/27/02
- Agency's audited financial statements receive an unqualified opinion and provide I 1
information that is useful and relevant to the Agency and external parties.
APG ESP-7 Energy Consumption and Reduction Planned Actual
FY 2004 By 2004, EPA will achieve a 16% energy reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories 16% 17%
which is in line to meet the 2005 requirement of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base
(this includes Green Power purchases).
A-25
-------
Appendix B
Program Evaluations Completed
in FY 2005
November 15, 2005
-------
APPENDIX B: PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Introduction
EPA relies on program evaluations and analyses to inform decisions, design effective
strategies, and adjust approaches to improve results. Appendix B lists and summarizes
information for each program evaluation completed in FY 2005. It includes evaluations
that apply to a specific annual performance goal (APG) (which are also listed under
relevant APGs in Section 2 of this report) and broader evaluations that encompass more
than one APG. This appendix lists evaluations by goal and objective, and provides
information on the evaluator; scope of the evaluation; relevant findings;
recommendations; EPA's response; and public access to the evaluation reports.
GoaM
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Fulfill Its Designated Responsibilities to Ensure
Effective BioWatch Program.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 23, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
BioWatch is an early-warning system funded and overseen by the Department of
Homeland Security. The EPA is an important partner in the BioWatch program and has
a major role in sampling operations. The evaluation sought to answer the following
questions:
• What are EPA's designated responsibilities in the BioWatch program?
• How well is EPA implementing its designated responsibilities in the BioWatch
program?
Evaluation Findings: The report determined that EPA's responsibilities include monitor
deployment, site security, oversight and assessing monitor technology. The report found
that EPA needs to be involved in assessing technologies that.are more reliable and
timely, and reduce costs. Consequence management planning also needs to be built
into the program.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation should ensure that EPA fulfills all its BioWatch-
designated responsibilities, including ensuring quality assurance guidance is adhered to.
The OIG also recommended that OAR work with its BioWatch partners to use its air
monitoring expertise to identify and test alternative technologies and ensure that EPA is
prepared to assist with consequence management plans.
Planned Response: OAR agreed with the report and has begun working with EPA
regions to address many of the issues identified.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050323-
2005-P-00012.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00012.
Evaluation Title: Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title
V Permits if Program Goals are to be Fully Realized.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 9, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
In 1990 Congress enacted Federal clean air permitting requirements designed to reduce
violations and improve enforcement of air pollution laws for the largest sources of air
pollution. Known as Title V, this provision requires that all major stationary sources of air
pollutants obtain a permit to operate. More'than 17,000 sources are subject to Title V
B-l
-------
permit requirements. The OIG sought to determine whether (1) selected Title V permits
contained adequate provisions consistent with key Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement; (2)
EPA's oversight and guidance contributed to improvements in Title V implementation,
and, (3) Title V had achieved its goals of improving the implementation and enforcement
of the CAA.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG's analysis identified concerns with five key aspects of
Title V permits: permit clarity, statements of basis, monitoring provisions, annual
compliance certifications and practical enforceability. Collectively, these problems can
hamper the ability of EPA, state and local regulators, and the public to understand what
requirements sources of air pollution are subject to, how they will be measured, and
ultimately to hold sources accountable for meeting applicable air quality requirements.
EPA's oversight and guidance of Title V activities have resulted in some improvements
in Title V programs, however areas of further improvement remain. Despite
implementation problems, the Title V program has resulted in some significant benefits;
the inclusion of all relevant CAA requirements in on e document has enabled
stakeholders to obtain the information needed to understand the applicable requirements
for major emitting sources and to express their concerns.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG made several recommendations for EPA to
reduce the factors that negatively impact permit clarity, improve national Title V
guidance, actively identify monitoring deficiencies in state implementation plans, and
develop a comprehensive Title V oversight strategy.
Planned Response: OAR is expanding the use of our stakeholder workgroup as a
means of identifying what is working (and what is networking), to streamline the petition
response process where feasible and to develop operating plans that combine oversight
with permit reviews and evaluations. We are also working with the Regional Offices on
improving the implementation of the Title V program when specific issues arise with a
given permitting authority.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2005/20050309-
2005-P-00010.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00010.
Evaluation Title: Progress Made in Monitoring Ambient Air Toxics, But Further
Improvements Can Increase Effectiveness.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 2, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics. EPA defines air toxics as "those pollutants
that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects or adverse
environmental effects." EPA's goal is to reduce unacceptable health risks from air toxics
for 95% of the population by 2020. Ambient monitoring is important to assess progress
towards this goal. The OIG performed this review to evaluate EPA's progress in
establishing a national network and determine the status of ambient air toxics monitoring
nationwide. A viable ambient monitoring program to detect areas of unhealthy air toxics
concentrations and to measure national and local trends in those concentrations is key
to assessing progress in reducing air toxics-related health risks.
Evaluation Findings: Since 2000, EPA has significantly increased its ambient air toxics
monitoring efforts to establish a national network and support State and local agencies'
monitoring activities. Additional effort and improvement is needed to ensure that
sufficient ambient air toxics data is available to identify areas of unhealthy ambient air
toxics concentrations, identify national air toxics trends, and assess the effectiveness of
air toxics reduction strategies. The OIG also highlighted inconsistencies in the sampling
frequencies and quality assurance measures for the national trends sites. The OIG
B-2
-------
identified key barriers to ambient air toxics monitoring as adequacy of funding and lack
of methods to monitor certain air toxics.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that with respect to monitoring
conducted on a local scale (i.e., certain State and local network monitors and EPA's
local project grant program), EPA should develop a strategy - in coordination with State,
local and tribal partners - for siting monitors in locations that are estimated to present
the greatest health risks from exposure to air toxics. Recommendations were also made
to improve the programmatic aspects of the national trends sites, particularly with
respect to quality assurance, quality control and data completeness.
Planned Response: The recommendations provided by the OIG generally align with
current OAR improvement efforts. Funding remains a key barrier.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050302-
2005-P-00008.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00008.
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Direct More Attention, Efforts and Funding to Enhance
Its Speciation Monitoring Program for Measuring Fine Particulate Matter.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: February 7, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
Airborne particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5) is comprised of a complex
mixture of particles composed of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and organic and inorganic compounds. Tens of thousands of premature deaths
yearly are associated with exposure to excess levels of PM2.s- By 2010, EPA estimates
that compliance with PM2.5 emission control strategies will cost industry more than $37
billion annually. EPA's speciation monitoring network is a critical component in the
development of thee control strategies. Determining the chemical make-up of a particle
- known as speciation - is largely accomplished through data generated by this network.
The OIG performed an evaluation to determine whether EPA's PM2.s speciation air
monitoring network is sufficient to (a) adequately identify sources of fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) and (b) facilitate the development of effective control strategies to reduce
PM2.s to safe levels.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has made substantial progress in establishing a speciation
monitoring network to facilitate the development of PM2.5 control strategies but still faces
a number of challenges in ensuring that the controls are directed at the right sources.
Although the speciation network provides information for understanding the make-up
and origin of PM2.5, the network does not fully assist in providing the data for EPA and
States to identify or quantify the chemical make-up of PM2.5 particles, reliably trace
particles back to their source, or account for chemical changes that occur after particles
are released into the atmosphere. Speciation data are available to begin working on
control strategies and EPA and the States are beginning the development of control
strategies; however, increased monitoring efforts are needed.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that OAR increase its research
on technologies that can more fully identify the chemical make-up of PM2.5, account for
the atmospheric impacts on PM2.5, and assay the resultant changes that occur to the
composition of the particle. This includes increasing opportunities for cooperation with
the private sector to develop improved continuous speciation monitors.
Planned Response: EPA disagrees with the OIG's conclusions regarding the
sufficiency of currently available speciation data to "fully" develop effective control
strategies. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that improvements are clearly needed in our
current inventory, monitoring and modeling programs to further improve the efficiency
and credibility of control strategies. We will consider the OIG final recommendations
B-3
-------
along with recommendations from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Air Quality
Management review, and related recommendations received on an ongoing basis from
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's subcommittee on ambient air monitoring
and methods.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050207-
20Q5-P-00004.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00004.
Evaluation Title: Gasoline Markets: Special Gasoline Blends Reduce Emissions and
Improve Air Quality, but Complicate Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: June 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, requires some areas with especially poor air quality to
use a "special gasoline blend" designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and requiring the use of an oxygenate
such as ethanol. In less severely polluted areas, the Act allows states, with EPA
approval, to require the use of other special blends as part of their effort meet air quality
standards. GAO reviewed the following: (1) To what extent are special gasoline blends
used in the United States and how, if at all, is this use expected to change in the future?
(2) What effect has the use of these blends had on reducing vehicle emissions and
improving overall air quality? (3) What is the effect of these blends on the gasoline
supply? (4) How do these blends affect gasoline prices?
Evaluation Findings: GAO found 11 distinct special blends in use during the summer
of 2004. Further, when different octane grades and other factors are considered, there
were at least 45 different kinds of gasoline produced in the United States during all of
2004. To date, EPA has generally approved such applications and does not have
authority to deny an application to use a specific special blend as long as that blend
meets criteria established in the CAA. EPA models show that use of special gasoline
blends reduces vehicle emissions by varying degrees. Regarding air quality, EPA and
others have concluded that improvements are, in part, attributable to the use of special
blends. The proliferation of special gasoline blends has put stress on the gasoline
supply system and raised costs, affecting operations at refineries, pipelines, and storage
terminals. There is general consensus that increased complexity, and higher costs
associated with supplying special blends, contribute to higher gasoline prices either
because of more frequent or severe supply disruptions or because higher costs are likely
passed on at least in part to consumers.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommended that EPA, with DOE and others,
develop a plan to balance the environmental benefits of using special fuels with the
impacts of these fuels on the gasoline supply infrastructure. GAO also recommended
that EPA work with other agencies to identify what statutory or other changes are
required to implement this plan and request those authorities from Congress.
Planned Response: EPA does not have any comment on these findings.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov. Report no. GAO-05-421.
Evaluation Title: Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA
Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: February 3 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed rules for regulating mercury emissions from coal-
fired steam generating electric utility units. EPA proposed two options for controlling
B-4
-------
mercury emissions, one a control technology standard with emission limits.and the other
a performance based cap-and-trade approach. Members of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee requested that we review EPA's development of its proposed
rule for controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utilities.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG evaluation was conducted and completed before the
Agency had completed the rulemaking process. The observations and characterizations
about the process reflect the status of the rulemaking process at the time we completed
our review.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that EPA reanalyze mercury
emissions data collected and conduct a revised cost-benefit analysis for the updated
MACT that takes into account the impact of mercury co-benefits through the proposed
CAIR. The OIG also recommended that the Agency strengthen its cap-and-trade
proposal. Further, the OIG also recommended that the Agency conduct an integrated
analysis with respect to whether emissions reductions under either of these proposals
are the most child-protective, timely, and cost-effective.
Planned Response: EPA promulgated the mercury rule on March 15, 2005. Earlier
that month, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050203-
2005-P-OOOQ3.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: Observations on EPA's Cost-Benefit Analysis of its
Mercury Control Options.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: February 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed rules for regulating mercury emissions from coal-
fired steam generating electric utility units. EPA proposed two options for controlling
mercury emissions, one a control technology standard with emission limits and the other
a performance based cap-and-trade approach. EPA is directed by statute and executive
order to analyze the costs and benefits of proposed rules, and the Agency summarized
its analysis underlying the two options in the proposal. In this context, GAO was asked
to assess the usefulness of EPA's economic analysis for decision making.
Evaluation Findings: GAO identified four major shortcomings in the economic analysis
underlying EPA's proposed mercury control options:
• the Agency did not consistently analyze the options or provide an estimate of the
total costs and benefits of each option;
• EPA did not document some of its analysis or provide information on how
changes in the proposed level of mercury control would affect the cost-and-
benefit estimates for the technology-based option, as it did for the cap-and-trade
option;
• EPA did not estimate the value of the health benefits directly related to
decreased mercury emissions and instead estimated only some secondary
benefits; and,
• EPA did not analyze some of the key uncertainties underlying its cost-and benefit
estimates.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommended that as the Agency revises its
economic analysis prior to selecting a mercury control option, the EPA Administrator
take the following actions:
B-5
-------
• analyze and fully document the economic effects of each policy option by itself,
as well as in combination with the interstate rule, over their full implementation
periods;
• ensure that the Agency documents its analysis supporting the final rule and
consistently analyzes the effect that different levels of mercury control would
have on cost-and-benefit estimates under each policy option;
• include monetary estimates, where possible, of the human health benefits of
reductions in mercury emissions from power plants or, at a minimum, provide
qualitative information on how these benefits are likely to compare under the two
options over a consistent time frame, reflecting full implementation of both
options; and, further
• analyze uncertainties surrounding estimates of costs and benefits, as directed by
OMB guidance, and evaluate how these uncertainties could affect overall
estimates of the rule's impacts.
Planned Response: Prior to issuing the final mercury regulation on March 15, 2005
EPA conducted additional analyses that largely addressed the findings and
recommendations identified in this report.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov. Report no. GAO-05-252.
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown
Promising Results, but Data on Long-Term Performance are Limited.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: May 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
In March 2005, EPA issued a rule that will limit emissions of mercury from coal-fired
power plants, the nation's largest industrial source of mercury emissions. Under the
rule, mercury emissions are to be reduced from a base of 48 tons per year to 38 tons in
2010 and to 15 tons in 2018. In the rule, EPA set the emissions target for 2010 based
on the level of reductions achievable with technologies for controlling other pollutants -
which also capture some mercury - because it believed emerging mercury controls had
not been adequately demonstrated. EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE)
coordinate research on mercury controls. In this context, GAO was asked to: describe
the use, availability, and effectiveness of technologies to reduce mercury emissions at
power plants; and, identify the factors that influence the cost of these technologies and
report on available cost estimates. In completing the review, GAO did not independently
test mercury controls.
Evaluation Findings: Mercury controls have not been permanently installed at power
plants because, prior to the March 2005 mercury rule, federal law had not required this
industry to control mercury emissions; however, some technologies are available for
purchase and have shown promising results in field tests. Long-term test data are
limited because most tests at power plants during normal operations have lasted less
than three months. The cost of mercury controls depends on several site-specific
factors such as the ability of existing air pollution controls to remove mercury. As a
result, the available cost estimates vary widely.
Evaluation Recommendations: N/A
Planned Response: N/A
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov. Report no. GAO-05-612.
Evaluation Title: Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to
Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules.
B-6
-------
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: July 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 1.
Executive Order 12898 made achieving "environmental justice" part of the mission of
EPA and other federal agencies. According to EPA, environmental justice involves fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes. EPA developed guidance for
considering environmental justice in the development of rules under the Clean Air Act
and other activities. GAO was asked to examine how EPA considered environmental
justice during two phases of developing clean air rules: (1) drafting the rule, including
activities of the workgroup that considered regulatory option the economic review of the
rule's costs, and making the proposed rule available for public comment, and (2)
finalizing the rule, including addressing public comments and revising the economic
review. GAO reviewed: the rule to reduce sulfur in gasoline; the rule to reduce sulfur in
diesel fuel; and the ozone implementation rule.
Evaluation Findings: GAO found that when drafting the three clean air rules, EPA
generally devoted little attention to environmental justice. While EPA guidance on
rulemaking states that workgroups should consider environmental justice early in this
process, GAO found that a lack of guidance and training for workgroup members on
identifying environmental justice issues may have limited their ability to identify such
issues. GAO also indicated that while EPA officials stated that economic reviews of
proposed rules consider potential environmental justice impacts, the gasoline and diesef
rules did not provide decision makers with environmental justice analyses, and EPA has
not identified all the types of data necessary to analyze such impacts. Finally in all three
rules, EPA mentioned environmental justice when they were proposed but the
discussion in the ozone implementation rule was contradictory.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that EPA improve workgroups'
ability to identify environmental justice issues and enhance the ability of its economic
review to analyze potential environmental justice impacts.
Planned Response: EPA disagrees with the recommendations and believes it pays
appropriate attention to environmental justice. The report does not accurately reflect the
progress we are making in achieving environmental justice with respect to air pollution;
nor does it accurately reflect the way in which the three final rules GAO reviewed, and
EPA's development of them, address environmental justice issues.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov.
Evaluation Title: Managerial and Scientific Review of the Particulate Matter (PM) /
Ozone (Oz) Program.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC).
Date: August 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 1, Objective 6.
In preparation for the OMB Program Analysis Rating Tool (PART) review of the PM/Oz
Program, ORD elected to seek review of program management and science by an
independent panel of experts. The ORD PM/Oz Program is valued at approximately
$70M with research support to intramural and academic scientists targeting protection
from the health impacts of air pollution on the US public. The research encompasses
investigation of health impacts, exposure issues, atmospheric sciences, emission
characterizations, as well as methods and programs to control and mitigate air pollution
and health outcomes. The Program is managed by ORD. The BOSC review focused on
program organization progress, and achievement of outcome objectives which includes
not only internal coordination but coordination with clients in OAR, states, regions and
B-7
-------
tribes who rely on the science to design and implement regulatory programs to minimize
health and ecological impacts of air pollution.
Evaluation Findings: Overall science in both the intramural and extramural research
laboratories was judged to be of high quality in terms of (1) academic scholarship and
scientific publications; (2) credentials of the participating scientists; (3) its integrated and
outcome oriented program design; and (4) its role in building a knowledge and
information database. The Program was deemed to conduct a highly integrated
program across all elements and disciplines that in design and communication address
stakeholder and OAR client needs. Extramural research is coordinated to meet needs
not met intramurally and is conducted through a merit based process.
Evaluation Recommendations: Editorial changes were offered to refine restructured
long term goals to better meet outcome targets especially in the context of source to
health outcome paradigm. It was also recommended that a periodic formalized process
be established for assessing primary stakeholder satisfaction and outcome perceptions.
Additionally, it was recommended that a methodology (including expert panel
consultation) be developed to define baseline of uncertainty and to clarify the cost-
effectiveness of regulatory actions.
Planned Response: ORD is expanding the use of evaluative tools including annual
expert review of program process, bibliographic analysis for product quality and utility,
and stakeholder satisfaction. Expanded efforts will be initiated in intramural and
extramural program communication especially with stakeholders (regions, states and
tribes).
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-pm.htm.
B-8
-------
Goal 2
Evaluation Title: District of Columbia's Drinking Water: Agencies Have Improved
Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead
Levels.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: March 31, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 1.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate how agencies in the District of Columbia are
(1) implementing the Lead and Copper Rule, and (2) working to better coordinate efforts
to reduce lead levels. The report also collected information on public education efforts in
other communities and looked at the state of research on lead exposure and how it
applies to drinking water.
Evaluation Findings:
GAO found that the agencies overseeing drinking water quality in the District have
improved their coordination, but that significant challenges remained. The report
described methods that utilities across the nation use in carrying out activities required
when they exceed the action level - including lead service line replacement and public
education. The report also found that there was a limited amount of research evaluating
the health effects from exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO is recommending that EPA (1) identify and
publish best practices that water systems are using to educate their customers about
lead in drinking water, and (2) develop a strategy for closing information gaps in the
health effects of lead in drinking water.
Planned Response:
In addition to distributing and promoting use of our existing Public Education guidance,
EPA will work with states and water utility associations to identify best practices for
public education and disseminate them to a wide audience. The Agency is also
developing a health advisory that should help inform the discussion and a paper that will
summarize toxicokinetic research published since the rule was issued in 1991.
Public Access: Report available at: httD://www.qao.qov. Report no. GAO-05-344.
Evaluation Title: Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection Efforts.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: August 22, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 1.
This evaluation sought to determine the progress made by EPA and its partners to
address Congress' intended goal in the 1990 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments to protect drinking water from contamination.
Evaluation Findings:
• Progress has been made towards implementing SDWA provisions.
• Challenges remain regarding implementation.
• Current performance measures leave extent of progress uncertain.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• EPA needs to identify methods to improve the Consumer Confidence Report.
• EPA should continue to develop measures for individual SDWA provisions.
Planned Response: EPA's Office of Water, in its response to the draft report, agreed
that Consumer Confidence Reports can improve communication with consumers. EPA is
convening a working group to the NDWAC to evaluate public information requirements
B-9
-------
under the SDWA. It is expected that efforts carried out by this working group will also
help the Agency develop information to improve CCRs.
Public Access: Report available at: www.epa.aov/oig/reports/2005/20050822-2Q05-P-
00021.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00021.
Evaluation Title: Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Show Initial
Promise, But Obstacles Remain.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 28, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 1.
This evaluation sought to determine the progress made by EPA and its partners to
address Congress' intended goal in the 1990 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments to protect drinking water from contamination.
Evaluation Findings:
• States are making progress on assessments and protection, though several
obstacles have been identified that hinder States' efforts to protect source water.
• Source water assessments are valuable to the public, but use and accessibility
are limited.
• Substantial obstacles faced, but opportunities to overcome exist.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Issue a public statement to re-affirm that the source water assessment and
protection programs are a priority for EPA.
• Encourage States to target assessments not only to utilities, but also to local
governments, councils, planners, building and zoning officials, and other
stakeholders.
• Provide guidance to states on how to leverage financial and technical resources
from other EPA programs, partners, and stakeholders.
• Continue to improve cooperation and coordination between states and EPA
assistance contractors.
• Work with regions and states to: (1) integrate environmental programs, and
(2) determine how best to disseminate locally-applicable best practices for
contaminant source management and motivation.
Planned Response: EPA's Office of Water, in its response to the draft report
(March 4, 2005), agreed that source water assessments have the potential to improve
drinking water protection, while acknowledging that the assessment content, utility, and
availability can be improved. EPA also agreed that moving from assessment to voluntary
protection will require substantial effort, including state and local capacity building,
environmental program integration, and inter-agency coordination.
Public Access: Report available at: www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050328-
2005-P-00013.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00013.
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Determine What Barriers Prevent Water Systems from
Securing Known Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Vulnerabilities.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 1.
Date: January 6, 2005.
Federal Directives highlighted the need to secure cyberspace, including SCADA, from
terrorists and other malicious actors, and stated that securing SCADA is a national
B-10
-------
priority. We learned from stakeholder contacts that utilities may require assistance in
order to secure their SCADA system vulnerabilities.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
SCADA networks were developed with little attention paid to security. Some areas and
examples of possible SCADA vulnerabilities include operator errors and corruption,
unsecured electronic communications, hardware and software limitations, physical
security weaknesses, natural disasters, poorly written software, and poor security
administration.
Through preliminary research, we found several possible reasons why utilities have not
successfully reduced or mitigated identified vulnerabilities: current technological
limitations may impede implementing security measures; companies may not be able to
afford or justify the required investment; utilities may not be able to conduct background
checks on existing employees; officials may not permit SCADA penetration testing; and,
technical engineers may have difficulty communicating security needs to management.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
EPA should identify impediments preventing water systems from successfully reducing
or mitigating SCADA vulnerabilities and take steps to reduce those impediments.
If EPA identifies a problem with no apparent solution, the Agency should communicate
this problem to the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, and others as
appropriate.
EPA should develop SCADA security measures to track the effectiveness of security
efforts.
Planned response: We suspended our SCADA project because EPA agreed to
incorporate our concerns into an Agency SCADA project. At EPA's request, we briefed
the Agency on our preliminary research and prepared this briefing report.
'Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/20Q5/20050106-
2005-P-00002.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Efforts to Manage Backlog of Water Discharge Permits Need to be
Accompanied by Greater Program Integration.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: June 13, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine:
• How successful EPA and States have been in eliminating the backlog.
• The potential environmental impact of the backlog.
• How well measures reflect environmental impacts.
Evaluation Findings: EPA and states have taken various actions to eliminate the
NPDES permit backlog, but can do more to address continuing and anticipated
challenges. Because the NPDES permit program is not the only program involved with
improving surface water quality, eliminating the backlog alone may not have a
significant impact on improving national water quality. EPA and states need to
balance efforts to eliminate the backlog with other efforts to improve water quality.
Further, EPA needs to ensure that its efforts to reduce the backlog do not result in it
quickly reissuing permits that are not as effective as they should be to improve water
quality. Also, EPA needs to improve its reporting of the GPRA backlog measure.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA needs to build on the steps already initiated to
reduce the NPDES permit backlog. EPA needs to take various steps to integrate the
NPDES permit program with other point source programs that support the permit
program. This would include creating a system for assessing the effectiveness and
B-ll
-------
efficiency of its efforts related to clean water. EPA also needs to continue making
improvements related to its measures, such as providing appropriate baselines. The
OIG encourages EPA to continue refining the "Permitting for Environmental Results"
Strategy to reduce the NPDES backlog and in general to improve the quality of the
Nation's water bodies.
Planned Response: EPA is currently finalizing its response to incorporate the
recommendations into the overall NPDES program.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050613-
2005-P-00018.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00018.
Evaluation Title: Storm Water Pollution: Information Needed on the Implications of
Permitting Oil and Gas Construction Activities.
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: February 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
GAO asked EPA to provide information about oil and gas construction activities—such
as well drilling and pipeline construction—affected by Phase I and likely to be affected
by Phase II, as well as Phase II's financial and environmental implications.
Evaluation Findings: A small fraction of total oil and gas construction activities have
been permitted under Phase I of EPA's storm water program. Industry has sought to
have its drilling activities permitted on few occasions because it has determined that
most drilling activity involves distinct projects that disturb less than five acres each. In
states reviewed, there were few reported compliance problems associated with oil and
gas construction activities. The oil and gas construction activities affected by the rule
may lead to increased financial costs for the oil and gas industry and federal agencies
implementing the rule..Many of the potential costs stem from meeting permit
requirements to review the impact of construction activities on endangered species,
although this impact would be site specific and difficult to quantify. Potentially offsetting
these costs, the rule may lead to additional environmental protections that are difficult
to quantify, such as decreased levels of sediment in water and benefits for endangered
species and their habitat. After delaying implementation of this rule for oil and gas
construction activities for 2 years to study the impact of Phase II, EPA is analyzing the
impact but, as yet, has not quantified the number of activities affected or the potential
financial and environmental implications.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that EPA's Administrator
complete the Agency's analysis of the Phase II program before making a final decision
on its implementation.
Planned Response: In reviewing the GAO draft report, EPA agreed with the
recommendation. EPA subsequently proposed an extension for the Phase II deadline
for small oil and gas activities until June 2006 to allow time'to complete its analysis.
Subsequently, Congress passed a rider in the FY2006 energy bill exempting oil and
gas construction from NPDES permitting requirements.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05240.pdf.
GAO-05-240.
Evaluation Title: Audit Report: Region 10's Grant for Alaska Village Safe Water
Program Did Not Meet EPA Guidelines.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: June 16, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
B-12
-------
The purpose of this audit was to follow up to a prior audit on the Alaska Village Safe
Water Program. The OIG sought to answer "Did EPA Region 10 meet EPA guidelines
before awarding the program grant of $34 million in 2004"?
Evaluation Findings:
• There is a lack of grants oversight by EPA Region 10. The Region did not follow
grants guidance nor conduct adequate post-award monitoring.
• There is no ability to determine whether objectives are being met or to quantify
benefits achieved. There was no development of program goals, objectives or
measures.
• Original audit was conducted in September 2004.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Establish controls to ensure that Region 10 fulfills all EPA requirements before
awarding grants.
• Suspend work under Grant No. XP-970847-01 until the state prepares a
complete application and Region 10 adequately completes its review process
following all EPA requirements.
• Ensure that a revised or reinstated award clearly addresses ineligible projects
and administrative cost issues, and directly addresses compliance with the
federal cost principles in OMF Circular A-87 and the statutory limits on
administrative costs.
• Place the state on a reimbursement payment basis, in accordance with 40 CFR
31.12, until EPA has verified that the State's cash management system fully
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 31.21 (b).
Planned Response:
• Costs reviews were not performed prior to the award of the FY 2004 grant. Costs
reviews will be performed prior to the award for the FY 2005 grant.
• EPA does not believe that sufficient justification exists to suspend work under Grant
No. XP-970847-01 at this time. The Agency believes that the application is complete
as it contains environmental outcomes that directly support the EPA 2003-2008
Strategic Plan and that have been accepted by the OMB PART review process.
• The Region will revise the FY 2004 award to incorporate the results of the completed
cost review and define the administrative costs for the July 1, 2004 to June 31, 2005
time frame.
• The Region will modify the grant terms to indicate that the state will meet the U.S.
Treasury cash management requirements.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.qov/oig/reports/2005/20050616-
2005-P-00015.pdf.
B-13
-------
Goal 3
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of the Interagency Open Dump Cleanup Project for Tribes.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation.
Date: December 2004.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 1.
The evaluation was designed to determine to what extent:
• The Cleanup Project has resulted in the cleanup, closure, or prevention of open
dumps
• Workgroup funds have contributed to the development of sustainable SWM
programs
• There has been a recurrence of open dumping in the Project-affected lands
• Administrative issues affect the Workgroup's ability to achieve its goals
Evaluation Findings:
• Tribes are making steady progress in the cleanup and closure of existing open
dumps and are building solid waste management capacity.
• Building SWM capacity requires supportive tribal council, outreach, and community
involvement.
• Tribes experience difficulty eliminating illegal dumping, due to distance to compliant
facilities, lack of adequate roadways, individual household costs, and insufficient
outreach.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Interagency Workgroup should consider:
developing Workgroup Performance Measures that Inform Funding Priorities
developing Uniform Reporting Mechanisms to Record Progress
adopting Flexible Funding Approach in Considering Tribal Needs
supporting Tribal Efforts to Inventory and Map Open Dumps
offering More Opportunities for Tribal Networking
developing and Publicize Tribal Case Studies
developing "Smart" Funding Process to Reduce Administrative Burden
Planned Response:
• Develop performance measures on projects.
• Conduct training session at NTCEM conference in 6/05 and RCAP meeting in 8/05.
• Publish case studies through Tribal Journal and OSW's tribal website.
• Improve the accuracy and completeness of open dump inventory.
• Incorporate remaining evaluation recommendations at Interagency Workgroup
meetings.
• Increase interaction and coordination among Federal Agencies.
Public Access: Report available at:
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/tribecleanup 20050218.pdf.
Evaluation Title: An Assessment of EPA's Policies for Streamlining Federal Facility
Cleanups.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office.
Date: May 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine how innovations found in streamlining
and cleanup acceleration policies issued in the late 1990s have been implemented at
federal hazardous waste sites and identify areas for improvement in the development of
future policies.
B-14
-------
Evaluation Findings: The policies evaluated contributed to improving the overall
process by which stakeholders collaborate, plan, and resolve issues at federal facilities.
The issuance of the policies elevated the importance of streamlining and spurred wider
application of streamlining principles and innovative techniques. EPA's culture and
openness to innovation is just as important as any current streamlining policy which
helps to facilitate application of these approaches.
Evaluation Recommendations: Eight recommendations resulted from the evaluation:
1) develop measurable streamlining goals and performance metrics, 2) incorporate EPA
oversight priorities in performance based contracts issued by other federal agencies, 3)
consolidate EPA streamlining policies, 4) develop facility exit strategies, 5) develop
applied guidance and training for EPA regional personnel, 6) amend interagency
agreements to reflect evolving situations at federal facilities, 7) continue to explore the
potential benefits of new presumptive remedies, and 8) identify and mitigate
organizational barriers and concerns at the earliest stages.
Planned Response: The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program is
developing an action plan to address the recommendations which resulted from the
evaluation.
Public Access: Report available by contacting Tracey Seymour (OSWER Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office) at (703) 603-0048.
Evaluation Title: EPA Practices for Identifying and Inventorying Hazardous Sites Could
Assist in Similar Department of the Interior Efforts.
Date: August 22, 2005.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the inspector General (OIG).
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to identify relevant promising EPA practices for the
Department of Interior to consider improving its processes with respect to hazardous
waste sites.
Evaluation Findings: Several EPA practices could be used by DOI to ensure DOI
addresses its highest priority sites first.
Evaluation Recommendations: N/A
Planned Response: N/A
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2005/20050822-
2005-P-00020.pdf.
Evaluation Title: An Internal Review of Procedures for Community Involvement in
Superfund Risk Assessments.
Date: March 2005.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine:
• Effective approaches for involving communities in the risk.assessment process,
• What EPA and the community have gained from involving communities in the risk
. assessment process, and
• If increasing public understanding of risk assessment has impact or increases public
confidence in EPA's decisions.
Evaluation Findings:
• The factors influencing community involvement include proximity to the site; impact
of contamination on property values; parental concerns; and media attention to the
site.
B-15
-------
• By involving community members in the risk assessment, the EPA often receives
more complete information on a site's history, exposure pathways, and
contamination sources and amounts; in addition it helps build confidence in EPA.
• Access to technical support makes a significant difference in the community's ability
to understand and contribute to the risk assessment process.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Provide training for Superfund personnel on effective community involvement as well
as risk communication.
• Promote and implement existing tools to formalize community involvement in the risk
assessment process.
• Encourage remedial project managers to work closely with community involvement
coordinators and risk assessors earlier in the Superfund process.
Planned Response: Review findings with an internal focus group to:
• Identify realistic short-term and long term goals
• Set priorities for training and improving tools
• Determine if further research/review is needed
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/cira 20041013.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect the
Public.
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: January 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
GAO was asked by Congress to review the extent to which (1) institutional controls are
used at Superfund and RCRA sites and (2) EPA ensures that these controls are
implemented, monitored, and enforced. GAO also reviewed EPA's challenges in
implementing control tracking systems. To address these issues, GAO examined the
use, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of controls at a sample of 268 sites.
Evaluation Findings:
• Institutional controls were applied at most of the Superfund and RCRA sites GAO
examined where waste was left in place after cleanup, but documentation of remedy
decisions often did not discuss key factors called for in EPA's guidance.
• EPA faces significant challenges in ensuring that institutional controls are adequately
implemented, monitored, and enforced.
• Institutional controls at the Superfund sites GAO reviewed were often not
implemented before the cleanup was completed.
• EPA's monitoring of Superfund sites where cleanup has been completed but residual
contamination remains often does not include verification that institutional controls
are in place.
• EPA may have difficulties ensuring that the terms of institutional controls can be
enforced at some Superfund and RCRA sites: that is, some controls are
informational in nature and do not legally limit or restrict use of the property, and, in
some cases, state laws may limit the options available to enforce institutional
controls.
• To improve its ability to ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls,
EPA has begun implementing institutional control tracking systems for its Superfund
and RCRA corrective action programs. The agency, however, faces significant
obstacles in implementing such systems. The institutional control tracking systems
being implemented track only minimal information on the institutional controls.
Moreover, as currently configured, the systems do not include information on long-
B-16
-------
term monitoring or enforcement of the controls. In addition, the tracking systems
include data essentially derived from file reviews, which may or may not reflect
institutional controls as actually implemented.
• While EPA has plans to improve the data quality for the Superfund tracking system--
ensuring that the data accurately reflects institutional controls as implemented and
adding information on monitoring and enforcement-the first step, data verification,
could take 5 years to complete.
Evaluation Recommendations: To ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional
controls, GAO recommended that EPA;
• clarify its guidance on when controls should be used;
• demonstrate that, in selecting controls, sufficient consideration was given to all key
factors;
• ensure that the frequency and scope of monitoring efforts are sufficient to maintain
the effectiveness of controls; and
• ensure that the information on controls reported in new tracking systems accurately
reflects actual conditions.
Planned Response: EPA concurs with GAO's recommendations and has undertaken a
number of activities to address GAO's recommendations, including: developing several
guidances, conducting trainings and outreach, identifying and developing new 1C tools,
conducting detailed evaluations on the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
ICs, development of a National 1C Strategy for the Superfund Program and Regional
work plans.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05163.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of Three RCRA Regulations Designed to Foster
Increased Recycling.
Evaluator: Industrial Economics, Inc. for U. S. EPA, Office of Planning Analysis and
Accountability, U.S. EPA Office of Policy Economics and Innovation, and U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste.
Date: November 2004.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The evaluation examined the degree to which states and regulated entities were aware
of three regulatory exclusions promulgated to allow more flexibility in the management of
certain hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The evaluation examined the extent to which these three rules have led to changes in
waste management practices including an increase in recycling rates, factors that may
have contributed to any observed changes, and impacts on natural resource
conservation. The three exclusions examined were the 1995 universal waste rule for Ni-
Cd batteries, the 1998 oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials and recovered oil rule,
and the 2000 180-day accumulation time rule for recycled electroplating sludges.
Evaluation Findings:
• Recycling increased in the case of the universal waste rule and the exclusion for oil-
bearing secondary materials, but not significantly in the case of the F006 180-day
rule;
• Rule changes will have the greatest impact when the infrastructure and capacity to
recycle are in place prior to the regulations. For example, the universal waste rule
facilitated existing recycling programs and the oil-bearing hazardous secondary
materials rule encouraged transfers to facilities that were already recycling.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• EPA needs better information on state adoption and authorization activities;
B-17
-------
• EPA needs better data to assess impacts of existing rules and predict impacts of
new ones;
• It is important to consider unexpected results (e.g., air or waste water issues) from
increased recycling;
• EPA should utilize opportunities where rule changes can leverage existing recycling
infrastructure programs.
Planned Response:
The report and its findings are being used:
• To better understand the regulatory and non-regulatory factors that influence
whether hazardous waste is recycled or disposed of;
• To inform current regulatory efforts in the area of hazardous waste recycling,
including revisions to the broadly applicable Definition of Solid Waste and other more
targeted recycling regulations;
• To identify opportunities for better data collection on hazardous waste recycling;
• To examine OSWs outreach and communication efforts to both co-regulators and
the regulated community regarding hazardous waste recycling regulations;
• To help prioritize future efforts to increase hazardous waste recycling.
Public Access:
Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/reports.htm.
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources.
Evaluator: US EPA, Office of Inspector General.
Date: November 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to:
• Evaluate Superfund expenditures at headquarters and the regions.
• Recommend options for increasing resources directed to extramural cleanup
while minimizing administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings:
• EPA faces significant challenges in managing Superfund administrative and
programmatic costs towards the goal of optimizing their proper balance and
alignment with program needs.
• EPA offices do not have agreed-upon definition for administrative costs or use
activity-based costing to management Superfund administrative resources.
• EPA's outdated workload model and its decentralized management hinder
comprehensive Superfund resource management.
• EPA does not take advantage of opportunities to benefit from research and
recommendations to improve Superfund program efficiency and effectiveness
because it lacks an effective system and an accountable entity to solicit, analyze,
evaluate, and incorporate research and recommendations into the program.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Evaluate OIG options for providing more funds for Superfund cleanups.
• Improve accounting for Superfund costs.
• Redirect some funds to determine health risks at sites.
• Improve accountability for achieving efficiency and effectiveness improvements in
the program.
Planned Response: EPA is currently working on an implementation plan to take action
on OIG recommendations
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/publications.htm.
B-18
-------
Evaluation Title: Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Needs
Improvement.
Date: December 2004.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 3.
The purpose of this evaluation was to help achieve the overarching contract audit goal of
assessing how effectively contracts contribute to accomplishing program goals. The
project objectives were to examine EPA procedures for:
• Acquisition Planning: How are RACS structured and funded?
• Source Selection: How does EPA decide with whom to contract? Is past
performance considered?
• Contract Administration: Are there good measures for assessing contractor
performance?
• Contract Information Systems: Do contract managers have the information needed
to evaluate results and make decisions?
Evaluation Findings:
• EPA can improve the structure of RACs to better protect the Government's interests.
Current RACs, which are Cost Plus Award Fee Level of Effort contracts, assign to
EPA a disproportionate share of the risk of cost overruns; expose EPA to the risk of
loss of funds through litigation; limit competition; and forego potential cost savings
associated with other approaches to contacting, such as Performance-Based Service
Acquisition.
• EPA regions do not consistently document the rationale used to decide what
procurement option to utilize for Superfund cleanup activities as required by
established policy. Further, EPA does not have a process to measure and
disseminate information on the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers' past performance in
support of EPA.
• The Agency has measures in place to assess contractor performance at the work
assignment level. However, evaluations at the contract level were not being
documented timely and consistently, as required, because they were not given the
necessary priority. Not consistently documenting evaluations in a timely manner
does not permit EPA and other Federal agencies to consider contractors' past
performance and could be detrimental to contractors who have performed well.
• Contract managers have, or can obtain, the information needed to evaluate results
and make decisions, but the information in the national automated database is not
always readily available. The Remedial Action Contract Management Information
System is underutilized by regional staff, and the system does not collect national
data as originally intended. As a result, EPA is expending approximately $1.5 million
a year on a system that is not being fully utilized.
Evaluation Recommendations: It was recommended that the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), in coordination with the Office of Administration
and Resources Management (OARM), develop and implement a plan with milestones
that will increase the use of different contract types, require regional staff to document
the rationale for all source selection decisions, develop a method for holding Contracting
Officers accountable for conducting past performance evaluations timely and accurately,
and conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the Remedial Action Contract
Management Information System should be retained.
Planned Response: OSWER, in coordination with OARM, has developed and
implemented a plan with milestones to address the evaluation recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oiq/reports/land.htm.
B-19
-------
Evaluation Title: Advisory on the Office of Research & Development's Contaminated
Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Date: May 23, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 3.
The purpose of this evaluation was to:
• Provide an external peer review of the two multi-year research plans prior to revision
and merger into a single plan for Goal 3 research.
Evaluation Findings:
• The Panel determined that the plans are generally programmatically and scientifically
sound, and endorsed the proposal to merge the plans.
• The Panel complimented the team on level of coordination between ORD and the
program offices and on the use of judicious leveraging to stretch limited resources.
Evaluation Recommendations:
The Panel recommended that the merged plan be structured and written so that the
contents, from long-term goals to work products, are clearly linked to the EPA strategic
plan and transparently show that the program meets the OMB research investment
criteria. The Panel recommended that some resources be reserved to address
emerging (>10 years) issues to maintain viability and relevance over the long term.
Within the report, the panel made additional commentary and elaborated on these two
recommendations.
Planned Response:
The National Program Director, together with ORD, program, and regional staff, is
currently working to merge and revise the multi-year plan consistent with the Panel's
recommendations. The draft plan will be included in a programmatic peer review,
scheduled to be conducted by ORD's Board of Scientific Counselors in December 2005.
Public Access:
Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/contaminated sites rcra sab-05-
009.pdf.
B-20
-------
Goal 4
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative Resources.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: July 7, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
This review was in response to a congressional request to evaluate the administrative
and program costs being used to carry out the Brownfields Program and identify options
to reduce administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG found that EPA's ability to effectively manage
Brownfields resources is challenged by policy and organizational impediments.
Evaluation Recommendations: The report included several recommendations:
• More closely align with an accountable entity effectively to distribute, manage,
account for, and optimize Brownfields resources.
• Establish a system to identify and track Brownfields administrative and
programmatic payroll costs.
• Provide documentation to account for FY 2003 resources.
• Revise regional staffing workload model.
• Evaluate Brownfields staff not certified as Project Officers.
• Hold Brownfields conference every 2 years.
• Develop process to evaluate which conferences and meetings Brownfields staff
need to attend.
Planned Response: EPA is fully responding to all of the recommendations by either
implementation strategies or work underway.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050607-
2005-P-00017.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Report That EPA's
Program Helps to Redevelop Sites, but Additional Measures Could Complement Agency
Efforts.
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Date: April 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
The purpose of this review was to: (1) obtain stakeholders' views on the extent to which
the EPA Brownfields Program has contributed to.the cleanup and redevelopment of
brownfields; (2) determine whether the measures EPA uses to gauge the performance of
its brownfield activities provide sufficient information to identify program
accomplishments, and (3) obtain stakeholder's views on potential options for improving
and complementing EPA's program. Additionally identified were other federal agencies
that support brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
Evaluation Findings: The GAO found that the US EPA Brownfields Program provides
an important contribution to site cleanup and redevelopment. The measures EPA uses
provide information in some but not all key program areas. The GOA found three
stakeholder recommendations to improve the program related to the current grant
programs and tax incentive.
Evaluation Recommendations: The report included several recommendations:
• Continue to develop additional measures to gauge the achievements of the
Brownfields Program.
B-21
-------
• Closely monitor the brownfield revolving loan fund grants to determine why they
have been underutilized and what, if any, changes are needed to facilitate or
encourage grant recipients' use of these funds.
• Determine the advantages and disadvantages of giving priority to coalitions or
other entities with proven revolving loan fund administrative expertise when
awarding grants and, if found to be beneficial, adopt this as a key criterion for
selecting grant recipients.
Planned Response: EPA agrees with and is working to implement these
recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.qao.gov/new.items/d05450t.pdf.
Evaluation Title: North American Development Bank Border Environment Cooperation
Commission Business Process Review
Evaluator: Stone & Webster Management Consultants, Inc. for the North American
Development Bank. The Board of Directors of the NADB commissioned the Review.
Date: December 2004.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
The Review provides focused reviews and evaluations of the overall process of
designing, certifying/approving, financing and implementing potable water treatment,
municipal wastewater treatment, and solid waste projects in the border region. These
business process review analyses of BECC and NADB activities are intended to
optimize the BECC/NADB process for designing, developing, approving, financing and
implementing environmental infrastructure projects in the U.S.-Mexico border region, so
as to make the overall process more efficient and easier for communities and project
sponsors to access, improve the efficiency of BECC and NADB and increase their value
added to this process, and develop a plan for the Board of Directors to evaluate
performance and measure results of BECC and NADB,
Evaluation Findings: The Review includes a series of findings and observations. The
Task Four Report summarizes conclusions on the efficiency of the BECC and NADB in
its processes related to the designing, certifying/approving, financing and implementing
potable water treatment, municipal wastewater treatment, and solid waste projects in the
border region between the U.S. and Mexico, and provides recommendations to improve
performance and efficiency.
Evaluation Recommendations: Among the series of recommendations made, these
have the potential to affect the BECC and NADB's administration of EPA grants:
• Revise process so that project certification and the integrated financing package are
presented to the board for approval at the same time.
• When projects are to receive both an EPA-BEIF grant and a NADB loan, agreements
for both should be signed at the same time.
• Assign technical staff who have been involved with project design to provide
technical oversight during project implementation.
• Revise the name and objective of the initial application for certification step to more
closely reflect that it is an eligibility review.
• Adopt an approach based on cooperative agreements with other agencies whereby
the agency providing the greatest amount of financing assumes the primary role for
project development.
Planned Response: The Board of Directors of the BECC and NADB, in which EPA is a
member, is reviewing recommendations for future implementation.
Public Access: The report available at:
http://www.nadb.org/english/publications/publications frame.htm.
B-22
-------
Evaluation Title: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) Review.
Evaluator: EPA - GLNPO together with about 40 representatives including government
and university scientists, federal and state government managers, and Tribal
representatives.
Date: June 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 3.
This evaluation was an objective review of the design, implementation, and scientific
rigor of the GLFMP including the program's sampling and analytical procedures and the
uses of program data. Reviewers specifically considered: sampling design; sample
collection, prep, and analytical methods; data representativeness; target analyses;
program implementation; quality assurance; data management; and other programmatic
issues.
Evaluation Findings: The current status of the Great Lakes environment is different
from that at inception of the GLFMP in the 1970's, and GLFMP should change to reflect
that current status.
Evaluation Recommendations: The 10 specific recommendations include: data
approval; maintenance of the historical sample archive; establishment of a steering
committee; review and revision of the analyte list and development of protocols to add
emerging contaminants to the list; enhancing consistency of analytical labs; including
and maintaining routine check samples; better definition of certain goals and
stakeholders; development of an approach for documenting the occurrence of new and
previously unrecognized contaminants in Great Lakes fish; and statistical analysis to
revise and/or develop Data Quality Objectives.
Planned Response: A proposal for incorporation of the recommendations is under
development.
Public Access: Report available at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qlindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP%20Review%20Document%206
.14.05.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Review of the Computational Toxicology Research Program Directions.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC).
Date: July 20, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose of this review, held in April 2005, was to provide early feedback to the
newly formed National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) on its planned
major research directions. The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) formed a
standing committee to advise the NCCT and this was the inaugural meeting. The
BOSC was provided six charge questions dealing with: (1) collaborations between the
NCCT and other components of ORD; (2) proposed staffing directions; (3)
technological advances; (4) overall rationale for the research program; (5) identifying
additional partners; and (6) the general aspect of breadth and depth of the program.
Evaluation Findings: Generally the committee was very favorable to the formation of
the NCCT and the progress it had made in the first few months of its existence (the
NCCT was formally established in February 2005). The committee recognized the
unique role of the NCCT and the importance of establishing strong collaborations with
other programs within and outside of ORD. The committee emphasized the importance
of collaborations and positively commented on the number of collaborations already
taking place. The BOSC also commented favorably on the Center's four focal areas of
Information Technologies, Prioritization Tools, Biological Models, and Cumulative Risk.
B-23
-------
The committee highlighted the fact that the first two have the potential to address
"significant issues in toxicology...." The committee felt that the NCCT has made
appropriate choices for bringing together expertise from several related disciplines to
fulfill its' mission.
Evaluation Recommendations: The key recommendations of the review were: create
a specific implementation plan; develop management activities to foster networks of
computational scientists in the agency; develop a communication plan to raise-visibility
of the NCCT: add staff in bioinformatics and potentially social sciences; broaden the
composition and role of the CTISC (internal EPA steering committee); develop liaisons
with related academic, governmental and private organization both nationally and
internationally; and to broaden the focus of hazard identification beyond that currently
being conducted with endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Planned Response: The most significant step, which was already underway, is the
development of an implementation plan that will lay out specific milestones for each of
the research projects within the program over the next 3 years. The implementation plan
will emphasize the need for the NCCT to address generic issues in computational
toxicology and to provide leadership to the Agency in terms of bringing these tools to use
in hazard identification and risk assessment. An important component of the
implementation plan is ToxCast" which will provide a framework and a strategy for
developing high throughput data on a large number of chemicals in order to help
categorize and prioritize for specific screening and testing programs. The NCCT is also
forming two Communities of Practice that will bring together experts in chemoinfdrmatics
and biological modeling respectively, across the Agency and enhance the networking of
these experts and therefore enhance their presence and contributions to Agency
problems.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/.
Evaluation Title: Ecological Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC).
Date: August 16, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purposes of this review were to evaluate:
• Program relevance and quality.
• Program design and implementation.
• Progress achieved towards meeting long-term goals (LTGs).
• Stakeholder involvement and the degree to which research is consistent with
needs articulated at regional and local levels.
• The degree to which research "outputs" are being used by stakeholders.
Evaluation Findings:
• Found the Ecological Research Program to be a high-quality scientific program
that is providing essential technical information to the regulatory offices within
EPA as well as to state, local, and tribal governments to assist these entities in
addressing novel problems of environmental management.
• Found a need for improved integration among the LTGs including more
emphasis on collaboration between EPA scientists and scientists outside the
Agency.
• Crucial that a new Multi-Year Plan be developed that aligns with current
resource constraints and that better integrates the three LTGs.
B-24
-------
• Plans need to be developed for a long-term equilibrium that balances the
research portfolio against expected resource constraints.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• The integration of Long-term Goal 1 with the other LTGs can be further
improved through designing research projects specifically for cross-level
integration and by reinforcing rules set by the research programs for close
collaborations between EPA and outside researchers at the national, regional,
and local levels.
• Research for all three LTGs would be improved by collaborations with
international scientific communities.
• The effectiveness of the program could be improved by establishing timely and
regular communications with a broad array of stakeholders using an
established procedure.
• The time and talents of ORD's research scientists need to be focused on the
research mission. At the same time, careful tracking of outcomes is essential to
assure that the research conducted by the Ecological Research Program is
appropriate and that it addresses customer priorities.
• Some form of extramural cooperation should be re-established to leverage
resources and continue to provide flexibility in the research program.
• Institute a formal process for sharing and disseminating research results to
stakeholders.
• The Ecological Research Program's heavy orientation towards aquatic
ecosystems is understandable but a more balanced research portfolio requiring
attention to impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, especially relative to clean water
and nonpoint source pollution, is needed.
Planned Response:
• The Ecological Research Program is in the process of revising its multi-year
plan to include the recommendations of the BOSC and to modify many of its
research projects to address these recommendations. The revision includes a
greater integration among the three Long-term Goals and directly with Long-
Term Goal 1. This revision will be completed in FY06.
• Increasing collaboration within EPA and with outside federal and non-federal
entities will be a goal of the Ecological Research Program in FY 2006. This
collaboration is already underway with increased research planning being
completed in partnership with EPA Program Offices and Regions and
increased research result communications within EPA. Increased collaboration
with NOAA and USGS is occurring through the Ocean Action Plan's call for a
National Monitoring Network designed by the interacting agencies and LTG
research in LTG1 in being accomplished in partner with NOAA and USGS.
• In FY 2006, the Ecological Research Program will re-establish a viable grants
program within NCER to develop a cross-agency extramural research program
addressing Ecological/Ecosystem Services.
• In FY 2006, the Ecological Research program will begin planning for "new"
research projects that more completely address program office and regional
needs, including interactions across media (air, water, terrestrial) to assess the
success of ecological policies/programs, developing of modeling tools at high
levels of ecological organization to assess integrated impacts, developing an
ecological forensics program that assesses causality at a larger ecological
scale, integrating across all ORD Eco-tools to address the broad-scale
ecological issues of the Mississippi River Basin and its Gulf of Mexico receiving
B-25
-------
waters, and development of an ecological services research program (including
its integration with socio-economic and other non-ecological issues).
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-eco.htm.
Evaluation Title: Review of the Mercury Multi-Year Research Plan.
Evaluator: Mercury Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
Date: July 14, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Strategic Objective 4.
A letter report was delivered to the Office of Research and Development (ORD) on July
14, 2005. The purpose of the review was to provide an independent expert review of the
most recent Multi-Year Research Plan (MYP) for the Mercury Research Program. The
BOSC Mercury Subcommittee reviewed the Mercury MYP and the planning process with
respect to what changes should be made to ensure that: (1) the proposed scope of work
is consistent with ORD's subject area Research Strategy, the current state-of-the-
science, and research by others; (2) the science questions address the most important
scientific gaps and uncertainties in the subject area; (3) the long-terms goals are
relevant to the science needs of the Agency, and the MYP situates the annual research
products on a clear path to accomplishing each of the long-term goals; (4) research
products and emphases over the next 5 to 7 years are sequenced appropriately to
accomplish goals and meet program and regional needs; (5) the MYP is flexible enough
to adapt to future science and policy changes; (6) the MYP articulates a strategy that
facilitates effective communication and utilization of research products; and (7) there is a
clear path for assessing/evaluating the MYP and progress toward its goals.
Evaluation Findings: The Subcommittee concluded that "the proposed scope of the
work is consistent with: (a) ORD's subject area Research Strategy, (b) the current state-
of-the-science, and (c) research by others." The review also concluded that "the science
questions address the most important scientific gaps and uncertainties in the subject
area" and "the long-term goals (LTGs) are relevant to the science needs of the Agency:"
Also, the Mercury MYP is comprehensive and well thought out. It focuses on the most
critical information needs in mercury fate and transport (including risk assessment), and
on reduction of mercury emissions from a variety of sources, most importantly coal-fired
utility boilers. It is apparent that ORD has accomplished much with the available
resources and is poised to contribute significantly more to the better understanding of
the global mercury problem, especially with regards to transport and fate.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Subcommittee made five overriding
recommendations: (1) Because mercury is important to many agencies, the
Subcommittee believes that the Mercury MYP planning process would benefit greatly
from an interagency council to institutionalize and harmonize collaboration across
federal agencies. (2) Prioritizing and sequencing of APMs need to be discussed more
fully in the Mercury MYP. (3) The value of the MYP as a "living" document would be
enhanced if it were updated annually. (4) The Mercury MYP is a communication
document as well as a planning document. (5) It would be helpful if the Mercury MYP
provided an assessment of outcomes related to the various annual performance goals
and annual performance measures in the plan.
Planned Response: A response to the review by the Agency will be made to the BOSC
Executive Committee in the near future. The response will identify several action items
with timelines. The Mercury MYP will be revised accordingly.
Public Access: Report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc.
B-26
-------
Title: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC).
Date: April 21, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose and focus areas of the evaluation were to review the relevance, quality,
performance, scientific leadership and resources of the EDCs Research Program.
Evaluation Findings:
• Design - goals and scientific questions of the Research Program deemed
appropriate; multi-disciplinary set of research areas for both human health and
wildlife that cuts across the risk assessment/risk management paradigm.
• Relevance - of direct relevance to legislation that EPA administers and that it
serves the Program Offices well.
• Progress - research has been productive and of high scientific quality; of
particular note is the excellent progress under LTG 3.
• Leadership - nationally and internationally recognized; research is
disseminated in top-tier scientific journals; scientists at the forefront of EDC
research in screening and testing methodologies.
• Resources - resources have been used efficiently; astute in leveraging with
other federal agencies; continuation of extramural grants program is vital.
Evaluation Recommendations: (1) Clarify what research is covered by the EDC
program, (2) strengthen the position of Program Director, (3) hire wildlife toxicologists,
(4) collaborate with other research organizations to improve the ability to extrapolate
across species, (5) integrate the use of predictive tools into the program, (6) develop risk
assessment paradigms for EDCs, (7) collaborate with other research organizations on
exposure issues, including the role of Pharmaceuticals as sources of EDCs, and mine
data from the High Production Volume Program, (8) invite the epidemiology grantees to
future reviews, (9) take a leadership role in the application of 'omics technologies, (10)
investigate the common ground between ecological and human health of EDCs, (11)
hire or train experts in bioinformatics, (12) establish a mechanism to ensure transfer of
protocols to OPPTS, and (13) in revisions of Multi-Year Plan, improve summary of
research to date.
Planned Response: On September 12, 2005, the Subcommittee was sent: 1) a cover
letter, 2) a narrative response to the recommendations and observations, with comments
where necessary, and 3) a table that highlights each of the 13 recommendations and
EPA's proposed actions and timelines for each. The response was also presented at a
meeting of the BOSC Committee on September 13, 2005.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/edc0504rpt.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Human Health Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC).
Date: July 27, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose of the review was to provide and independent expert review of the
Agency's human health research program. The BOSC evaluated four Long-Term Goals
'of the program, including (1) Use of mechanistic information in risk assessment, (2)
Aggregate/cumulative risk, (3) Susceptible subpopulations, and (4) Evaluation of public
health outcomes. The review was both retrospective for research conducted since 1999
and prospective for research proposed for the next 5-10 years. The reviewers were
B-27
-------
asked to evaluate the program in the context of the R&D investment criteria, relevance,
performance and quality. The BOSC also evaluated the scientific leadership of the
program.
Evaluation Findings: The research of the human health research program was found
to be of high quality and appropriately focused. It was multidisciplinary, displayed good
stakeholder participation, informed risk assessments and achieved the goal of reducing
uncertainty.
Evaluation Recommendations: Major recommendations by the BOSC include: (1)
interact more with the international human health research community, (2) coordinate
research with emerging national computational toxicology center, (3) promote greater
interaction between intramural and extramural scientists, (4) establish a greater public
benefit rationale for the program, and (5) focus of the program around an overarching
conceptual framework.
Planned Response: The Agency responded to the review at the BOSC Executive
Committee meeting on September 12-13, 2005. The response identifies several action
items with timelines.
Public Access: Report available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/reports.htm.
B-28
-------
Goal 5
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of the OECA/ECOS State Review Framework in Pilot
States.
Evaluator: Industrial Economics, Inc. for U. S. EPA, Office of Planning Analysis and
Accountability, U.S. EPA Office of Policy Economics and Innovation, and U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective 1.
The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of
the State Review Framework in pilot states. The overarching evaluation questions were:
• Sufficiency of Framework to support conclusions.
• Consistency of framework application.
• Outcomes of pilot projects.
• Areas for improvement.
Evaluation Findings: The key finding is that the Framework is effective in providing a
platform for evaluating state enforcement and compliance assurance programs on a
nationwide basis. Additional findings of the evaluation were:
• Improve metrics and data.
• Revision to file selection protocol.
• Improve consistency of reports among media and among states.
• Clarify benefits to states and activities to include in the element on outcome and
performance-based activities.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): Key recommendations are:
• Provide implementation blueprint for synthesizing data and information sources into
a comprehensive enforcement picture with a roadmap for future efforts.
• Address resources consideration to provide context for program performance.
• Provide additional guidance regarding the purpose of the element on outcome and
performance-based activities.
• Clarify role of negotiated commitments.
• Develop model report for state reviews.
Planned Response: OECA used the findings and recommendations from the
evaluation to make improvements to the State Review Framework. Groups were
established to consider the recommendations and to revise the documentation and
guidance for implementing the Framework for use by Regions and States.
Public Access: Report available by contacting Howard Horowitz at (202) 564-2612.
Evaluation Title: Ongoing Management Improvements and Further Evaluation Vital to
EPA Stewardship and Voluntary Programs.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: February 17, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective 2.
The OIG initiated this evaluation to outline and characterize EPA's approach to
environmental stewardship. The OIG specifically wanted to learn how stakeholders
defined and approached environmental stewardship, what role EPA played in promoting
and fostering stewardship activities, and how effectively stewardship programs assist
EPA in achieving environmental outcomes.
Evaluation Findings: The Agency has yet to fully implement internal recommendations
to strategically plan, coordinate, and manage its voluntary programs, or to develop a
process for assessing these programs to determine how they will be integrated into the
Agency's mission and its strategic goals and objectives.
B-29
-------
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA needs to identify motivators and barriers to
participation, and continue to incorporate stakeholder feedback into planning, designing,
and implementing stewardship programs. EPA should also examine what roles it should
play in promoting stewardship activities. Additional program evaluation needs to be
conducted to determine (1) what motivates participation in these types of programs and
what causes voluntary environmental behavior change to occur, (2) the most efficient
ways to measure the outcomes and impacts of stewardship and voluntary programs, and
(3) which stewardship and/or voluntary programs are most effective in encouraging
voluntary behavior change and achieving environmental results.
Planned Response: Through the Innovation Action Council, EPA is developing a report
to the Administrator in Fall 2005 that will further develop a strategy and implementation
plan for supporting stewardship activities. The Agency is developing "Guidelines for
Measuring the Performance of EPA Voluntary Programs.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2005/20050217-
2005-P-OQ007.pdf. Report No. 2005-P-00007.
B-30
-------
ESP
Evaluation Title: Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access
Methods Need Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 22, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
We sought to determine whether EPA's remote access methods, particularly through
Web-Mail servers and Blackberry servers and devices, have adequate controls to
prevent abuse or unauthorized access to the Agency's information resources.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
System administrators did not configure EPA's Web-Mail and Blackberry servers to
provide secure remote access to the Agency's network. The System Administrators did
not configure or update 59% of the Web-Mail and Blackberry servers to mitigate
vulnerabilities. The v/eaknesses occurred because management did not implement
processes to exercise proper oversight and provide detailed configuration settings.
Several of the Agency's Blackberry devices were not adequately configured, secured, or
monitored. These weaknesses occurred because management did not conduct a risk
assessment or establish a process to consistently install Blackberry devices.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director of EPA's Office of technology Operations and Planning: establish and
require all remote access systems to have security monitoring and network vulnerability
scanning; develop standards that define authorized open ports and services for the
Web-Mail and Blackberry servers' Operating System; and, conduct a risk assessment
and establish a process to consistently configure devices.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with the recommendations and
indicated corrective actions that, when implemented, would address the
recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050322-
2005-P-00011.pdf.
Evaluation Title: PeoplePlus Security Controls Need Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: July 28, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
Our objectives were to determine whether: (1) EPA adequately configured PeoplePlus
(PPL) application security and technical infrastructure to protect the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of system data; and (2) implemented controls were working as
intended.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
The Agency did not follow prescribed procedures for managing user access privileges,
monitoring changes in employee responsibilities, and processing system access
requests.
EPA did not verify or conduct the required national Agency Check with Inquiries and
Credit background screening for 45% (10 of 22) of contractor personnelwith PPL
access.
EPA implemented PPL without adequately implementing security controls for two key
processes.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director of EPA's Office of Financial services (OFS) and Office of Human resources
(OHR): (1) reinforce the requirements to follow prescribed policies and procedures; (2)
B-31
-------
provide a training program to increase awareness and ability to perform security duties;
(3) evaluate the need for system development contractors to have access to the
production environment; and, (4) establish a milestone date to complete contractor
background screening.
EPA evaluates all default user IDs to secure them, and assign Security Administrators'
responsibilities in a manner that provides adequate separation of incompatible duties.
Planned response: EPA concurred with all or our recommendations and provided a
plan of action to address concerns.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050728-
2005-P-00019.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Internal Controls Assessment of EPA's Financial Operations
and Financial Systems - PeoplePlus.
Evaluator: Booz Allen Hamilton for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of
Financial Services (OFS).
Date: August 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
Booz Allen Hamilton performed an Internal Controls Assessment of EPA's payroll
environment. Their objectives were to assess the adequacy of the internal controls for
payroll and determine whether the internal control activities comply with standards as
defined in OMB Circular A-123.
Evaluation Recommendations:
Evaluation recommendations included:
• Payroll training programs and documentation of the training schedule needs to be
formalized.
• Documentation and standardization for a variety of People Plus policies, processes,
and procedures need to be updated and/or created.
• Gaps in the general controls security access require attention.
• Information should be disseminated in a way that reaches impacted staff.
• Employee status changes should be timely to prevent employees from receiving
inappropriate pay.
• Coordination and communications between the FPPS and OFS organizations for
policy dissemination require improvement.
Planned Response: EPA agrees with the recommendations and is working to
implement the recommended safeguards in order to improve reasonable assurance that
internal controls over financial reporting are effectively preventing the potential for errors
that might result in a material weakness.
Public Access: Not Available.
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Compete More Assistance Agreements.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector Genera! (OIG).
Date: February 17, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
To evaluate EPA's progress on the Order requiring some grants to be competed, we
assessed whether (1) the Order promoted competition, and (2) the competitions were
fair and open.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
EPA Order 5700.5 (Order) was a positive step in promoting competition; however, it did
not promote competition to the maximum extent possible. The Order applied to only
$161 million of more than $835 million of discretionary grants awarded in 2003.
B-32
-------
The Order overemphasized exemptions and justifications for not competing assistance
agreements.
EPA did not ensure that it awarded discretionary grants to the most qualified recipients
or for the most innovative projects, thus potentially diminishing the Agency's efforts to
accomplish its mission.
EPA would benefit from additional policy on conflict of interest and documentation
requirements.
In January 2005, EPA replaced the original Order with EPA Order 5700.5A1. The
revised order included numerous procedural changes and incorporated many of our
recommendations.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
We continue to recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Administration and Resources Management increase the number of assistance
agreements subject to competition by eliminating certain exemptions and a justification
for not competing.
Planned response: The revised order incorporated many of our recommendations.
However, the Agency disagreed with key recommendations directed at increasing the
number of assistance agreements subject to competition.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050331-
2005-P-00014.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Brownfields Competition for Awarding Grants Complied With Act.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: March 7, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
The objective was to determine whether the Office of Brownfields Cleanup and
Redevelopment (Brownfields office) established a competition process that complied
with the Brownfields Act and EPA policy and guidance.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
EPA's competition process for awarding grants complied with the requirements of the
Brownfields Act.
In awarding the grants, the Brownfields Office generally complied with EPA policies and
procedures, with the exception of the cost review policy. Cost reviews were documented
for only 4 of 24 grants we reviewed. In many cases, project officers stated that they
performed cost reviews but did not document them. In those instances where no cost
reviews were performed, the project officers said they thought that the grants
management offices or proposal reviewers performed the cost reviews.
EPA risked the possibility of reimbursing recipients for costs that were unreasonable,
unallowable, or unrelated to agreed-upon activities.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response remind project
officers to document cost reviews, in accordance with EPA policy, prior to grant award.
Planned response: The Agency agreed with our recommendation and initiated
appropriate corrective action.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050307-
2005-P-00009.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Need
Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: December 6, 2004.
B-33
-------
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
We conducted this audit to determine how effectively and efficiently EPA is administering
Response Action Contracts (RAC). We looked at: acquisition planning, source
selection, contract administration, and contract information system.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
EPA can improve the structure of RACs to better protect the Government's interests.
Current RACs, which are Cost Plus Award fee level of effort contracts, assign to EPA a
disproportionate share of the risk of cost overruns; expose EPA to the risk of loss of
funds through litigation; limit competition; and forego potential cost savings associated
with other type contracts, such as Performance-Based Service Contracts.
EPA regions do not consistently document the rationale used to decide what
procurement option to utilize for Superfund cleanup activities. EPA does not have a
process to measure and disseminate information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
past performance in support of EPA.
Evaluations at the contract level were not being documented timely and consistently,
which does not permit EPA and other federal agencies to consider contractor's past
performance.
Information in the national automated database is not always readily available. The
Remedial Action Contract Management Information System (RACMIS) is underutilized
by regional staff, and the system does not collect data as originally intended. EPA is
expending $1.5 million a year on a system that is not being fully utilized.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, in coordination with the Office of
Administration and Resources Management: develop and implement a plan with
milestones that will increase the use of different contract types; require regional staff to
document the rationale for all source selection decisions; develop a method for holding
Contracting Officers accountable for conducting past performance evaluations timely
and accurately; and, conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the RACMIS
should be retained.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oiq/reports/2005/20041206-
2005-P-00001.pdf.
Evaluation Title: Office of Acquisition Management Can Strengthen its Organizational
Systems.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: February 17, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
This audit was conducted to determine whether EPA's Office of Acquisition Management
(OAM) had the fundamental components of a high performing organization: leadership,
strategic planning, customer focus, information and analysis, human capital, process
management, and performance results.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
OAM's management systems include various components necessary for organizational
success: OAM communicates its vision, values, and strategic goals to employees and
customers; focuses on its customers' needs; and, emphasizes the development of its
workforce.
However, OAM leadership created its vision and goals without taking all the actions
necessary to accomplish its vision.
OAM needs to complete workload and workforce analyses to identify full-time equivalent
and skill gaps.
B-34
-------
The information in OAM's Integrated Contracts Management System can measure the
timeliness, but not the quality and cost, of its services.
OAM does not have data to measure its progress toward achieving its vision of being the
preferred business partner for all EPA contracts. Further, OAM does not obtain
sufficient feedback on the extent to which contracts contributed to Agency environmental
and performance goals.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director, OAM, develop an action plan with milestones for establishing measures
and means of measuring progress against its goals, complete a workload and workforce
analysis, and capture data needed to analyze short and long-term performance in
achieving its vision and goals.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with the recommendations and
indicated that certain corrective actions would have to be taken over the long term.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050217-
2005-P-00006.pdf.
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative Resources.
Evaluator: \J. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Date: June 7, 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
We conducted this review in response to a congressional request to evaluate the
administrative and program costs being used to carry out the Brownfields program and
identify options to reduce administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
We provided answers to congressional questions about EPA's Brownfields program: the
distribution and type of staff; budget for FY 2003 and 2004; grant and contract
management responsibilities and workload; the number and type of Brownfield
conferences; and the workload model used to staff the program.
EPA's ability to effectively manage Brownfields resources is challenged by policy and
organizational impediments.
The authority for Brownfields resources is dispersed and not in alignment in their efforts
to define and track Brownfields costs, and staff resources cannot be accounted for and
efficiently utilized.
There are potential cost savings in the financial and personnel resources EPA expends
on brownfields outreach, conferences and meetings.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
response: (1) more closely align themselves in support of an accountable entity to
distribute, manage, account for, and optimize Brownfields resources, consistent with
program needs and goals; (2) define Brownfields administrative and programmatic
payroll costs and establish a system to identify and track them; (3) provide
documentation to account for all FY 2003 administrative resources; (4) revise the
regional staffing model to support current workload, develop a workload model for
allocation of Brownfields headquarters staff, and develop a schedule for regularly
updating the workload model; (5) ensure certification of Brownfields Project officers; (6)
hold the EPA-sponsored Brownfields conference every two years; (7) develop a
process to evaluate conferences and meetings to determine which conferences and
meetings Brownfields staff need to attend.
Planned response: The Agency's final response to our recommendations and findings
is under review. The Agency agreed to review and update its regional workload model
and identify non-certified project officers in the Brownfields program and develop training
B-35
-------
and other actions necessary to ensure that Brownfields program goals are being met.
The Agency did not agree that offices receiving and managing Brownfields resources
should be more closely aligned to better manage, distribute, and account for Brownfields
resources. It also stated that it has systems in place to identify indirect and direct payroll
costs and that it is currently evaluating the effectiveness of its annual Brownfields
conference to determine the appropriate frequency for the future. The Agency did not
provide specific documentation we requested on FY 2003 Brownfields administrative
resources.
Public Access: Report available at: http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2005/20050607-
2005-P-00017.pdf.
B-36
-------
» \
'•«
AppendixC
Data Quality
November 15, 2005
-------
APPENDIX C - DATA QUALITY
This appendix is EPA's record of performance data reliability for each of the Agency's 2005 annual performance
measures (including PART measures). It discusses data sources, methods for calculating performance, data limitations
affecting uncertainty in measurement, and efforts to improve the completeness and reliability of the data and data
collection systems. This appendix also describes third-party audits, studies, or evaluations of the data and
recommendations for improvements.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• SO2 emissions reduced (tons/yr from 1980 baseline)
• Total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations reduced (% from baseline)
• Total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate concentrations reduced (% from baseline)
Performance Databases:
• Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - S02 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 reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30 New England
lakes, and 31Appalachian Plateau streams.
C-l
-------
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 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: nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/. The intended use of these data is to establish spatial and temporal
trends in wet deposition and precipitation chemistry.
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 www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/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 Oceanographic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in Examination of CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs, and
Implications (United States EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
February 1997).
The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone 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
C-2
-------
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 fjeq/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.
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 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 www.epa.gov/castnet and for NADP, see
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
www.epa.gov/airmarkets and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations at
www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-l.info/ (40 CFR parts 72-78.)
For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term monitoring of Lakes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X-91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Stoddard, J. L, J. S. Kahl, 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.
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient criteria pollutant
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient criteria pollutant concentrations below the
level of the NAAQS.
• Areas measuring clean air for NAAQS.
Performance 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.
C-3
-------
leftods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the level of the appropriate NAAQS.
Nadthe populations in areas with air quality concentrations above the level of the NAAQS are aggregated. This analysis
assumes that the populations of the areas are held constant at 2000 Census levels. Data comparisons over several years
alow 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. 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
aiesystem audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or
Erections. Further information available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/cludyqxb/proqrams/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.
Data Quality Review: AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits are
Hjularly conducted.
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of Commerce.
Eiror Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too much uncertainty in the
injections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological conditions for example) exist.
lew/Improved Data or Systems: AQS:In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more
iserfriendly, 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).
CDXis intended to be the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and other related information,
see: www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Estimated Mobile Source VOC Emissions
> Estimated Mobile Source NOx Emissions
' Estimated Mobile Source PM 10 Emissions
' Estimated Mobile Source PM 2.5 Emissions
1 Estimated Mobile Source CO Emissions
toformance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/.
Ufa Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses.
tsfimatesforon-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed into the relevant models, which in
hprovide input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.
ilfiMOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per mile emissions of hydrocarbons,
atom monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles
wtefvarious conditions. Inputs to the model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information, and control program
feracteristics.
^NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
"iteof nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxides from small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines.
Mstothe model include fleet composition, activity and temporal information.
C-4
-------
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 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.
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
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).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 at: www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htrn.
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
C-5
-------
Astern (MOVES). This new system will estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of
jjlutants, and allow multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national inventory estimation. When fully
Sptemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement for MOBILES and NONROAD. The new system will not necessarily
leasingle piece of software, but instead will encompass the necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and guidance
lecessary for use in all official analyses associated with regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements,
jxjnational/regional inventory projections. Additional information is available on the Internet:
tw.eoa. Q ov/otag/n g m. htm.
References: Additional information about mobile source programs is available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/.
FY2005 Performance Measures:
i Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
i Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
i All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
Data Source: To calculate performance measures, the data source used is the NEI for HAPs which includes emissions
torn large and small industrial sources inventoried as point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as
ires inventoried as non-point sources, and mobile sources.
Prior to the 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 -
I993) includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and from
nobile 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
mission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data , not facility-specific data.
Hie 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs 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,
fc)
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI is state and local air pollution control agencies and Tribes. These
fctavary in completeness, format, and quality. EPA evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered
lie developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data. To produce a complete national
mentory, EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as wildfires and residential
Seating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data are developed using data'provided by
slate and local agencies and Tribes and the most current onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. The draft 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS underwent extensive review by state and
teal agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.
formpre information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the following web site:
te//www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information and references on the development of the 1999 NEI
JrHAPs, please go to the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmlff1999.
fcthods, Assumptions and Suitability: To produce a complete model-ready national inventory, EPA estimates
missions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as wildfires and residential heating sources not included
•the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and
Iiibes and the most current onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
Upon development of the inventory, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to
tsftnate annual emissions of air toxics for the 1996 NTt and 1999 NEI for HAPS (and for all years in-between). The
EHS-HAP can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission
stolons resulting from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control
fehnology (MACT) standards.
famore information and references on EMS-HAP, please go to: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/proiection/emshap.html.
^growth and reduction information used for the projections are further described on the following website:
Bg.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ernch/proiection/emshap.jitnnl.
C-6
-------
1WQC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house information from other primary
jurces. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data
irovided by other organizations, to improve the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the
ise of an automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range checks; (2) use of
jeographical information system (CIS) tools to verify facility locations; and (3) automated content analysis by pollutant,
surce category and facility to identify potential problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites,
juplicate emissions, coverage of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and
fctistical analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and pollutants to review
jmore detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior inventories. The statistical analyses help
sviewers identify potential outliers by providing the minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected
prcentile values based on current data. The EPA is currently developing an automated QC content tool for data
jroviders to use prior to submitting their data to EPA. After investigating errors identified using the automated QC format
gnd GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for missing data fields.
the NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies the augmentation method.
tfter performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is
psted for external review and includes a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions,
fcte-by-state modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data. One of the
wnmary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different organizations. During the external review
jlthe data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates
imposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
evisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the database with the source of
liginal data and sources of subsequent revision.
Ihe external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the initial emission estimates,
sseen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI
brHAPs, please refer to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in
tfanta. "QA/QC - An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs," Anne Pope, et
twww.epa.gov/ttn/.
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or elements, which provide "meta"
formation on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields. These standards were developed by teams representing states,
Iifijes, EPA and other Federal agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined
ltd formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful data. The
tendards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification, Facility
fortification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The 1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards
aceptthe Facility Identification Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI
fcr HAPs facilities.
lor more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality Guidelines and new EPA data
bndards, please refer to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San
fego: "The Challenge of Meeting New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of
IB 2002 NEI Point Source Data for HAPs," Anne Pope, et al.
!»w.epa.qov/ttn/.
tie2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.
hta Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public review the NTI and the NEI for
JAPs. 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
IftPs, two periods were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March 2003..
1$ final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003. Beginning in 2005, the NTI will
Ktergo an external scientific peer review.
*2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale
fcessment. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation; the committee
aisiders this an important step toward a better understanding of air toxics.
C-7
-------
Data Limitations: 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.htmlflhaps99.
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 at www.epa.gov/oig/). 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 way to improve the accuracy and
reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined
in the action plan.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTi and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant improvement over the baseline
1993 NT! 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.
References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation is available at the following site:
NEON: ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2005 Overarching Performance Measure: People Living in Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2005 Performance Measure: People Living in Radon Resistant Homes
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the National Association of Home
Builders.
Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States most of whom are members of the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB members construct 80% of the homes built in the United States
each year. Using a survey methodology reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of these
homes that are built radon resistant. The percentage built radon resistant from the sample is then used to estimate what
percent of all homes built nationwide are radon resistant. To calculate the number of people living in radon 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.
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
C-8
-------
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.
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 includes QA/QC by the
vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.
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.
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.
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports of radon-resistant home building
practices. See www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed 7/27/2005 for more information about NAHB. The most recent report,
"Builder Practices Report: Radon Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,"Annual Builder and Consumer Practices
Surveys by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004. Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes
Performance Database: External
Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per radon mitigated home,
assumes a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed number of working fans by the assumed average of 2.67
people per household.
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the business practices for
reporting data of the radon fan manufacturers.
C-9
-------
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization. EPA reviews the data to ascertain their reliability
aid discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
Data Limitations: 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
«lls, installing sealed covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static
jenting and ground covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods,
Jiere 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
Jiese 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
hsome 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.
• References: See www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 7/27/2005 for National performance/progress
reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new
construction. Data through 2004 are available from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their exposure to
indoor environmental asthma triggers
Note: The name of the "National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma" has been changed to "National
Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to E7S"to more appropriately reflect its actual
content. Although this is a name change from that approved by OMB under the Information Collection Request (ICR), in
all other respects, the content and substance of the survey are the same.
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports used to document the
outcomes of individual projects; a media tracking study used to assess behavior change within that sector of the public
liewing the public service announcements, and a national telephone survey (National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS) which seeks information about the measures taken by people
lith asthma, and parents of children with asthma to minimize exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
Uditional information about asthma morbidity and mortality in the US is obtained from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). Annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the National
Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook www.nhibi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02 chtbk.pdf last accessed
7/27/2005.
EPA also collects data on children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the home. This information is used in
wpporting the asthma goals of the program. EPA focuses its work on ETS on children in low income and minority
(emulations, and on children with asthma. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS, which includes a series of questions about whether respondents allow smoking in their home, whether
pung children are in the home, what resident family members smoke and how often, and how much visitors contribute to
aposure, is used to track progress toward reducing childhood ETS exposure. Information about ETS is obtained
leriodically from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including the National Health Interview, the
national Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (forcotinine data), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey
Jor state tobacco/ETS exposure data).
Ma Source: Each component of the database has a unique source. Partner status reports are generated by those
iganizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. An independent
iSative of the Advertising Council provides media tracking of outcomes of all of their public service campaigns and this is
ptticly available information. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to
EfS(OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on asthma morbidity and mortality is available from the
fefional Center for Health Statistics at the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/27/2005). Data on annual
;5jenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.
C-10
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-
0490): This survey is the most robust data set for this performance measure, but it is not administered annually. The first
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.
From an initial sampling frame of 124,994 phone numbers, 14,685 households were contacted successfully and agreed to
participate in the screening survey. Of the 14,685 individuals screened, approximately 18 percent, or 2,637 individuals,
either have asthma or live with someone who does. Only those individuals who have asthma or live with someone who
does were considered to be eligible respondents.
Respondents were asked to provide primarily yes/no responses. In some cases, respondents were given a range of
responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate the one which best defined their response.
The survey seeks information on those environmental management measures that the Agency considers important in
reducing an individual's exposure to known indoor environmental asthma triggers. By using yes/no and multiple choice
questions, the Agency has substantially reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent to complete the survey
and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.
The .information collected has been used to establish a baseline to reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthma
population and future iterations of this survey will measure additional progress toward achieving performance goals. The
next survey will take place in 2006.
On an annual basis, EPA requires (programmatic terms and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide
quarterly reports identifying how many health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma triggers.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible; site-
visits are conducted by EPA project officers as warranted. The National Survey is designed in accordance with approved
Agency procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet: www.epa.qov/icr/players.htnnl last accessed
7/27/2005. 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: For the National Survey, random digit dialing methodology is used to ensure that a
representative sample of households has been contacted; however, the survey is subject to inherent limitations of
voluntary telephone surveys of representative 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 cotonine (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 3 years old, the portion of children most
susceptible to the effects of ETS.
Error Estimate: In its first data 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 plus or minus 6.1 %
C-ll
-------
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.
Mew/Improved Data or Systems: Data from the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490) were collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and
lepresent the first data collection with this instrument.
References:
Asthma
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed
7/27/2005)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/27/2005)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iag/ last accessed 7/27/2005)
Si
National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are part of the National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/27/2005)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.qov/brfss/index.htm
last accessed 7/27/2005),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series (cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed
1/27/2005),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
(riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 7/27/2005),
ffea/toy People 2010 (www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 7/27/2005).
FY2005 Performance Measure: Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their
schools
Performance Database: EPA collects national data by conducting a survey of indoor air quality management practices
'nschools approximately every 3 years. The first survey was administered in 2002. EPA is partnering with CDC to
ncorporate IAQ management practice indicators, consistent with the benchmark survey, into the School Health Policies
and Programs Study (SHPPS) to be administered in 2006. EPA will implement this IAQ module as a smaller survey in
2009, as the SHPSS survey is only conducted at 6 year intervals.
To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools who establish IAQ Tools for Schools (TfS) programs
ach year from reports from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of
juidances distributed and number of people trained by EPA and its partners. EPA also collects information on program
tenefits such as reduced school nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction among staff, reduced absenteeism, and
nst savings experienced by schools.
bta Source: The sources of the data include cooperative partners, USEPA and the statistical sample of all the public
nd private schools in the nation during the 1999 - 2000 school year (118,000); data are from the United States
tepartment of Education National Center for Education Statistics.
lethods, Assumptions and Suitability: Calculations for the number of people experiencing improved IAQ are based
fon an average 525 students, staff and faculty per school (data are from the United States Department of Education
teional Center for Education Statistics). That number, along with the number of schools that are adopting/implementing
IB, are used to estimate the performance result.
ad-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources. The survey provides more statistically
tund results for one period of time; the next scheduled survey will provide performance results for year 2006. EPA's
C-12
-------
2006 survey will be included as part of CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is conducted every
6 years.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible; site
visits and regular 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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2003 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 plans to re-
administer the survey as a component of CDC's School Health Policies and Programs Study, which will show progress
from the baseline.
References: See the United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, nces.ed.gov/ last
accessed 7/27/2005. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-001) at www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last
accessed 7/27/2005 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.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Office Workers experiencing improved indoor air quality in their workplaces
Performance Database: Since fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, the performance database consists of the
annual number of requested copies of building indoor air quality guidance documents, (e.g. EPA's Building Air Quality, I-
Beam, a computer software designed to be a comprehensive state-of-the-art guidance for managing IAQ in commercial
buildings, Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings) and training conducted through cooperative
agreements or other government agencies (GSA) using EPA documents. In addition, EPA conducted a voluntary pilot
survey of building owners and managers in 2001 to determine the use of indoor air quality (IAQ) management practices in
U.S. office buildings.
Data Source: The pilot survey was developed by EPA and distributed by the Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA). The pilot survey's purpose and design received approval from the Office of Management and Budget. The
survey is not administered on an annual basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The pilot survey included data regarding: the size and uses of a selected
building; documentation of management practices employed in the building; how the heating, ventilating, and air-
conditioning systems are managed; how pollution sources are addressed; housekeeping and pest management practices;
remodeling and renovation activities; and responses to tenant complaints regarding IAQ. A sampling frame was
developed based upon random sampling of the membership lists from BOMA, the International Facilities Managers
Association (IFMA) and buildings managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). The final sample size, (and
survey recipient list) was 3,612 and we received 591 completed surveys. The survey results identified both strengths and
weaknesses in building management practices in U.S. office buildings.
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.
QA/QC Procedures: Survey was designed in accordance with approved Agency procedures. Additional information is
available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/icr/players.html/ last accessed 12/22/2004. The quality review was conducted by
BOMA.
C-13
-------
Data Quality Review: BOMA had responsibility for the accuracy of data entered into the database. Quality assurance
safeguards were used in the data entry. BOMA, and EPA's contractor reviewed individual survey responses for accuracy
during the aggregation and analyses activities.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with basing estimates on requests for guidance documents and
training is the unknown factor of how many of the requests resulted in improved indoor air quality. The survey provided a
reference point on progress. The survey results are subject to the limitations inherent in survey sampling. The response
rate of 14% for the survey was low due to the timing of the survey administration and subsequent events in September
and October 2001.
Error Estimate: 4% precision at a 95% confidence level.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone depleting potential (OOP)
i Restrict Domestic Exempted Production and Import of Newly Produced Class I CFCs and Halons
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: 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
C.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 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
insistent 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
b 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
?arterly reporting system.
few/Improved Data or Systems: The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a system to allow direct electronic
sporting.
References: See www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on ODSs. See
Bw.unep.ch/ozone/montreal.shtml for additional information about the Montreal Protocol. See
C-14
-------
www.multilateralfund.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of
Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units
Performance Data: Data from the near real-time gamma component of the RadNet, formerly known as the
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS), will be stored in an internal EPA database at the National
Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama. Data from filters are housed in the
Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) which are physically located in Montgomery, Alabama.
Data Source: RadNet
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Assuming that funding is continued in future years and the project receives all
necessary approvals, the existing air sampling equipment will be supplemented with state-of-the art air monitors that
include near real-time gamma radiation detection capability. Addition of detectors and communication systems will
provide information about significant radioactive contamination events to decision- makers within hours
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow the Agency guidelines and be
consistent with a specific initial operational Quality Assurance Plan that will be completed. All monitoring equipment will be
periodically calibrated with reliable standards and routinely checked for accuracy with onsite testing devices. Laboratory
analyses of air filters and other environmental media are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems for abnormalities as an
indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction. Data will be held in a secure portion of the
database until verified by trained personnel. Copies of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be
maintained to assure the quality of the data.
Data Limitations: Data are limited in near-real-time to gamma emitting radionuclide identification and quantification.
Radiation levels from gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so low as to be "undetectable" will be significantly below health
concerns that require immediate action. Lower levels of radioactive materials in the samples will be measured through
laboratory-based analyses and data.
Error Estimate: The overall error in detection capability is estimated to be within 50% of the actual concentration based
on previous experience with similar measurement systems. An error analysis will be performed on the prototype systems
during the process of detector selection.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: New air samplers will maintain steady flow rates that are measured
during operation and corrected for varying environmental conditions. Addition of gamma spectrometric detectors and
computer-based multi-channel analyzers to the air samplers provide near real-time analyses of radioactive content in
particles captured by the filter. In addition to data collection, the onboard computer systems can communicate results of
analyses back to a central database and even identify abnormal conditions that might require action. These
improvements not only include higher quality data, but also will provide information regarding contamination events to
decision-makers within hours instead of days. The number and location of monitoring sites will be improved to provide
greater coverage of more of the nation's population.
The plan for upgrading and expanding the RadNet air monitoring network was reviewed in FY05 by an EPA Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) and will be reviewed in FY06 by the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) of EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB). The TEP review provided a number of comments that were incorporated in the RadNet plan,
especially those addressing the refinement of the overall system objectives. The SAB review is expected to provide
discussion and guidance from a team of national experts that will address key aspects of the science and technology of
the new network, including fundamental concerns such as the appropriateness and potential effectiveness of the plan for
siting near-real-time air monitors across the nation.
References: For additional information about the continuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
www.epa.tiov/narel/radnet. NAREL Quality Management Plan, Revision 1, March 15, 2001.
C-15
-------
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet scenario-based response criteria
Performance Data: To determine the effectiveness of RERT performance, an output measure has been developed that
scores RERT members on a scale of one (1) to 100 against criteria developed based on the RERT's responsibilities under
the National Response Plan's Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex (formerly the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the NCP). A baseline
evaluation was performed in FY03, based on the effectiveness of the RERT in responses to actual incidents and a major
national exercise (TOPOFF2). RERT members were evaluated in their ability to: (1) provide effective field response, (2)
support coordination centers, and (3) provide analytical capabilities and to support a single small-to-medium scale
incident, as needed. Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline analysis was measured at approximately 13 percent. In
FY2004, RERT members were re-evaluated, through a major exercise, in the ability factors listed above. In FY 2005, the
evaluation criteria have been reevaluated and revised in response to the results of the FY 2004 exercise as well as
changes necessitated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and DHS' issuance of the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan.
Data Source: Based on the requirements of EPA set forth in the NRP's Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex and the
NCP, EPA has developed criteria against which the capabilities of the RERT are judged. This evaluation has been
performed by members of the Radiation Protection Division, including representatives both within and outside the RERT
belt.
Data Limitations: The evaluation criteria were modified between FY2003 and FY2005 to reflect the changing
lequirements of the RERT, based on DHS1 issuance of both NIMS and the NRP during this time period. While the broad
outline of the RERT's role has remained the same, additional requirements have been imposed by the issuance of these
documents, which are now reflected in the RERT evaluation criteria.
References: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, the National Incident Management System, and the National
Response Plan.
FY2005 Performance Measure: Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards
Performance Data: The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) database contains the number
Dfdrums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP. The WIPP is a DOE facility located in
southeastern New Mexico, 26 miles from Carlsbad, New Mexico. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed by
Congress in October 1992 and amended in September 1996. The act transferred the land occupied by the WIPP to DOE
and gave EPA, regulatory responsibility for determining whether the facility complies with radioactive waste disposal
standards. Through July 2005, EPA has completed over 97 on-site inspections to evaluate waste prior to shipment to the
WIPP facility.
Data Source: Department of Energy
QA/QC Procedures: The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE. Under EPA's WIPP
fegulations (available on the Internet:
ww.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.htm (last accessed 7/18/200), all DOE WIPP-related data must be collected
and maintained under a comprehensive quality assurance program meeting consensus standards developed by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (available on the Internet: http://www.asme.org/codes (last
accessed 7/18/2005)). EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems are in place
and functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.
Data Limitations: The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities
and placed in the DOE WIPP. Currently, there are five DOE waste generator facilities that are approved to generate and
sWpwaste: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Hanford Site, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Savannah River Site.
Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste characterization controls
Equality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites. EPA conducts frequent independent inspections
adaudits at these sites to verify continued compliance with radioactive waste disposal standards and to determine if
HOE is properly tracking the waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Once EPA gives its approval, the
C-16
-------
number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is dependent on DOE priorities and funding. EPA
volume estimates are based on projecting the average shipment volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly Supplement
www.wipp.ws/librarv/caolib.htmffControlled (last accessed 7/18/2005) contains information on the monthly
volumes of waste that are received at the DOE WIPP.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector
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 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.
C-17
-------
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 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.
Cjmate 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:
mww.epa.gov/qlobalwarminq/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.
FY2005 Performance Measure: Annual Energy Savings
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System
Data Source: Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility specific improvements (e.g.
space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering
measurements of equipment power levels and usage patterns.
fethods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on energy efficiency. For
liese programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions
pvented are calculated as the product of the kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., MMTCE
prevented per kWh). Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR,
landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission reductions are
estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a Atracking system© for energy reductions.
Energy bill savings are calculated as the product of the kWh of energy saved and the cost of electricity for the affected
wiket segment (residential, commercial, or industrial) taken from the Energy Information Administration's (ElA) Annual
Biwgy Outlook and Annual Energy Review for each year in the analysis (1993-2013). Energy bill savings also include
i»enue from the sale of methane and/or the sale of electricity made from captured methane. The net present value
fPV) of these savings was calculated using a 4-percent discount rate and a 2001 perspective.
QWQC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate
*8gy savings from its voluntary programs.
C-18
-------
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: The voluntary nature of programs may affect reporting. In addition, errors in the performance data
could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and econometric analyses.
Error Estimate: Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate
emissions reductions from voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties
in engineering analyses and econometric analyses.
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/globalwarminq/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.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 6
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Fuel Economy of EPA-Developed SUV Hybrid Vehicle over EPA Driving Cycles
Tested
Performance Database: Fuel economy test data for both urban and highway test cycles under the EPA Federal Test
Procedure for passenger cars. The Clean Automotive Technology program commits EPA to develop technology by the
end of the decade to satisfy stringent criteria emissions requirements and up to a doubling of fuel efficiency in personal
vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and urban delivery vehicles — while simultaneously meeting the more demanding size,
performance, durability, and power requirements of these vehicles.
Data Source: EPA fuel economy tests performed at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL), Ann
Arbor, Michigan
QA/QC Procedures: EPA fuel economy tests are performed in accordance with the EPA Federal Test Procedure and all
applicable QA/QC procedures. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a national and international facility for fuel economy
and emissions testing. NVFEL is also the reference point for private industry.
Data Limitations: Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel economy testing is a well established and precise
exercise with extremely low test to test variability (well less than 5%). One challenge relates to fuel economy testing of
hybrid vehicles (i.e., more than one source of onboard power), which is more complex than testing of conventional
vehicles. EPA has not yet published formal regulations to cover hybrid vehicles. Relevant information is available on the
Internet: www.ctts.nfel.gov/analysis/hev test/procedures.shtml.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is using solid engineering judgment and consultations with other expert
organizations (including major auto companies) to develop internal procedures for testing hybrid vehicles.
References: See www.epa.gov/otag/testproc.htm for additional information about testing and measuring emissions at the
NVFEL.
C-19
-------
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from
sources
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY2005 Performance Measures:1
i . The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
i The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
• The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later (covered standards include:
Stage I disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface
water treatment rule/arsenic).
• The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
i The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
i The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that receive drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Performance 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 regulations. The performance measure is based on the population served by community
irater systems that were active during any part of the performance year and did not have any violations designated as
"health based." Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a treatment technique are health-
tesed violations. SDWIS has provided annual results for 9 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).
fethods, 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
ton, 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:
• SDWIS-FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
1 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).
• Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error correction.
• 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, www.epa.gov/safewater/. System
and user documents are accessed via the database link www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule
reporting requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy documents link
www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
FotFY 2007, the Agency will be reporting on a measure which combines the current APGs 2.4 and 2.5. It measures the percent of community water
1*ms in compliance with all drinking water standards. This measure arose from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund PART.
C-20
-------
• 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.
• User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS-FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan2 (DRAP). The DRAP contains
the processes and procedures and major 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 center 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. Two (2000 and 2003)
Data Reliability Action Plans focus on the first two issues, and an information strategic plan3 (ISP) has been developed and
is being implemented to address the last three issues, which deal primarily with technology (hardware and software)
concerns. For instance, the ISP documents ways to improve tools and processes for creating and transferring data to EPA.
The ISP 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.
Detailed activities and implementation schedules are included in these documents, and the Agency expects to implement
these additional improvements by the end of 2005.
Routine data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a degree of non-reporting of 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 engaged in statistical analysis and in
discussions with states to more accurately quantify the impact of these data quality problems on the estimate of national
compliance with health-based drinking water standards. Even as improvements are made, SDWIS serves as the best
source of national information on compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the
development of drinking water regulations, trends analyses, and public information.
Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate that the most significant
data quality problem is under-reporting of monitoring and health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics.
The most significant under-reporting occurs in monitoring violations. Even though those are not covered in the health
based violation category, which is covered by the performance measure, 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 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, 2005 results, the first year of the improved audit process will be
reported in 2006.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Several approaches are underway.
2 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)
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options for OGWDW
Information Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001. Available on the Internet at
www.epa.QOv/safewater/data/informationstrateqv.html
C-21
-------
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 (from 30 to 40 by year-end 2005) will use SDWIS-STATE,4 a software information system jointly
designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS-FED to (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 on other drinking water programs: the
Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. These modules will be integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to
assess the nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. In 2003, agreement was reached on the data
elements for reporting source water and UIC data. Plans have now been developed for design of systems to address
these data flows. Developing the systems to receive the data is scheduled for 2005.
References:
Plans*
SDWIS-FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy 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 www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Enterprise Architecture Plan
Reports'
1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and status report
PWSS Management Report (quarterly)
1999 Management Plan Review Report
2003 Management Plan Review Report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
• PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
• Various SDWIS-FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry instructions, data On-line Data
Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide,
release notes, etc.) Available on the Internet at: www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/safewater/reqs.html
• Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains access to the information systems
and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to better analyze the data, and
4 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support implementation of
their drinking water programs.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases - SDWIS/STATE, July 2002.
Information available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis st/current.html
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for further information.
C-22
-------
www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm contains reporting guidance, system and user documentation and reporting
tools for the SDWIS-FED system.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve
minimized risk to public health (minimized risk achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by the
state, of source water protection actions in a source water protection strategy)
Performance 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).5 EPA issued guidance to implement
these programs in 1997, Sfafe Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance 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 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)7 (GIS data).
These data will be compatible with the inventory data States are currently reporting to the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS).8 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. EPA has 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 3 years of the Strategic Plan. - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of progress in implementing their source
water assessment and protection programs will be based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance." States will only .report state-level summary
information directly related to specific community water systems in a state-level database. Because state reporting will be
based on consistent definitions and procedures found in the "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection
Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance," EPA believes that the data will be reliable for use in making 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.
5 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at
www.epa.qov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html.
6 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA,
August 1997). Available on the Internet at www.epa.qov/safewater/swp/swappq.html.
7 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at www.epa.gov/waters/
8 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
C-23
-------
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. 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 "Sfafe and Federal Source
Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance" set standard data definitions and
procedures, it also provides for considerable flexibility in states' data collection protocols and 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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The source water 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
iffli 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
indata tables in the drinking water warehouse. The source water data module is operational for states to pilot from FY
2005 through FY 2008. Three states used the module in the first pilot year 2003. A number of other states may report
using the data module for the 2005 reporting period based on EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot process.
References:
Guidance Manuals
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Sfafe Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/swappq.htm]
Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August, 2003.
'State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance," March
2005.
Web site addresses
US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, www.epa.gov/safewater
For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Source
Water site, www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html
US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental
Results (WATERS), www.epa.gov/waters/
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
FY2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of the water miles/acres identified by States or Tribes as having fish
consumption advisories in 2002 where increased consumption of safe fish is allowed. (485, 205 river miles,
11,277,276 lake acres.
Performance Database: National Listing of Fish Advisories.1 The database includes fields identifying the waters for
*hich 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 846,310 river miles and 14,195,187 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
FY2007 commitments). Metadata are also available describing methodologies used by states and tribes for establishing
advisories. Fish advisory data have been collected since 1993.
C-24
-------
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 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 will also begin tracking recommended "meal frequencies" in the state and tribal advisories to
account for the instances where advisories are modified to allow greater consumption.
References:
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Listing of Fish Advisories." Washington, DC: EPA Accessed May 1, 2003.
Available only on the Internet atmap1.epa.gov/.
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
atwww.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume1/.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits." Volume 2 of "Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd ed.@ EPA-823-B-00-008. Washington DC: EPA,
2000. www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001. Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002.
Available at www.epa.gov/water/programs/gmp iulv2002.pdf.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres monitored by states that are approved
or conditionally approved for use.
Performance Database: There is no database currently available, although one is under development (see below). Until
that database is operational, data to support this measure will come from past surveys of States that are members of the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), conducted at 5-year intervals and periodic updates requested from the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (most recent, 2003 data released in 2004).
Data Source: Currently, the ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states and prepares
reports. Survey responses are voluntary.
C-25
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The methods used by the state programs to produce the current data used by
the ISSC are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model Ordinance; the operation of those state programs
is overseen by the FDA.
OA/QC Procedures: States are responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data.
Data Quality Reviews: The ISSC reviews the state data during report preparation to ensure completeness and
accuracy, and follows up with states where necessary.
Data Limitations: Based on NOAA's previous surveys and the voluntary nature of the information collected, potential
data limitations may include incomplete coverage of shellfish growing areas.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The ISSC initiated development of the Shellfish Information Management System
(SIMS) in July 2002. The database is being developed and implemented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a Cooperative Program
chartered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The database will include relevant information that is collected by
State Shellfish Control Authorities. Historically, NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-year intervals, 1985,
1990, and 1995. These data were not stored in a database. Once operational, SIMS will be the first national shellfish
growing area database and will include NOAA's 1995 and 2003 data. State summary information can then be used to
track trends relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as the baseline. The SIMS 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.
Ten states were involved in the design of the database; six states have entered acreage data in the database. Seven
additional states are working toward inputting their data. No long-term database management plan is in place at this time.
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres identified by states in 2000 as having
water quality unsafe for recreation.
• Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach
safety programs will be open and safe for swimming.
Performance 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., 2006 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2007
commitments). As of 2004, States and Territories monitor for pathogens at 3,574 coastal and Great Lakes beaches, up
torn 2,823 beaches in 20021.
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
formany 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
astate or local government is accessible to the public through the BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification)
system.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-specific advisories or
closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year. Performance against the target is tracked
using a simple count of the number of beaches 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.
W/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard survey form, approved by OMB, to coastal and Great
C-26
-------
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 (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
has been voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it has not captured 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. Except for Alaska, all coastal and Great Lakes states and
territories have annually applied for implementation grants since they have been available.
Error Estimate: As of 2004, States and Territories report that they monitor at 3,574 of the 6,099 coastal and Great Lakes
beaches. This monitoring varies between States. For example, North Carolina monitors all its 228 beaches whereas
South Carolina monitors 24 of 229 beaches. Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may
miss some instances of high pathogen concentrations. EPA's 2002 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches found
that 90% of the nation's beaches are monitored once a week or less4. Studies in southern California found that weekly
sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70% of the exceedances lasted for only one 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. To the extent that state governments apply for and
receive these grants, the amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve. In FY 2007, EPA expects the 35
coastal and Great Lakes states to apply for grants to implement monitoring and notification programs.
References
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Program: 2004 Swimming Season Update." EPA-823-F-05-006.
Washington, DC, July 2005. Available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-
B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001. Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002.
Available at www.epa.gov/water/programs/gmp iulv2002.pdf
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season." EPA-823-F-03-007.
Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/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).
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2
C-27
-------
cv 9M5 Performance Measure: Watersheds in which at least 80 percent of the assessed water segments meet
water quality standards
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS) (1) is used to
summarize water quality information at the watershed level. For purposes of this national summary, watersheds are
equivalent to 8-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), of which there are 2,262 nationwide although data may be
disaggregated to smaller watersheds should the need arise. WATERS is a geographic information system that integrates
many existing databases including the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database (2), the National Assessment
Database (NAD)(3), and the Water Quality Standards database (4). Water quality information available through WATERS
includes data submitted by the states under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) reports. Data from the NAD includes
waterbody type, location, extent, and the designated uses assessed, as well as the assessment conclusion. NAD data
are available for most areas as far back as the year 2000 assessment cycle. Data gaps expected include incomplete
state assessments and uncertain state adoption of the data formats inconsistent with the National Assessment Database.
The data are submitted to EPA every 2 years, with annual electronic updates. The U.S. EPA provides access to the
states' data on its Monitoring Program website. (5)
Data Source: State CWA Section 305(b) reports. Under the Clean Water Act, the states are given the responsibility for
setting water quality standards for their waters and collecting the data and information to assess the condition of those
waters. The data collected by states to assess water quality and to prepare their CWA Section 305(b) reports come from
multiple sources, e.g., state monitoring networks, United States Geological Survey (USGS), local governments, volunteer
monitors, academic institutions, etc. States also use predictive tools, such as landscape and water quality models, and
randomized probability surveys. [Raw water quality data may be entered by states and other sources into STORET.]
States use ambient monitoring data to determine if their waters are attaining the state's water quality standards. States
are encouraged to use three EPA data systems to structure and transfer these data. The first of these is the Water
Quality Standards Database, which records the designated uses and supporting criteria for specifically defined waterbody
segments contained in the second dataset, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). These segments, each defined by
states, are described using a structure that EPA conceived two decades ago, but now has divested to its partner, the
U.S. Geological Survey; The NHD provides important address points that can define the extent (for instance, by defining
Hie upstream and downstream boundaries of a beach) of waterbodies that have been assigned consistent standards.
The NHD also allows important features such as outfalls, intakes, and dams to be located so that they can be mapped
and better understood. It also allows administrative designations to be located, such as the boundaries of assessments
made to determine whether the waters meet the standards assigned to a waterbody. Results of assessments are entered
into the third database, the National Assessment Database. The National Assessment Database is used to assemble
performance statistics for each biennial (calendar year) reporting cycle: 2000, 2002, 2004 and (planned) 2006. Results
are calculated on the basis of these biennial reports. Long delays are often encountered in state submissions, causing
delays in EPA's development of summary statistics. EPA is working to establish more certain procedures to prevent future
delays.
EPA provides access to WATERS on its monitoring website. However, given differences among state water quality
standards and monitoring methods, the results of these assessments do not provide a reliable nationwide assessment of
later quality conditions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ various methods to make water quality assessment decisions,
including: 1) Direct sampling of chemical, physical, and biological parameters using targeted site selection (usually, where
problems are most likely or where water is heavily used); 2) Predictive models to estimate water quality; 3) Sampling at
statistically valid, probability-based sites (in its early stages in a number of states) to assess broad scale water quality
conditions; 4) Compilation of data from outside sources such as volunteer monitors, academic institutions, and others.
EPA aggregates state assessment information by watershed (as described above) to generate the national performance
measure. State assessment results describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state water quality
standards and represent a direct measure of performance. State CWA Section 305(b) data have been used to provide a
summary of the ambient water quality conditions across the nation and to determine conditions in the subset of waters
assessed. Geographically specific waterbody assessments are suitable for year-to-year comparisons of water quality
attainment progress. As states continue to strengthen their monitoring and data management programs, more state data
»i be suitable for tracking changes in water quality over time. While programs are in transition, national performance
data will be heavily influenced by changes in state data procedures.
C-28
-------
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states in their individual assessments (under CWA Section 305(b)) and
accessed through WATERS is dependent on individual state procedures. Numerous system level checks are built into
the data sources in WATERS, based upon the business rules associated with the water quality standards database.
States are given the opportunity to review the information to ensure it accurately reflects the data they submitted. Data
exchange guidance and training are also provided to the states. Sufficiency threshold for inclusion in this measure
requires that 20 percent of stream miles in an 8-digit HUC be assessed. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan
(QMP), renewed every 5 years, was approved in July 2002 (6). It describes the quality system used by the Office of
Water and applies to all environmental programs within the Office of Water and to any activity within those programs that
involves the collection or use of environmental data.
Data Quality Review: Numerous independent reports have cited that weaknesses in water quality monitoring and
reporting undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of waters nationwide, to make trend assessments, and to support
scientifically sound water program decisions. The most recent reports include the 2004 GAO report on watershed
management. General Accounting Office (GAO), 2004, Watershed Management: Better coordination of data collection
efforts needed to support key decisions: Washington D.C., United States General Accounting Office, the 1998 Report of
the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program (7), the March 15, 2000 General
Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (8), the 2001 National
Academy of Sciences Report, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (9), a 2002 National
Academy of Public Administration Report, Understanding What States Need to Protect Water Quality (10), and EPA's
Draft Report on the Environment (11). Water quality reporting under Section 305(b) has been identified as an Agency-
Level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.
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.
The Office of Water has limited authority to require better water quality monitoring or reporting by states. OW has recently
issued several guidance documents designed to increase consistency and coverage in state monitoring, assessment and
reporting. In July 2003, EPA issued its Integrated Reporting guidance (12) which calls on states to integrate the
development and submission of 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. The Integrated
Report will enhance the ability of water quality managers to display, access, and integrate environmental data and
information from all components of the water quality program. In July 2002, EPA released the Consolidated Assessment
and Listing Methodology - a Compendium of Best Practices (13), intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring
program design and in the data and decision criteria used to support water quality assessments. And in March 2003,
EPA issued Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (14), which describes ten elements that
each state water quality monitoring program should contain and a 10-year time frame for implementing all elements. As
part of each state's monitoring strategy, state data will be accompanied by quality assurance plans. Quality assurance is
one of the ten required elements of these strategies.
EPA has enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the National Assessment Database) so that they
include documentation of data quality information. EPA's WATERS tool integrates many databases including STORET,
the National Assessment Database, and the Water Quality Standards Database. These integrated databases facilitate
comparison and understanding of differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results. The
Office of Water has recently convened and continues to use an Assessment Data Visualization Work Group that is
tracking the increased use of the three data systems and is planning to focus its orientation and training to expand the use
of these data systems and to ensure regional review of the quality of states' data. Regions also will more closely review
the coverage of monitoring needed to support state assessment activities. Until there is consistent, widespread use of
these systems, the water quality conditions states report will be subject to procedure-induced variation that masks
environmental progress.
Data Limitations: Data do not represent an assessment of water quality conditions at the national level. EPA is working
with states to provide a data structure that allows state assessments to be geographically located so that they can be
clearly identified and changes can be tracked over time. EPA data systems being adopted by states implement this
feature. Other disparities remain, however. Most states do not employ a monitoring design that characterizes all waters in
each reporting cycle, and some states only report the results of the most recent assessments without providing the
perspective of water quality from previous assessments. States, territories, and tribes collect data and information on only
a portion of their water bodies because it is prohibitively expensive to monitor all water bodies. Furthermore, states do not
C-29
-------
use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment with water quality standards. For example,
indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community condition to levels of dissolved oxygen and
concentrations of toxic pollutants. State water quality standards themselves vary from state to state. State assessments
of water quality may include uncertainties associated with their measured or modeled data. These variations in state
practices and standards limit the use of assessment reports for describing water quality at the national level and prevent
the agency from aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Office of Water is currently working with states, tribes and other Federal agencies
to improve the data that support this management measure by addressing the underlying methods of monitoring water
quality and assessing the data. Also, the Office of Water is working with partners to enhance monitoring networks to
achieve comprehensive coverage of all waters, use a consistent suite of core water quality indicators (supplemented with
additional indicators for specific water quality questions), and document key data elements, decision criteria and
assessment methodologies in electronic data systems. The Office of Water is using a variety of mechanisms to
implement these improvements including data management systems, guidance, stakeholder meetings, training and
technical assistance, program reviews and negotiations.
EPA is working with states to enhance their monitoring and assessment programs, and promoting the use of probability
surveys as a cost-effective way to obtain a snapshot of water quality conditions. These enhancements, along with
improving the quality and timeliness of data for making watershed-based decisions, will improve EPA's ability to use state
assessments in portraying national conditions and trends. Specific state refinements include developing biological criteria
to measure the health of aquatic communities (and attainment with the aquatic life use) and designing probability-based
monitoring designs to support statistically valid inferences about water quality. EPA has been instrumental in helping
states design the monitoring networks and analyze the data. Initial efforts have focused on coastal/estuarine waters and
wadeable streams. Lakes will be targeted next. States are implementing these changes incrementally and in conjunction
with traditional targeted monitoring. At last count, 16 states have adopted probability-based monitoring designs, several
more are evaluating them, and all but 10 are collaborating with EPA to undertake a national probability survey of
conditions of wadeable streams at a national level.
lnFY2005 EPA's budget included a $10 million increase to support states' implementation of comprehensive water quality
monitoring strategies, including refinement of biological assessment methods and probability-based designs for different
water resource types; landscape models and other predictive tools; remote sensing and innovative indicators of water
quality to help streamline where additional monitoring is needed; and targeted monitoring to provide data to implement
local management actions such as National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permits and Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The initiative also supports improvement of data management systems to ensure that
water quality monitoring data are understandable and available to decision makers and the public. Included were
upgrades to STORET, to improve system navigation and operation and to enhance analysis and presentation
applications. Funds also supported enhancing the capability to exchange water quality data with states. EPA's FY06
budget included a request for $18 million to support state's monitoring programs.
References:
• WATERS available on-line at www.epa.gov/waters. Aggregate national maps and state and watershed
specific data for this measurement are displayed numerically and graphically in the WATERS database.
• STORET available online at www.epa.qov/STORET. Links to user guide and descriptions of the database
can be found here.
• National Assessment Database information available at www.epa.gov/waters/305b/
• Water Quality Standards Database information available at www.epa.gov/wgsdatabase/
• State 305(b) Report information -www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. Washington, DC: July 2002. EPA831 -X-02-001.
Available at www.epa.gov/ow/programs/qmp iuly2002.pdf
• General Accounting Office. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
Incomplete Data. Washington, DC: March 15, 2000. GAO/RCED-00-54.
• National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load
Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC: 2001.
• National Academy of Public Administration. Understanding What States Need to Protect Water Quality.
Washington, D.C: December 2002. Academy Project No. 2001- 001. Available atwww.napawash.org.
• U.S. EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
C-30
-------
• U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, TMDL, July 21, 2003. Available at
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policv.html.
• U.S. EPA, Office of Water. "Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of
Best Practices." (First Edition). Washington, DC: July 31, 2002. Available at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
• U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. Washington,
DC: March 2003. EPA841-B-03-003. Available at: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring
• General Accounting Office Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts Needed to
Support Key Decisions, Washington, DC: March 15, 2000. GAO-04-382
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Water quality standards are fully attained in miles/acres of waters identified in
2000 as not attaining standards.
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS- found at
www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality information related to this measure. WATERS can be
used to view U303(d) Information," compiled from, States'Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"), which are recorded in the national TMDL Tracking System
(NTTS). This information (found at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate reports that identify waters
that are not meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters"). This information, combined with information and
comment from EPA Regions and states, yields the baseline data for this measure: number of impaired waters in
1998/2000. As Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and other watershed-related activities are developed and
implemented, water bodies which were once impaired will meet water quality standards, and thus will be removed from
the year 98/2000 impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports, scheduled every 6 years (e.g. future reporting
years 2006 and 2012), as percentage improvements to water body impairment.
Data Source: The underlying data source for this 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. The standard operating
procedures and deviations from standard methods for data sampling and prediction processes are stored by states in the
STORET database. EPA aggregates state data to generate the national performance measure. State-provided data
describe attainment of designated uses in 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 5 years, was approved in July 2001. EPA requires that each
organization prepare a document called a quality management plan (QMP) that: documents the organization's quality
policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g.,
those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Numerous 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
C-31
-------
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 General Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key
Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data10, the 2001 National Academy of Sciences Report Assessing the
JMDL Approach to Water Quality Management11 and EPA's Draii 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 (STORET and the National Assessment Database) so that they
include documentation of data quality information.
Second, EPA has developed a CIS tool called WATERS that integrate 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 a guidance document: Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - a
Compendium of Best Practices13 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, (August 2002) which is currently under review by our state partners. This guidance describes
ten elements that each state water quality-monitoring program should contain and proposes time-frames for implementing
all ten elements.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because states do not employ a
monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States, territories and tribes collect data and information on only a portion
of their water bodies. States do not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess 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.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve the guidance under which
303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing Guidance July 21, 2003 entitled Guidance for 2004 Assessment,
listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (Guidance). The
Agency expects to release updated Guidance for 2006 by the end of FY05. The current Guidance may be found at:
www.epa.qov/owow/tmdl/tmdl0103/index.html. The Guidance addresses a number of issues that states and EPA
identified during the 2002 listing cycle. Among these issues are minimum data requirements and sample size
requirements in making listing determinations, use of probability-based sampling in the state's monitoring program,
'Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology. EPA Number 100R98006. National Center for Environmental Publications]
"Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. March 15,2000. RCED-00-54 and Water
Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters. January 11, 2002
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
US EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
fflv.eDa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm.
U.S. EPA. (July 31, 2002). Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of Best Practices. (First
Edition). Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Available on the Internet: Monitoring and Assessing Water
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calnri.html.
C-32
-------
improved year-to-year consistency in a choice of a geo-referencing scheme, and use of a consistent method of
segmenting water bodies and denoting changes to the segmentation between listing cycles.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of monitoring stations in Tribal waters that show at least a 10%
improvement in each of 4 key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform
Performance Database: All of the monitoring stations originally included in the baseline for this measure (900) are
United States Geological Survey (USGS) stations with USGS station identification numbers. In the time since the 900
sites were originally identified, additional monitoring stations on Tribal lands have been located. The water quality
monitoring results for the additional stations on Tribal lands are recorded in the USGS National Water Information System
(NWIS) and EPA's Storage and Retrieval database (STORET). Through STORET and NWIS, EPA and USGS have
established standardized formats for reporting water quality data and information.
Data on total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform are readily available through the STORET
(www.epa.gov/STORET) and the NWIS (waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/) websites for those monitoring stations in Tribal
waters where these data have been collected and loaded into the databases.
Data Source: Monitoring activities at the sampling stations included in this measure are not conducted or reported by
Tribes. Sampling is performed at these monitoring stations by a variety of entities, for a variety of purposes and with
differing frequencies. The proximity of these stations to watersheds undergoing restoration/protection activities may not
be included as part of the information included in the STORET database or NWIS. The use of these monitoring stations in
this performance measure is opportunistic, and thus sampling results may not necessarily reflect the impacts of
restoration activities performed as part of the implementation of Clean Water Act programs by Tribes.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Sampling is performed at these monitoring stations by a variety of entities, for
a variety of purposes and with differing frequencies. Methods used to measure total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen and fecal coliform among these sites likely differ. However, metadata for sampling results, including sampling
methods, detection limits and sampling date and time, are readily available to the public through the STORET database
and NWIS. Given that the measure is based on improvements in water quality at individual monitoring stations in tribal
lands over time, the use of differing methods at sampling stations included in the measure is not necessarily problematic.
Sampling results at these stations are likely to be suitable for tracking progress in the measure. Implicit in the measure is
the assumption that improvements in water quality at these sampling stations reflect the successful implementation of
CWA programs by Tribes. The monitoring stations included in the measure are used for a variety of purposes and with
differing frequencies and the proximity of the monitoring stations to waters undergoing restoration/protection actions by
Tribes is unknown. Given this, the suitability of sampling results at these stations for tracking successful implementation
of CWA programs by Tribes is uncertain.
QA/QC Procedures: Samples at the monitoring stations included in this measure are collected and processed by a
variety of entities and for differing purposes. As a result, QA/QC procedures for these samples may differ considerably.
However, QA/QC procedures for the samples are readily available to the public through the STORET website or obtained
from the USGS.
Data Quality Review: Data owners are responsible for data quality review. Information on the quality of the data in
STORET is readily available to the public through the website. The USGS is responsible for data quality review of
sampling results loaded in the NWIS. No audits or data quality reviews for the monitoring results included in this measure
have been conducted by EPA for data in the STORET or NWIS database.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. The monitoring stations included in the
universe for this measure have been selected opportunistically by EPA based on their presence on Tribal lands and
reporting sampling results for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform. Sampling is
performed at these monitoring stations by a variety of entities and for a variety of purposes with differing frequencies. The
proximity of these stations to watersheds undergoing restoration/protection activities may not be included as part of the
information included on the STORET or NWIS databases. Sampling results may not necessarily reflect the impacts of
restoration activities performed as part of the implementation of Clean Water Act programs by Tribes. The impact of
these data limitations on progress as reported in the measure is unclear.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has significantly improved the ease of data retrieval from the STORET database
with the completion of the STORET data warehouse. Sampling results are being loaded into STORET at a rate of
C-33
-------
approximately 1 million records/month, which will significantly increase the data available to track progress in the
measure. EPA is currently conducting a pilot project to prototype flow of water quality data to EPA via the central data
exchange. The Wind River Reservation is participating as a pilot partner. EPA's intent is to build on the results of the
pilot project to provide greater flexibility for partners who submit water quality data to EPA. We anticipate that this effort
will help to increase the volume of tribal data in EPA's water quality data warehouse and will provide a more robust
database for this measure. EPA and USGS will continue to work together to create a common view for data included in
EPA's water quality data warehouse and the USGS NWIS database. This work also will facilitate the ability to measure
progress.
References: Water quality data in STORET are publicly available at www.epa.gov/STORET. Water quality data from
USGS are available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
Performance 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 IHS 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
i Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
• Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
• Tribal Master Plans for Development
• Telephone Surveys
• Feasibility Studies
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain accurate numbers of
homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the communities must be consistent among the
various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be
used to determine 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
ofthe data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS
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, IHS
field, IHS district and IHS 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 IHS 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.
C-34
-------
Error Estimate: The IHS 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:
• Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria March 2003.cfm
• Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
• Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for Indian Homes and
Communities", May 2003. www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of coastal waters
nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report.
• Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels reported in the 2002
National Coastal Condition Report based upon recent data reported in the 2005 National Coastal Condition
Report.
• Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for:
coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 points; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.1
points; benthic quality by at least 0.1 points; & eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 points.
Performance 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.
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 2-year period 2000-2003.
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a rigid sampling and
collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel. Laboratory processing is 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
C-35
-------
with field manual instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and 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 8 year
period will be necessary for the regional estimate to meet the performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an 8 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 2006 NCCR representing
trends between 1990-2004.
QA/QC Procedures: The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal Assessment Information Management Plan (IMP)[EPA 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 2 years. All participants received training in
year2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every 2 years.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA ORD at the regional and national
level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in
2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies).
No deficiencies were found in the program. A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for
wtrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the Inspector General's Office for
potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted
itsown 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%
oftrue 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
fi 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
onlymajor source of external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.) and
tteonly source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in data collected
C-36
-------
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 1 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. After 2004, ORD will assist
OW, as requested, with expert advice, but will no longer support the program financially.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is determined) has an annual
uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for 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:
• 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.
• New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition. QA requirements are met
by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA
adherence and cross-laboratory sample analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories
entering the program.
• The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would be the elimination of the surveys
after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the baseline for this performance measure,
the original scores reported in 2001 have been re-calculated in the 2004 report using the index modifications described
above. These "new" results for the baseline (re-calculated scores) are reported in Appendix C of the 2005 report.
References:
• Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National Coastal Assessment Database
(2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap.
• National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding results of QA audits. (Available
through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator NCA, USEPA, ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf
Breeze, FL 32561)
• National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R- 01/002.(Available through John
Macauley above)
• National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-01/003 (Available through
Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator, ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R- 01/005.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. In review Assigned Report
Number EPA-620/R-03/002.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Daily per capita generation.
• Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted.
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.
C-37
-------
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
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and recycling are widely reported and
accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the data or the methodology have been identified or are necessary.
References: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April 2005 (EPA530-F-05-003),
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits
or other approved controls in place
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national
database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the states. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in
Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is
the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program. RCRAInfo contains 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. 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
www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/. 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 system changes and user needs.
Even with the increasing emphasis on data quality, with roughly 10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more
than one unit), we hear of data problems with some facilities every 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
GPRA annual goal #1 (listed above) is met is based on the legal and operating status codes for each unit. Each year
since 1999, in discussions with Regional offices and states, EPA has highlighted the need to keep the data that support
the GPRA permitting goal current RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this information and is a focal point for planning
C-38
-------
from the local to national level. Accomplishments for goal # 2 (listed above) are based on the permit expiration date code.
This is a new code for the new goal and we have made changes to the database to make this code a high priority code.
We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. Since tracking this information is new, we anticipate that
we will have to work out some reporting bugs, review the accuracy of tracking when it begins in October 1, 2005, and
make adjustments if necessary.
Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state personnel. It is not
available to the general public because the system contains enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to
EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.
Data Quality Review: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-
95-167. August 22, 1995, www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdfi 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.
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 goal #2 are "due for permit renewals," but we
anticipate that there will be some facilities that cease to be "due for permit renewals" due to a change in facility status.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools in RCRAInfo for managing
environmental information to support Federal and state programs, particularly for permit renewals. RCRAInfo allows for
tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated
activities, and 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.
References: RCRAInfo documentation and data (www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/). The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste:
Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995,
www.qao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
FY2005 Performance Measures:
* Number of confirmed releases at UST facilities nationally.
• Percent increase of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection
and release prevention (Spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements).
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.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in a word processing table to OUST. OUST
staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the regional offices. The data are displayed in a word
processing table on a region-by-region basis, which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data. Data
quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
C-39
-------
References: FY 2005 Semi-Annual Mid-Year Activity Report, June 2,2005 (updated semi-annually).
www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca 05 12.pdf.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have Facility Response
Plans.
• Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
Performance Database: The Office of Emergency Management has recently gone through a reorganization bringing
together the chemical and oil emergency prevention, preparedness, and response programs of the Agency. Additionally,
the Oil Program is currently undergoing a PART review, therefore, a new reporting system is under development to take
into account the recent reorganization as well as the resulting annual and long-term measures develop through the PART
review. This system will store oil spill prevention, emergency preparedness and response information (e.g., compliance
and oil spill information).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Pending new database.
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2005 Performance Measures: Percentage of emergency response and homeland security readiness
improvement.
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from each of the 10 Regions
are tabulated and stored using standard software (WordPerfect, spreadsheets, etc.).
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, and interviews with personnel and
managers in each program office. The score represents a composite based upon data from each unique Regional and
headquarters 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 2007 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland
security readiness by 10% from the FY 2006 baseline 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 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, ERT, and Headquarters using a systematic, objective process. Each
evaluation team consists of managers and staff, from Headquarters and from another EPA Regional office, with some
portion of the team involved in all reviews for 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, ERT, and
Headquarters, and for determining an overall National score.
C-40
-------
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 has been analyzed to ensure
that the scores are consistent with the data and program information. There currently is no specific database that has
been developed to collect, store, and 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,
ERT, and Headquarters; and only twelve sets of data will be collected, allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring
better consistency of data analysis and 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: FY 2004/2005 Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM), www.epa.gov/superfund/.
FY2005 Performance Measures:
i Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions.
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled.
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled.
• Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites.
i Number of Superfund construction completions.
• Percentage of Superfund spending obligated site-specifically.
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually.
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars.
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System (CERCLIS)
is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report Superfund site information.
Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's Regional offices enter data into CERCLIS
on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable within CERCLIS.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1)
Superfund Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2)
Report Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide,
which contains technical instructions to such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA
check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes: (a) regional
policies and procedures for entering data into CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund
accomplishments are supported by source documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into
CERCLIS; and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and (6) a
historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only by
approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-log report. Specific direction for these controls is
contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2004/2005
(www.epa.aov/superfund/action/process/spim04.htm) and the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 SPIM
tevw.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
C-41
-------
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
2100.4 (cfintl .rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/ ); 2) the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality
Management Plan (www.epa.qov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer gmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware standards
(basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf): 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which
CERCLIS is being developed and maintained (www.epa.gov/gualitv/informationquidelines): and 5) Agency security
procedures (basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Securitv?OpenView). In addition, specific controls are in place for
system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by Government
Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity of the data in CERCLIS. The OIG audit report,
Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No. 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 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 are available at www.epa.gov/oigearth/. The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify the accuracy of the information in
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 www.qao.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 concurs with the recommendations contained in the audit, and many of the identified
problems have been corrected or long-term actions that would address these recommendations continue to be underway.
Additional information about this report is available at www.epa.gov/oigearth.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance measures. Typically, there are no
published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) was signed in
August 2003 (www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer gmp.pdf).
Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology- Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report. No. 2002-P-00016), dated
September 30, 2002. The Agency disagrees with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided
11 recommendations with which EPA concurs. Many of the identified problems have been corrected or long-term actions
that would address these recommendations continue to be underway, e.g., 1) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2 update was
made to better define the Headquarters' and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and
accomplishment data in CERCLIS; 2) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status Indicators' added language
to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.6 'Data Quality' added a
section on data quality which includes a list of relevant reports; 4) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data
Owners/Sponsorship' was revised to reflect what data quality checks (focus data 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
this SPIM. For changes regarding this OIG audit, see the Change Log for this SPIM at www.epa.gov/superfund/) Draft
guidance from OCA (Other Cleanup Activity) subgroup, which outlines the conditions under which sites are taken back
from states when states have the lead but are not performing; and 7) Pre-CERCLIS Screening: A Data Entry Guide, which
provides guidance to the regions for preventing entry of duplicate sites in CERCLIS. The development and
implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data has begun. This process includes delineating quality
assurance responsibilities in the program office and periodically selecting random samples of CERCLIS data points to
check against source documents in site files.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28,
1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of
the sites. The OIG report, Information Technology-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report. No. 2002-P-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 will improve controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagrees and strongly objects
C-42
-------
to the study design and report conclusions, stating they do not focus on the program's data quality hierarchy and the
importance it places on NPL sites.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort, initiated in 2002, has been completed As a result
of the modernization effort, CERCLIS now has standards for data quality. Each EPA Region's CERCLIS Data Entry
Control Plan, which identifies policies and procedures for data entry, is reviewed annually. Data quality audit fields have
been added to CERCLIS. EPA Headquarters has begun to create and share with the Regions data quality audit reports
These reports document data quality for timeliness, completeness, and accuracy as determined by the Superfund data
sponsors to encourage and ensure high data quality. The modernization effort has increased the availability of CERCLIS
data via Superfund eFacts, a Superfund data mart which serves program managers in Headquarters and the Regions In
FY2007, the.program will continue its effort to improve its management of the program through the increased availability
oftimely and accurate technical information to Superfund's managers. In 2007, the Agency will work to increase
utilization of CERCLIS data by incorporating additional remedy selection, risk, removal response and community
involvement data into CERCLIS.
The Business Process Reevaluation task in the modernization project has provided CERCLIS managers with a first step
nan implementation evaluation. The document, which resulted from the evaluation, is being used as a valuable resource
tor scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS as well as the realignment of the database that will remove unnecessary data
and add the new data fields that are necessary to manage the Superfund program today. The redesign is mandated to
bring CERCLIS into the Agency's Enterprise Architecture. As part of OSRTI's effort to bring CERCLIS into the Agency's
Enterprise Architecture all Regional databases have been moved to the National Computing Center in RTP. This is the
first step in folding the Headquarters and Regional databases into one database. This move of the databases to RTP is
being done without changing the application, by using a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software program to enable the
Regional data entry staff to input data over the Agency's Wide Area Network. The initial step of moving the databases to
RTP and moving all users to the COTS software has been completed. The move to a single database will be completed
during FY 2006 and implemented in FY 2007. The Superfund Document Management System (SDMS) will be linked to
CERCLIS. This linkage will enable users to easily transition between the programmatic accomplishments reporting to the
actual document that defines and describes the accomplishment reported in CERCLIS. The effort to link SDMS and
CERCLIS and to consolidate the systems will lead to common reporting (same events and data) in CERCLIS and SDMS.
This will be done by electronically extracting data from the documents in SDMS to fill the data fields in CERCLIS -
eliminating the manual data entry/human error impacts.
References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030) and
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016, www.epa.gov/oigearth): and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the
Mus of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241. www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf). The Superfund Program Implementation
Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual (www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm). The Quality
Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003,
www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer qmp.pdf). The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality
Management Plan (www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer gmp.pdf). EPA platform, software and hardware standards
(basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf). Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS
are being developed and maintained (www.epa.gov/qualitv/informationguidelines). EPA security procedures
(basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Securjty?Open View).
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled.
• High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled.
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.
C-43
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a Corrective Action Module
that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require, corrective actions. RCRAInfo contains information on
entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and management activities
regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. All five measures are used to
summarize and report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA Corrective Action Program's highest
priority facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA 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,
February 5, 1999). Lead regulators for the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator
determination; however, facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the
current environmental conditions. Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies are used to track the RCRA
program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities moving towards final cleanup. The lead regulators for
the facility make the remedies selection and construction completion of remedies determinations.
QA/QC Procedures: States and Regions generate the data and manage data quality related to timeliness and accuracy
(i.e., the environmental 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.
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 facilities.
Data Quality Review: GAO's 1995 Report on EPAs 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/lnformed) 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 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. As discussed above, the performance measure
determinations are made by the authorized states and EPA Regions based on a series of standard questions and entered
directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided guidance and training to states and Regions to help ensure consistency in
those determinations. High priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the QA/QC procedures
identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing environmental 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 waste management practices by 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 (www.access.gpo.gov/su docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html).
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed.)
• Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian Country. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups
completed in Indian Country.)
C-44
-------
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. The data for
the comparison of leaking underground storage tank cleanups will be developed in FY 2005 for a planned reporting date
of FY 2006.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in a word processing table to OUST. OUST
staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the regional offices. The data are displayed in a word
processing table on a region-by-region basis, which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data. Data
quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
References: FY 2005 Semi-Annual Mid-Year Activity Report, June 2, 2005 (updated semi-annually).
jiww.epa.qov/OUST/cat/ca 05 12.pdf
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for Superfund sites with total
unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs recovered.
i Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action is taken before the start of a
remedial action.
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
brthe 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: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan, approved April 11,
2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund/Oil
Implementation Manual (SPIM), a program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report
specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which
contains technical instructions to such data users as regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program
personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA check
against report specifications; 5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA tester to ensure
tot the report produces data in conformance with the report specifications; 6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal
Control Plan, which includes: a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into CERCLIS, b) a review process to
ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by source documentation, c) delegation of authorities for
approval of data input into CERCLIS, and, d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment
fefinitions; and 7) a historical lockout feature that has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data
can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-log report.
Data Quality Review: The 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.
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan, approved April 11, 2001
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
FY2005 Performance Measure: SITE demonstrations completed
C-45
-------
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of registrations of reduced risk pesticides registered (Register safer chemicals and biopesticides)
(cumulative).
• Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New Chemicals)(Cumulative).
• Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses) (Cumulative).
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions.
• Reduce registration decision times for new conventional chemicals.
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals.
Performance 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. Both S18 timeliness and reduced risk decision times are being reported on a FY basis for the first
time in FY 2005.
Data Source: Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and studies as they are received and as
work is 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
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, thus when 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 standard. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality
Management Plan (May 2000) in ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.
Data Quality Review: These are program outputs. EPA staff and management review the program outputs in accordance
with established policy for the registration of reduced-risk pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3,
September 4,1997.
Data Limitations: None. AH 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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network), which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the processing time for registration
actions.
References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997;
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality Management Plan, May 2000); Endangered Species Act.
C-46
-------
FY2005 Performance Measures:
t Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued (cumulative).
i Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued.
i Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed.
• Reduce decision times for REDs.
i Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children.
• Tolerance Reassessment.
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.
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 standard. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to
tie procedures for quality management of data as outlined in its QMP approved May 2000.
Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision document.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will 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
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Annual number of large transformers safely disposed.
• Annual number of large capacitors safely disposed.
Performance Database: PCB Annual Report Database. The results are calculated on a calendar year (CY) basis. Two-
year data lag and results for CY 05 will not be available until 2007.
Data Source: Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of PCB Waste.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data provide a baseline for the amount of safe disposal of PCB waste
annually. By ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment such as transformers and capacitors coming out of service, and
contaminated media such as soil, and structures from remediation activities, the Agency is reducing the exposure risk of
PCBs that are either already in the environment or may be released to the environment through spills or leaks.
QA/QC Procedures: The Agency reviews, transcribes, and assembles data into the Annual Report Database.
Data Quality Reviews: The Agency contacts data reporters, when needed, for clarification of data submitted.
Data Limitations: Data limitations include missing submissions from commercial storers and disposers, and inaccurate
submissions. PCB-Contaminated Transformers, of PCB concentrations 50 to 499 parts per million (ppm), and those that
C-47
-------
are 500 ppm RGBs or greater are not distinguished in the data. Similarly, large and small capacitors of PCB waste may
not be differentiated. Data are collected for the previous calendar year on July 1 of the next year creating a lag of
approximately 1 year. Despite these limitations, the data do provide the only estimate of the amount of PCB waste
disposed annually.
References: U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals Program, PCB Annual
Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Screening assays completed.
Performance Database: Program output; Data are generated to support all stages of the validation of endocrine test
methods through contracts, grants and interagency agreements, and the cooperative support of the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The scope of
the effort includes the conduct of laboratory studies and associated analyses to validate the assays proposed for the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). This measure, however, tracks only the end product. EPA's contractor
maintains a Data Coordination Center which manages information/data generated under the EDSP.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> or = 10
ug/dL).
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 is currently released to the public in 2 year sets. The most current release was
the data set for 2001-2002, released in early 2005. Blood lead levels are measured for participants who are at least 1
year old. The survey collects information on the age of the participant at the time of the survey.
Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey designed to assess the health and
nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. The survey program began in the early 1960s as a periodic study, and
continues as an annual survey. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 men,
women, and children each year located across the U.S. CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is
responsible for the conduct of the survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish
results from the survey, generally in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals.
In recent years, CDC has published a National Exposure report based on the data from the NHANES. The most current
National Exposure report was released on July 21, 2005, and is available at the web site www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to demographic, socio-
economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also includes an extensive medical and dental examination of
participants, physiological measurements, and laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental
interest include: metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, 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 www.cdc.qov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS generally
recommend analyzing the data in 4 year periods. Analyses of data for 2 year periods are capable of reasonably valid
inferences in certain cases. Historically, CDC has published estimates for this measure based on 4 year periods, with an
exception for 1999-2000.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance plans are available from the CDC as outlined on the web site
www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under the NHANES section. The analytical guidelines are available at the web site
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes general guidelines June 04.pdf).
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. CDC/NCHS has an elaborate data quality checking procedure outlined
on the web site
www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under the NHANES section.
C-48
-------
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 weights are provided at the NHANES web site www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Measurement error for
die blood lead levels is anticipated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The CDC has moved to a continuous schedule for NHANES sampling, data release,
and release of National Exposure reports.
References: 1) the NHANES web site, www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm: 2) the National Exposure report web site,
iww.cdc.gov/exposurereport/: 3) MMWR article with the most recent estimate of the number of children with elevated
blood lead levels, www.cdc.qov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm: 4) summary information on children's blood
lead levels from past NHANES, www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htmtfNational%20survevs
FY2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research data, for this measure. The data
have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY basis.
Data Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing Research, Inc. (a private sector research database). The database
contains pesticide usage information by pesticide, 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
fbrvariations 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
lie data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used
t adjust for known disproportionalities (known disproportionality refers to a non proportional sample, which means
iidividual 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
bextensive 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
safes 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
amore 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,
C-49
-------
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 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.
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report,
www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane Marketing Research, Inc.: www.doanemr.com ; www.usda.gov/
and www.usda.gov/; FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4,1997; Endangered
Species Act.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk screening environmental
indicators (RSEI) risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
Performance Database: The RSEI Model uses annual reporting from individual industrial facilities along with a variety of
other information to evaluate chemical emissions and other waste management activities. RSEI 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 2 year TRI data lag, performance data will be available for the FY 2007 Annual Performance Report.
The data are based on calendar year.
Data Source: The RSEI model incorporates data on chemical emissions and transfers and facility locations from EPA's
Toxics Release Inventory; chemical toxicity data from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System; stack data from EPA's
AIRS Facility Subsystem and National Emissions Trends Database and the Electric Power Research Institute;
meteorological data from the National Climatic Data Center; stream reach data from EPA's Reach File 1 Database; data
on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System; fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife; exposure factors from EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The RSEI Model generates unique numerical values known as "Indicator
Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and exposed population. Indicator Elements are unitless
(like an index number, they can be compared to one-another but do not reflect actual risk), but proportional to the
modeled relative risk of each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). Indicator Elements are
risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical, release medium, and
exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Each Indicator Element represents a unique release-exposure event and
together these form the building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest. These Indicator Elements are summed
in various ways to represent the risk-related results for releases users are interested in assessing. RSEI results are for
comparative purposes and only meaningful when compared to other scores produced by
RSEI. The measure is appropriate for year-to-year comparisons of performance. Depending on how the user wishes to
aggregate, RSEI can address trends nationally, regionally, by state or smaller geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures: TRI facilities self-report release data and occasionally make errors. TRI has QC functions and an
error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes. EPA updates off-site facility locations on an annual basis using
geocoding techniques.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has gone through a quality
review process tailored to the specific data and managed by the providers of the data sources. RSEI includes data from
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), U.S. Census, etc. All were collected for
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 (U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model,
Peer Reviews. Described atwww.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/fags.html. 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
C-50
-------
reviewed and revised, EPA will have completed its formal, written response to the 1997 SAB Review.
Data Limitations: RSEI relies on data from a variety of EPA and other sources. TRI data may have errors that are not
corrected in the standard TRI QC process. In the past, RSEI has identified some of these errors and corrections have
been made by reporting companies. Drinking water intake locations are not available for all intakes nationwide.
In coastal areas, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) water releases may go directly to the ocean, rather than
nearby streams. EPA is in the process of systematically correcting potential errors regarding POTW water releases.
These examples are illustrative of the data quality checks and methodological improvements that are part of the RSEI
development effort. RSEI values are recalculated on an annual basis, and, resources permitting, all data sources are
updated annually.
Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and groundtruthing studies have been
used to address model accuracy (documentation is provided on the RSEI Home Page - www.epa.gov/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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency databases (e.g., SDWIS
and Reach File databases) and incorporates newer data into the RSEI databases. Such improvements can also lead to
methodological modifications in the model. Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years are captured by the
annual updates of the RSEI model.
References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997 review by the EPA Science Advisory
Board. The Agency has provided this and other updated technical documentation on the RSEI Home Page. (RSEI Home
Page - www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/)
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model, Peer Reviews.
Described at www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html
RSEI Methodology Document (describes data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
itww.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/method2004.pdf RSEI User's Manual (PDF, 1.5 MB) explains all of the functions of the
model, the data used, and contains tutorials to walk the new user through common RSEI tasks
(www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/users manual.pdf).
Amore general overview of the model can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF, 23 KB)
(www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/factsheet v2-1 .pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices that accompany these two documents and provide additional information on
the data used in the model. The Appendices are as .follows: Technical Appendix A (PDF, 121 KB) - Listing of All Toxicity
Weights for TRI Chemicals and Chemical Categories Technical Appendix B (PDF, 290 KB) - Physicochemical Properties
for TRI Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB) - Derivation of Model Exposure Parameters
Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB) - Locational Data for TRI Reporting Facilities and Off-site Facilities Technical
Appendix E (PDF, 44 KB) - Derivation of Stack Parameter Data Technical Appendix F (PDF, 84KB) - Summary of
Differences between RSEI Data and TRI Public Data Release
FY2005 Performance Measure: Establish short-term exposure limits for 52 percent of chemicals identified as
highest priority by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program.
Performance Database: There is no database. Performance is measured by the cumulative number of chemicals with
?roposed", "Interim", and/or "Final" AEGL values as published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The results
are calculated on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews short term exposure
values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The 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.
C-51
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The work of the National Advisory Committee's Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National
Research Council/National Academies of Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing Community
Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances. NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences' Subcommittee on AEGLs, has developed standard operating procedures (SOPs), which are followed by the
program. These have been published by the National Academy Press and are referenced below. The cumulative number
of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and "interim" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National
Academy of Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is assumed to be completed at the time of final
approval of the AEGL values by the NAS.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include public 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.
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.
References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Chemicals,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001. NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Guidelines for Developing
Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduce occurrence of residues on a core set of 19 foods eaten by children
relative to detection levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Performance Database: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (POP). The results for
this annual performance measure (APM) are calculated on a calendar year basis and have been reported in the fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
Data Source: Data collection is conducted by the states. Information is coordinated by USDA agencies and cooperating
state agencies.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The information is collected by the states and includes statistical information on
pesticide use, food consumption, and residue detections, which provide the basis for realistic dietary risk assessments
and evaluation of pesticide tolerance. Pesticide residue sampling and testing procedures are managed by USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). AMS also maintains an automated information system for pesticide residue data
and publishes annual summaries of residue detections. This measure helps provide information on the effect of EPA's
regulatory actions on children's health via reduction of pesticide residues on children's foods. The assumption is that
through reduction of pesticide residues on these foods, children's exposure to pesticides will be reduced; thus, the risk to
their health diminished. This measure contributes to the Agency's goal of protecting human health and is aligned with the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandate of protecting children's health.
QA/QC Procedures: The core of USDA's PDP's QA/QC program is Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) based on
EPA's Good Laboratory Practices. At each participating laboratory, there is a quality assurance (QA) unit which operates
independently from the rest of the laboratory staff. QA Plans are followed as the standard procedure, with any deviations
documented extensively. Final QA review is conducted by POP staff responsible for collating and reviewing data for
conformance with SOPs. POP staff also monitor the performance of participating laboratories through proficiency
evaluation samples, quality assurance internal reviews, and on-site visits. Additionally, analytical methods have been
standardized in various areas including analytical standards, laboratory operations, data handling, instrumentation and
QA/QC. With the exception of California, all samples of a commodity collected for POP are forwarded to a single
laboratory, allowing greater consistency, improved QA/QC and reduced sample loss. Program plans may be accessed at
www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
Data Quality Review: In addition to having extensive QA plans to ensure reliability of the data, the POP follows EPA's
Good Laboratory Practices in standard operating procedures. A QA committee composed of quality assurance officers is
responsible for annual review of program SOPs and for addressing QA/QC issues. Quality assurance units at each
participating laboratory operate independently from the laboratory staff and are responsible for day-to-day quality
assurance oversight. Preliminary QA/QC review is done at each participating laboratory with final review performed by
POP staff for conformance with SOPs.
C-52
-------
Data Limitations: Participation in the PDF is voluntary. Sampling is limited to ten states but designed in a manner to
represent the food supply nationwide. The number of sampling sites and volume vary by state. Sampling procedures are
described at the website, see reference below. There is a data lag of approximately 12-15 months due to
collection/reporting procedures and time required for review and analysis of the data.
Error Estimate: Uncertainties and other sources of error are minor and not expected to have any significant effect on
performance assessment. More information is available on the website (See References).
References: POP Annual Reports, www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm ;
www.ams.usda.gov/process/; CFR 40 Part 160; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996;
www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by
the 15 pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife.
Performance Database: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is a national database of information on
poisoning incidents of non-target plants and animals caused by pesticide use. The fields used include the number of
incidents reported for each non-target plant or animal. The data used to report is the average for 3 years. Data are
gathered on a calendar year basis and reported on a FY basis beginning in FY 2004. There is approximately 2 year data
lag. The Environmental Fate and Effects staff for Pesticide Programs maintain this database.
Data Source: Data are extracted from written reports offish and wildlife incidents submitted to the Agency by pesticide
registrants under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as well as incident
reports voluntarily submitted by state and Federal agencies involved in investigating such incidents.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure helps to provide information on the effect of EPA's regulatory
actions on the protection of fish and wildlife from acute toxic effects of pesticides. Incidents of fish and wildlife mortality
caused by pesticides are summed annually and sums are reported as 3-year moving averages. Incidents related to
known misuse of pesticides and to pesticides not currently registered in the United States are excluded, as are incidents
forwhich the cause is highly uncertain. This indicator assumes that changes in the total number of incidents reported to
the Agency reflect changes in the total number of incidents that are occurring. Inherent in this is the assumption that a
consistent effort is made to investigate and report incidents year after year. This indicator is suitable only if fish and
wildlife mortality incidents are investigated and reported widely enough to provide adequate monitoring of incidents
throughout the country, and if the level of effort in investigating and reporting incidents are reasonably consistent over
time.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the quality of the data. Before
entering incident data in the database, a database program is used to screen for records already in the database with
similar locations and dates. Similar records are then individually reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting. After each record
is entered into the EIIS database, an incident report is printed that contains all the data entered into the database. A staff
member, other than the one who entered the data, then reviews the information in the report and compares it to the
original source report to verify data quality. Scientists using the incident database are also encouraged to report any
inaccuracies they find in the database for correction.
Data Quality Review: Internally and externally data quality reviews related to data entry have been conducted. EPA
follows a quality assurance plan for accurately extracting data from reports and entering it into the EIIS database. This
quality assurance plan is described in Appendix D of the Quality Management Plan for pesticides programs. The
! American Bird Conservancy has reviewed data in the EIIS database for records related to bird kill incidents.
Data Limitations: This measure is designed to monitor trends in the numbers of acute poisoning events reported to the
Agency. The reporting of incidents to the Agency is currently very limited. Very few fish and wildlife reports are being
reported by pesticide registrants under the FIFRA 6(a)(2) requirement. This is because most fish and wildlife incidents
are classified as "minor" under the current rule, and the registrants are required to report only aggregate data for these
minor incidents. The aggregate data are inadequate for entering the incidents into EIIS and including them in this index
because no details are reported on individual incidents, even if they are fish kills or bird kills. In 2004, only three fish kills
aid one wildlife kill were reported as "major" incidents with adequate data to include in this index. Incident reports
voluntarily submitted from sources other than pesticide registrants also have been very scarce in recent years. Since
2003, only two state and regional government agencies have reported fish kill incidents to the Agency (the California
C-53
-------
Department of Fish and Game and the US Geological Survey) and only three have reported wildlife kills (the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Southeast
Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study). Many states governments have informed the Agency that budget cuts have led to
inadequate funding to investigate and report on fish and wildlife kills occurring in their states, making them unable to
report these incidents to the EPA. Other states may not be reporting because they are not aware that the EPA is
collecting this information. In summary, the data are currently inadequate for monitoring national trends in incidents.
Error Estimate: Moving average counts of number of incidents per year may be interpreted as a relative index of the
frequency of acute toxicity effects that pesticides are causing to fish and wildlife. The indicator numbers are subject
reporting rates. If there is a change in incidents since the baseline year, it may be due to change in tracking/reporting of
kills rather than change related to the use of a pesticides. Also, despite efforts to avoid duplicate counting of incidents, a
few incidents likely have duplicate records in the EMS database. A quality assurance review of bird kill incidents
completed by the American Bird Conservancy in 2005 found five incidents with duplicate records, which will be corrected
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA is currently conducting a project with the American Bird Conservancy to
improve the quality and quantity of data on bird kill caused by pesticides. This project should eventually result in additional
reports of bird kill incidents being submitted to the Agency, but to date no additional incident reports have been obtained.
The Environmental Fate and Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs has begun a process to obtain an
Information Collection Request (ICR) permit, which would allow soliciting state agencies for voluntary submittal of any
incident reports that they produce.
References: The Ecological Incident Information System (ENS) is an internal EPA database. Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2).
QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides Program, May 20, 2000; Endangered Species Act.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of risk management plan audits completed.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and the states provide the data to EPA headquarters.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are collected and analyzed by surveying EPA's Regional offices to
determine how many audits of facilities' risk management plans (RMPs) have been completed.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, with review at the Regional and
Headquarters' levels.
Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters' personnel.
Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data provided by state programs.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage increase of TRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using the
Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) and the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
Performance Database: TRI System (TRIS).
Data Source: Facility submissions of TRI data to EPA.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: As part of the regular process of opening the mail at the TRI Reporting Center,
submissions are immediately classified as paper or floppy disk. This information is then entered into TRIS. The
identification of an electronic submission via CDX is done automatically by the software.
QA/QC Procedures: Currently, the mail room determines whether a submission is on paper or a floppy disk during the
normal process of entering and tracking submissions. Electronic submissions via CDX are automatically tracked by the
software. With an increase in electronic reporting via CDX, the manual mail room processing will be significantly reduced.
Information received via hard copy are double-key entered. During the facility reconciliation process, the data entered are
checked to ensure "submission-type" identification is accomplished at no less than 99 % accuracy. Accuracy is defined
as accurate identification of document type.
Data Quality Reviews: Each month the Data Processing Center conducts data quality checks to ensure 99 % accuracy
of submission information captured in TRIS.
C-54
-------
Data Limitations: Occasionally, some facilities send in their forms in duplicative formats (e g paper floppy and/or
through CDX). All submissions are entered into TRIS. The Data Processing Center follows trie procedures outlined in the
document "Dupe Check Procedures" to identify potential duplicate submissions. Submissions through CDX override
duplicate submissions by disk and/or hard copy. Floppy disk submissions override duplicate paper copy submissions.
Error Estimate: The error rate for "submission-type" data capture has been assessed to be less than 1% The quality of
the data is high.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: EPA continues to identify enhancements in E-reporting capabilities via
CD A.
References: www.epa.gov/cdx/
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed
Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
Number of acres of Brownfields property available for reuse
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties
Performance Database: The Brownfields Management System (BMS) contains the performance information identified in
Bie above measures. Key fields related to performance measures include: Properties with Assessment Completed with
Pilot/Grant Funding; Properties assessed with Targeted Brownfields Assessment Funding; Properties with Cleanup
Complete; Acres Made Ready for Reuse; Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged;
Assessment/Cleanup/Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged; Number of Participants Completing Training; Number of
Participants Obtaining Employment.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms prepared by assessment, cleanup,
revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program cooperative agreement
award recipients. Information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments is collected from EPA Regions.
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: Cooperative agreement award recipients submit reports quarterly on
project progress to EPA. Data used to track performance measures are extracted from quarterly reports and property
profile forms by an EPA contractor. Data are then forwarded to Regional Pilot managers for review and finalization.
Given the reporting cycle and the data entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for BMS data.
Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields
Revolving Loan Fund Grantees, Brownfields Job Training Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, and
State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees all contribute towards these 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.
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.
C-55
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are reviewed by EPA Regional pilot
managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of key measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly
with detailed data trends analysis.
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program developed the 'Property Profile' and 'Job Training Profile'
reporting forms to be used by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF, and Job Training Grantees awarded under the Brownfields
Law. These forms, approved by OMB, allow EPA to collect standardized data and will improve data quality and reliability.
The BMS database has been updated to track and store the data reported in these forms. The Program is in the process
of amending the OMB ICR to gather information from State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program grantees. In the
interim, EPA is collecting the data from Quarterly Reports.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Reusing Land and Restoring Hope: A Report to
Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields Program (www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake report.htm): assessment
demonstration pilots and grants (www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment grants.htm); cleanup and revolving loan fund
pilots and grants (www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm): job training pilots and grants (www.epa.gov/brownfields/iob.htm):
and cleanup grants (www.epa.qov/brownfields/cleanup grants.htm).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of people in Mexico border area protected from health risks because of
adequate water and wastewater sanitation systems funded through border environmental infrastructure funding
(cumulative).
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported quarterly by Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADBank). Data field is
population -served by potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Data Source: U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
(Washington, DC, 1990). Mexican population figures from the Mexican Institute Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia y
Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990)); Data on U.S. and Mexican populations served by certified
water/wastewater treatment systems from the BECC; Data on projects funded from the NADBank.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summation of population from BECC and NADBank. U.S. Census data are
assumed to be correct and suitable.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA Headquarters is responsible for evaluation of reports from BECC and NADBank on drinking
water and wastewater sanitation projects. Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing
entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the accuracy of
information reported (Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American
Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002)).
Data Quality Review: Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border
projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the accuracy of information
reported.
Error Estimate: Same as census data.
References:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). Instituto
Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia y Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990)
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American Development Bank
(NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of environmental reviews initiated by Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) countries following the enactment of the 2002 Trade Promotion Act (TPA).
C-56
-------
Data Source: Project / Trade Agreement Specific. One key source is the Organization of American States' Inter-
American Forum on Environmental Law, which is helping a number of countries in the western hemisphere to assess the
environmental effects of trade liberalization.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The decision by a developing country to conduct an environmental review of
trade liberalization shows movement that environmental considerations are not an obstacle to the economic growth such
countries seek through trade liberalization. In turn, the initiation of the review reflects increased willingness on the part of
the government of that country to be more open with and accountable to its public. Overarching reviews will lead to
project-specific environmental assessments and greater public engagement in environmental decision-making, both of
which will gradually produce improved environmental performance.
QA/QC Procedures: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis, but will require objective assessment
of: (1) tasks completed, and (2) progress toward project goals and objectives.
Tracking development and implementation of these projects presents few challenges because EPA project staff and other
USG officials maintain close contact with their counterparts. Normally, any changes become part of a public record. EPA
and other USG officials can assess the manner in which these countries conduct reviews.
Assessing the effectiveness of these reviews is more subjective. Aside from feedback from Agency project staff, EPA
relies, in part, on feedback from its contacts in the target trading partner countries and regions and from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and other third parties. Because EPA works to establish long-term relationships with
Js contacts, the Agency is often able to assess environmental improvements in these countries and regions for a number
of years following implementation of the trade agreement and/or completion of the environmental review of trade
Sberalization.
Data Limitations: There can be considerable variability between the reviews conducted to date by different countries in
the Americas. The variability is shown by different levels of quality and rigor in the reviews, time lags between the
initiation and completion of these reviews, and time lags and uncertain linkages between such broad reviews of trade
iberalization overall and the assessments of specific projects. Moreover, the environmental assessments of specific
projects vary in quality and rigor as well and do not always lead to improved environmental decision-making.
Error Estimate: None. EPA and other key players such as United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the State
Department consult with their counterparts in trading partner countries and are in a position to assess the manner in which
these countries undertake environmental reviews.
New/Improved Data or Systems: In FY 2007 EPA will complete and make available to interested developing countries a
new training course on how to conduct environmental reviews of free trade agreements. Those countries that participate
in this training will be better able to conduct meaningful reviews on their own. We would expect to see increased quality
and rigor of upcoming reviews. Thus, we will monitor for future reviews from those countries that participate in this new
training course.
References: Organization of American States: www.oas.org/usde/fida/
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY2005 Performance Measure: Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National
Estuary Program (NEP).
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 2001 for the NEP
(results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights habitat loss/alteration, as well as the
number of acres protected and restored by habitat type www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This
Sows 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.
C-57
-------
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 "protection" and "restoration"
activities for purposes of measure tracking and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.)
"Restored and protected" is a general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to
include created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed restriction, submerged
aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings, and anadromous fish habitat increases.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own reports and from data
supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible for implementing the action resulting in habitat
protection and restoration). The NEP staff are requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the
numbers. EPA then confirms that the national total accurately reflects the information submitted by each program. The
Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every 5 years, was approved in July 2001. EPA requires that
each organization prepare a document called a Quality Management Plan (QMP) that documents the organization's data
quality policy, which addresses the quality, generation and use of the organization's data and identifies the
environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., programs that rely on the collection or use of
environmental data.)
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. Current data limitations include:
information that may be reported inconsistently, (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: In 2004, NEP provided 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
is also being developed for the NEPs1 use that will assist in tracking habitat projects, and will help reduce EPA's QA/QC
time. Currently, this system is scheduled to be in place by September 2005.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data 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
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Working with partners, achieve an increase of wetlands with additional focus on
biological and functional measures.
Performance Database: The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces
information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats. This information is
used by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector. The Emergency
Wetland Resources Act of 1986 directs the Service to map the wetlands of the United States. The NWt has mapped 89
C-58
-------
percent of the lower 48 states, and 31 percent of Alaska. The Act also requires the Service to produce a digital wetlands
database for the United States. About 42 percent of the lower 48 states and 11 percent of Alaska are digitized
Congressional mandates require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce a status and trends reports to Congress at
10-year intervals. K y
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 report14 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 1986 to 1997 In
calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. Of this
total, 100.5 million acres (95 percent) are freshwater wetlands and 5 million acres (5 percent) are saltwater wetlands.
The President directed in his Earth Day 2004 announcement that the next National Wetlands Inventory update status and
tends report, should be completed by the end of 2005, 5 years ahead of the current schedule, and asked that the updates
be done more frequently thereafter. This new information will enhance Federal, State, Tribal, local government programs'
policies and decision making.
Data Source: The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
This is the only Federal study that provides statistically valid estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in
the conterminous United States. Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such
as topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys, published wetland maps, and State, local or
regional studies. A random number of sites are also field verified. All photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and
traced in a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with 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. 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 4,375 random sample
plots. The plots were examined with the use of remote sensed data in combination with field work. Estimates of change
h 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 Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source
bdetect wetlands. This was consistent with previous wetland status and trends studies conducted by FWS.
"Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
ad Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82pp.
C-59
-------
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve data quality and
geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation of existing digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly
over an image base.
References:
wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
wetlands.fws.gov/PubsJReports/publi.ntm
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and states, achieve no net
loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program.
Performance Database: Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program has been no net loss of
wetlands.
Historically, the Corps has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its Regulatory Analysis and
Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. The Corps has compiled national Section 404 wetland permitting
data for the last 10 years reflecting acres of wetland impacts avoided (through the permit process), acres permitted for
impacts, and acres mitigated. However, limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in
difficulties in drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program.
Data Source: Data included in RAMS is generally 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 (NAS) and the
General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation
(the restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses) for authorized losses
of wetlands and other waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NAS determined that available data was
insufficient to determine whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net loss of either wetland area
or function. The NAS added that available data suggested that the program was not meeting its no net loss goal. Among
its suite of recommendations, the NAS noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked
in a national database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance measures for data entry.
In response to the NAS, GAO, and other recent critiques of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation, EPA
and the Corps in conjunction with the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation released the
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan on December 26, 2002. The Plan includes 17 tasks that the agencies will
complete in FY 07 to improve the ecological performance and results of compensatory mitigation. (Note: some Mitigation
Action Plan items may be subsumed by the Corps' mitigation rulemaking expected to be finalized in calendar year 2006.)
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:
C-60
-------
• Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage from the aggregate "mitigation"
acreage reported;
t Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually undertaken, and how much of that
total was successful;
• Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred; and
. Limitations on identifying acres "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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the need for improved 404 tracking. The
Corps is currently piloting a new national permit tracking database called ORM to replace its existing database (RAMS).
As part of the MAP, the Corps is working with EPA and the other Federal agencies and states to ensure that the version
of ORM that is ultimately deployed will adequately track wetlands gains and losses. ORM is being designed to provide
improved tracking regarding:
Type of impacts
Type and quantity of habitat impacted (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin classification systems)
Type and quantity of habitat mitigated (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin classification systems)
Type and quantity of mitigation (restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation)
Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
Spacial tracking via CIS for both impact and mitigation sites (planned)
Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site (credits) if assessment tool
is available and applied
References: www.mitiqationactionplan.gov/
FY2005 Performance Measure: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
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,
epa.gov/qlnpo/glindicators/index.html. 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 Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and reported through the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The document, "State of the Great Lakes 2005 -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;
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores; 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, Area of Concern
(AOC) sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air
toxics deposition). Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
C-61
-------
Authors of SOLEC indicator reports 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 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 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."
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 epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report" in the
SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes stakeholders in 2004. As a direct
result of the findings and recommendations from the participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped,
and a few others were added. The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the indicators
relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues. The final report from the review is available online
at epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2:
Stakeholder Review of the Great Lakes Indicators" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index. The data are especially good for
phosphorus 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."
Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified. Each unit of the 40 point scale
represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the assessment of one of the component indicators would result in a
change of the index of that magnitude. The degree of environmental change required to affect an indicator assessment,
however, may be significantly large.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The data system specifically for this index is being developed. Data continue to be
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.
References:
• "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
• "GLA/PO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
files.
C-62
-------
• "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared as part of Cooperative
Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
• Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-34798-6 Environment Canada
Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-11/35-2003E, and U.S.
• Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD and online at
www.binational.net.
• 6. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-
Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En164-1/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago. Available online at epa.gov/alnpo/solec/index.html
• Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005 - Draft." Environment Canada, Burlington Ontario
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, 2004. Available online at
• Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version
4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000. Available online at
www.binational.net.
All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development processes, conference agenda,
proceedings and presentations are available online at epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html The documents are sorted by'
SOLEC year and include the State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following calendar year.
FY2005 Performance Measure: The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples will
decline.
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP)
'(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
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 FY06, the database will contain QA/QC data from fish collected in 2004. Data are reported on a calendar year
basis and are specific to the even or odd year sampling schedule (even year sites are only compared to other even year
sites etc.)
Data Source: GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish monitoring program. The Great Lakes
States and Tribes assist with fish collection. Previous cooperating organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected organic contaminants in .
Great Lakes open water fish. The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program is broken into two separate elements that
monitor potential exposure to contaminant concentrations for wildlife (Element 1) and humans through consumption
Pement 2). Only Element 1 is included in this indicator as it is the only portion of the program that can be used to
fetermine trends.
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
bthe 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
tout are not found in Lake Erie, data for 450 - 550 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used for that Lake.
Ml GLFMP data are quality-controlled and then loaded into the Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA).
Included in GLENDA are flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the usability of the data. Since
concentrations can vary from year to year due to differences in site (food web etc.), comparing concentrations from one
year to the next is not appropriate. This performance measure examines the average percent decline for the long-term
trend using an exponential decrease function. Each year the appropriate average percent decline is calculated after
adding new data. A baseline percent decrease was determined using data through 2000 or 1999, and the aim is that this
ate of decrease will continue.
C-63
-------
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 draft field sampling Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) is being revised and will be submitted to the GLNPO QA Officer for review upon the completion of the
Quality Management Plan.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as "outstanding" in previous peer and
management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external
audits and complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: The top predator fish (lake trout) program is not well-suited to portray localized changes.
Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or even year sites) can be compared to data collected from the
same site. In addition, only very general comparisons can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes.
Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish 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 revised to detect trends in concentration of 0.1 mg/kg/year
based on three consecutive sampling periods (6 years, as sites are sampled every other year) for a specific site, with a
power of 80% or greater. The program was designed to reach that goal with 95% confidence.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system with enhanced capabilities.
Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA.
References:
• "The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A technical and Scientific Model For Interstate Environmental
Monitoring." September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
• "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003. www.epa.qov/qlnpo/qmp/
• "Greaf Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample Collection Activities", Great
Lakes National Program Office. www.epa.qov/qlnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP QAPP 082504.pdf
• "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
• "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants", Dr. Deborah Swackhammer, Univ of Minnesota Environ. Occ.
Health, School of Public Health, EPA Grant#GL97524201-2, 7/1/02.De Vault, D. S. 1984. Contaminant analysis
of fish from Great Lakes harbors and tributary mouths. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office. USEPA 905/3-84-003,
www.epa.qov/qlnpo/qlindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP%20QAPP%20v7.pdf
• De Vault, D. S., P. Bertram, D. M. Whittle and S. Rang. 1995. Toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes. State of
the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Chicago and Toronto, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office and Environment Canada.
• De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, P. W. Rodgers and T. J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in lake trout and
walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 884-895.
• De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1983. Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run coho salmon. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-83-001.
• De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1984. Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run coho salmon. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-85-004.
• De Vault, D. S., J. A. Weishaar, J. M. Clark and G. Lavhis. 1988. Contaminants and trends in fall run coho
salmon. Journal of Great Lakes Research 14:23-33.
• De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E. Rundberg. 1985. Contaminant trends in lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 15: 349-356.
• De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. J. Hesselberg and D. A. Nortrupt. 1986. Contaminant trends in lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
15: 349-356.
• Eby, L. A., C. A. Stow, R. J. Hesselberg and J. F. Kitchell. 1997. Modeling changes in growth and diet on
polychlorinated biphenyl bioaccumulation in "Coregonus hoyi". Ecological Applications 7(3): 981-990.
C-64
-------
Giesy, J. P., et al. 1995. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes influenced sections and above dams of three
Michigan rivers: III. Implications for health of bald eagles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 29: 309-321.
Giesy, J. P., J. P. Ludwig and D. E. Tillett. 1994. Deformities in birds of the Great Lakes region: assigning
causality. Environmental Science and Technology 28(3): 128A-135A.
Giesy, J. P., et al. 1994. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes-influenced sections and above dams of three
Michigan rivers. II: Implications for health of mink. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 27:
213-223.
Glassmeyer, S. T., D. S. De Vault, T. R. Myers and R. A. Hites. 1997. Toxaphene in Great Lakes fish: a
temporal, spatial, and trophic study. Environmental Science and Technology 31: 84-88.
Glassmeyer, S. T., K. E. Shanks and R. A. Hites. 1999. Automated toxaphene quantitation by GC/MS. Analytical
Chemistry in press.
GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes. USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office..
Jeremiason, J. D., K. C. Hornbuckle and S. J. Eisenreich. 1994. PCBs in Lake Superior, 1978-1992: decreases
in water concentrations reflect loss by volatilization. Environmental Science and Technology 28(5): 903-914.
Kubiak, T. J., Harris, H. J., Smith, L M., Schwartz, T. R., Stalling, D. L, Trick, J. A., Sileo, L, Docherty, D. E.,
and Erdman, T. C. 1989. Microcontaminants and reproductive impairment of the Forster's Tern on Green Bay,
Lake Michigan -1983. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 18: 706-727.
Mac, M. J. and C. C. Edsal. 1991. Environmental contaminants and the reproductive success of lake trout in the
Great'Lakes. J. Tox. Environ. Health. 33: 375-394.
Mac, M. J., T. R. Schwartz, C. C. Edsall and A. M. Frank. 1993. Polychlorinated biphenyls in Great Lakes lake
trout and their eggs: relations to survival and congener composition 1979-1988. Journal of Great Lakes Research
19(4): 752-765.
Madenjian, C. P., T. J. DeSorcie, R. M. Stedman, E. H. J. Brown, G. W. Eck, L. J. Schmidt, R. J. Hesselberg, S.
M. Chernyak and D. R. Passino-Reader. 1999. Spatial patterns in PCB concentrations of Lake Michigan lake
trout. Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(1): 149-159.
Madenjian, C. P., R. J. Hesselberg, T. J. Desorcie, L. J. Schmidt, R. M. Stedman, L. J. Begnoche and D. R.
Passino-Reader. 1998. Estimate of net trophic transfer efficiency of PCBs to Lake Michigan lake trout from their
prey. Environmental Science and Technology 32(7): 886-891.
Pearson, R. F., K. C. Hornbuckle, S. J. Eisenreich and D. L. Swackhammer. 1996. PCBs in Lake Michigan water
revisited. Environ. Sci. &Technol. 30(5): 1429-1436.
Rodgers, P. W. and W. R. Swain. 1983. Analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) loading trends in Lake
Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 9: 548-558.
Safe, S. H. 1994. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses,
and implications for risk. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2): 87-149.
Schmidt, L. J., and Hesselberg, R. J. 1992. A mass spectroscopic method for analysis of AHH-inducing and
other polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and selected pesticides in fish. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 23: 37-44.
Stow, C. A. 1995. Factors associated with PCB concentrations in Lake Michigan salmonids. Environmental
Science and Technology 29(2): 522-527.
Stow C A S R. Carp and J. F. Amrheim. 1994. PCB concentration trends in Lake Michigan coho
(Oncorhynch'us kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 51: 1384-1390. .
Stow C A and S R. Carpenter. 1994. PCB accumulation in Lake Michigan coho and Chinook salmon:
individual-based models using allometric relationships. Environmental Science and Technology 28: 1543-1549.
Stow C A , S. R. Carpenter, L. A. Eby, J. F. Amrhein and R. J. Hesselberg. 1995. Evidence that PCBs are
approaching'stable concentrations in Lake Michigan fishes. Ecological Applications 5: 248-260.
Stow, C. A. and S. S. Qian. 1998. A size-based probabilistic assessment of PCB exposure from Lake Michigan
fish consumption. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 2325-2330.
Swackhammer, D., J. Charles and R. Hites. 1987. Quantitation of toxaphene in environmental samples using
negative ion chemical ionization mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 59: 913-917.
Swackhammer, D. L. 1996. Studies of polychlorinated biphenyls in the Great Lakes. Issues in Environmental
Science and Technology 6: 137-153.
Swackhammer, D. L. and R. A. Hites. 1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation of organochlorme compounds in
fishes from Siski'wit Lake. Environmental Science and Technology 22: 543-548.
C-65
-------
• Swackhammer. D. L. and A. Trowbridge. 1997. LMMBS Methods Compendium: Vol. 2 Organics and Mercury
Sample Analysis Techniques, Chapter 1, Section 042. USEPA. 905-R-97-012b.
• Trowbridge, A. G. and D. L. Swackhammer. 1999. Biomagnification of Toxic PCB Congeners in the Lake
Michigan Foodweb. Bioaccumulative Toxic Compounds in the Environment. R. Lipnick, D. Muir, J. Hermens and
K. C. Jones. Washington, DC, ACS Symposium Series Monograph: in review.
• "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
• Swackhammer, D. L. 2001. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
• Swackhammer, D.L. February 2002. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants." Unpublished - in USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office files.
• "GLA/PO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin will
decline.
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated atmospheric deposition network1
(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
2005 will be reported in 2007. Data are reported on a calendar year basis.
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data. Data also come through in-kind
support and information sharing with other Federal agencies and Canada.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each lake, which are
supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are located in remote areas 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
determined using data through 2000, and the aim is that this rate of decrease will continue.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a Quality Management System in place, which conforms to the USEPA Quality
Management Order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management2 (see
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 contractor 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
C-66
-------
audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards4 (see reference #4 below). The IADN program has a joint Canadian-
US quality system and binational Steering Committee that meets periodically in 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. A jointly-funded QA contractor
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
badings. This gap is being addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the Great Lakes Aquatic
Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which will collect water contaminant data in the Lakes.
In the past, there has been a lag in the data from the Canadian sites (Burnt Island on Lake Huron and Point Petre on Lake
Ontario). U.S. data is usually reported 2 years after it is collected (i.e., 2002 data was reported in 2004); the Canadian
data may not be available on this schedule.
Error estimate: The performance measure examines the long-term trend in concentrations. Concentrations have an
error of +/- 40%, usually less. Differences between 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.
Mew/Improved Data or Systems: GLNPO expects to post joint data that has passed quality review to < binational.net/ >,
ijoint international Web Site, and to the IADN Web Site at < www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN data are now
held in U.S. and Canadian databases. Efforts are being made to be able to streamline data requests through the National
Atmospheric Chemistry Database (NAtChem), which includes atmospheric data from many North American networks.
Environment Canada management is working to reduce the data lag from the Canadian IADN stations.
References:
• 1. "Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Air Indicators." 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 www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html
• Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress underthe 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.
• "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
files.
• "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.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Restore and delist Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin.
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will tFack the cumulative total Areas of Concern
(AOC) and post that information www.epa.gov/alnpo/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; however, none of these are currently restored and delisted.
Information is reported on a calendar year basis, however the system is being designed for semi-annual or more frequent
updates.
C-67
-------
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the
International Joint Commission (IJC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is in regular communication
with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the IJC, and is responsible for coordinating and overseeing
the de-listing of AOCs. Generally speaking, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an AOC is an area in the
Great Lakes 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 (www.iic.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htmtftable1)
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.
References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system once there are any de-listed U.S. or binational Areas of
Concern. Information regarding Areas of Concern is currently available online at: www.epa.gov/glnDo/aoc/index.html
• "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
• "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment remediated in the Great
Lakes.
Performance 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 1 year after the completion of work.
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 a QAPP was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment remediation in the Great Lakes show the
amount of sediment remediated (dredged, capped, other) for that 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
C-68
-------
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 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. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies
with Agency Quality Standards.
Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool to track sediment
remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates 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:
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary
Support." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay.
Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay. Total acres surveyed and estimated additional acres from 1978
through 2004, excluding the years 1979-1983 and 1988 when no surveys were conducted. The FY 2006 Annual
Performance Report for this measure wili be based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year
(2005). We expect to receive the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2005 in April 2006. We expect to receive
the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2006 in March 2007.
Data Source: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 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
C-69
-------
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 (www.vims.edu/biQ/sav/).
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
describes data collection, analysis, and management methods. This is on file at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. The VIMS web site at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well. Metadata are included with
the data set posted at the VIMS web site (www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive 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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photointerpretation tools) were made over the 22
years of the annual SAV survey in Chesapeake Bay.
References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreDorts.html and bibliography at
www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. The SAV distribution data files are located www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html
and also at www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002j(Is. The SAV indicator is published at
www.chesapeakebav.net/status. cfm?sid=88.
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 74 million pounds per year.
• Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 8.7 million pounds per year.
• Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 1.06 million tons per year.
Performance Database: Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay data files used in the
indicator are located at www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been collected in 1985,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and are expected on an annual basis after 2003. There is a 2 year data lag. Load data are from
Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC.
The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the 2005 data collection. We
expect to receive the preliminary results for 2005 in January 2007.
Data Source: State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input into the Chesapeake Bay
Program Watershed Model.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality. Data are 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 10-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.
C-70
-------
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.
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 crops 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 CBP.
www.chesapeakebay.net/pu bs/1127.pdf
www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/114.pdf
www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
www.chesapeakebav.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 and redefining some land
uses, defining new nutrient or sediment sources, adjusting for varying levels of management (range of implementation
levels) are items scheduled for incorporation in the new model update (2005).
Data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are described at
wwwchesapeakebav.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 jsweeney@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 EPAs 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 Russ
Mader at mader.russ@epa.gov or Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality assurance program plans are
available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions before input to the watershed
model QA/QC is also 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
C-71
-------
the CBPO staff and the Tributary Strategy Workgroup as an additional level of QA/QC. Any values out of the expected
range is analyzed and understood before approval and public release. The model itself is given a quarterly peer review
by an outside independent group of experts. There have been no data deficiencies 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. 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 2006. 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/phaseS. htm
References:
See www.chesapeakebav.net/data/index.htm. refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3.
Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney jsweenev@chesapeakebay.net
The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay indicator are published at
www.chesapeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=186. The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay data files used in the
indicator are located at
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
www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide available at www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce
the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Performance 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; (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.
C-72
-------
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).
(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the SEAMAP Information System,
managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service - Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC).
Raw data are edited by the collecting agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the system.
Data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003 have been entered into the system, and data from 2004 surveys
are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.
Data Limitations: Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions is 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. Wiseman. 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 www.qsmfc.org/sis.html
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY2005 Performance Measures:
• Provide high quality exposure, effects and assessment research results that support the August 2006
reassessment of current-use pesticide tolerances to EPA so that, by 2008, EPA will be able to characterize
key factors influencing children's and other subpopulations' risks from pesticide exposure
• Information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants from utility boilers
C-73
-------
• Methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and reducing risks to
children from environmental agents in schools.
• Technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to restore riparian zones.
• Baseline ecological condition of Western streams determined.
• Complete 8 human health assessments and publish their results on the IRIS website
• Initiate or submit to external peer review human health assessments of 8 high priority chemicals
• Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the consequences of chemical/biological attacks in U.S.
cities.
• Technical guidance for water system owners and operators on methods/strategies for minimizing damage
from intentional introduction of biological/chemical contaminants.
• Water system-related case studies that provide a spectrum of contingency planning situations and
responses, including one specifically focused on the National Capital area.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated.
• Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement
actions.
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental
management practices.
• Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices
as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs).
• Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants and
protection of populations or ecosystems.
• Percentage of audits or other actions that result in improvements in environmental management practices.
• Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audits or other actions.
• Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices
as a result of audits or other actions.
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System, (ICIS), which tracks EPA civil enforcement
(e.g., judicial and administrative) actions. The Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS), the new enhanced database for
tracking criminal enforcement actions, will be used in conjunction with ICIS to track the criminal enforcement recidivism
measure.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through data developed originally
through the use of 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. The information generated
through the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the performance measures. The CCDS form consists of 27
specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the
case was concluded; the compliance actions required to be taken by the defendant(s); the costs involved; information on
any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amounts and types of any
penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. The CCDS documents whether the
facility/defendant, through injunctive relief, must: (1) reduce pollutants; and (2) improve management practices to curtail,
eliminate or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future. The Criminal Enforcement Program also maintains a
separate case conclusion data form and system for compiling and quantifying the results of criminal enforcement
prosecution, including pollution reduction and the percentage of concluded criminal enforcement cases requiring improved
environmental management practices. The revised criminal enforcement case conclusion form will be used beginning in
FY06.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in pollution reductions, the staff estimate
the amounts of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented improvement, or an average year once a long-term
solution is in place. There are established procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute, (e.g., Clean Water Act), the
pollutant reductions or eliminations. The procedure first entails the determination of the difference between the current
074
-------
•out of compliance" concentration of the pollutant(s) and the post enforcement action "in compliance" concentration. This
difference is then converted into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in place for both the CCDS and
ICIS entry. There are a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training Booklet [See references] and a Case Conclusion Data
Sheet Quick Guide [See references], both of which have been distributed throughout Regional and Headquarters' (HQ)
offices. Separate CCDS Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to be filled out at the time
the CCDS is completed. Criminal enforcement pollution reduction measures are quality assured by the program at the
end of the fiscal year.
Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for ensuring timely input, review
and certification of ICIS information in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003. OC's QMP, effective for 5 years, was approved July 29,
2003 by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be re-approved in 2008. OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information to satisfy the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance measurement.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by regional and
headquarters' staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS data is reviewed quarterly and reviewed and certified at mid-year
and end-of-year.
Data Limitations: The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported on the CCDS are estimates of what will be achieved
if the defendant 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 the compliance actions, there may be a delay in
completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at the time of settlement, different levels of technical
proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA's expectation is that based on information on the CCDS, the overall amounts of
pollutant reductions/eliminations will be prudently underestimated.
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a comprehensive guidance package on the
preparation of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet. This guidance, issued to headquarters' and regional managers and staff,
was made available in print and CD-ROM, and was supplemented in FY 2002 [See references]. The guidance contains
work examples to ensure better calculation of the amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded
enforcement actions. EPA trained each of its ten regional offices during FY 2002. OC's Quality Management Plan was
approved by OEI July 29, 2003, and is effective for 5 years. [See references]. A new criminal enforcement case
management, tracking and reporting system (Criminal Case Reporting System) will come on line during the last quarter
FY 2005 that will replace the existing criminal docket (CRIMDOC). This new system allows for a more user friendly
database and greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.
References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM
Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management). Case Conclusion
Data Sheets: Case Conclusion Data Sheet, Training Booklet, issued November 2000 available:
www.epa.qov/compliance/resources/publications/planninq/caseconc.pdf: Quick Guide for Case Conclusion Data Sheet,
issued November 2000. Information Quality Strategy and OC's Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and
Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects.
signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented
June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
FY2005 Performance Measure: Number of inspections, civil investigations, and criminal investigations
conducted.
Performance Databases: Output measure. Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) integrates data from major
enforcement and compliance systems, such as the Permit Compliance System (PCS), Air Facilities Subsystem (AFS),
! Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), Integrated Compliance Information system
(ICIS) for Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(r), National Compliance Database (NCDB), FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS).
C-75
-------
There is also manual reporting of specific media inspections/evaluations and all civil investigations. The Criminal Case
Reporting System (CCRS), which is scheduled to come on line during the last quarter of FY 2005, is a criminal case
management, tracking and reporting system. Information about criminal cases investigated by the U.S. EPA-Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) is entered into CCRS at case initiation, and investigation and prosecution information is
tracked until case conclusion.
Data Source: EPA's regional and Headquarters' offices and U.S. EPA-CID offices.
QA/QC Procedures: All the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of Information Management's
Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification,
system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third-party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for
showing how data are calculated. For CRIMDOC (and the forthcoming CCRS), the system administrator performs
regularly scheduled quality assurance/quality control checks of the CRIMDOC database to validate data and to evaluate
and recommend enhancements to the system.
Data Quality Review: EPA is now using updated monitoring strategies [See references] which clarify reporting
definitions and enhance oversight of state and local compliance monitoring programs. In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive 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.
Data Limitations: For all systems, there are concerns about quality and completeness of data and the ability of existing
systems to meet data needs. Incompatible database structures/designs and differences in data definitions impede
integrated analyses. There is also a concern that the majority of EPA inspections/evaluations and all civil investigations
are manually reported by the regions and cannot be verified. Additionally, there are incomplete data available on the
universe of regulated facilities because not all are inspected/permitted. In addition, the targets for each measure such as
the numbers of inspections, and civil investigations are based on the FTE and extramural resources from OECA and other
program offices, i.e., OAR, OSWER, and OW, while targets for the number of criminal investigations are based upon
resources allocated to the program in conjunction with program strategies and priorities.
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS modernization is underway and is scheduled for completion first quarter 2008.
An Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF) has been established and will support the transfer of data from modernized
state systems into the current PCS data system while PCS is being modernized. EPA is addressing the quality of the
data in the major systems and each Office within OECA has developed a Quality Management Plan (data quality
objectives, quality assurance project plans, baseline assessments). A new Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS) supports core program needs and consolidates and streamlines existing systems. Additionally, OECA began
implementing its Data Quality Strategy in FY 2002. A new case management, tracking and reporting system (Criminal
Case Reporting System) is currently being developed that will replace CRIMDOC. This new system will be a more user-
friendly database with greater tracking, management and reporting capabilities.
References: Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Strategy, April 25, 2001,
www.epa.qov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicv.pdf
AFS: www.epa.gov/compliance/data/svstems/air/afssvstem.html
PCS: www.epa.gov/compliance/data/svstems/water/pcssvs.html.
RCRAinfo: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/jndex.htrjn.
For CRIMDOC: CRIM-DOC U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Internal enforcement
confidential database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).
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
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
compliance inspections and evaluations.
Performance Databases: ICIS and manual reporting by regions.
Data Sources: EPA regional offices and Office of Civil Enforcement (specifically, the Clean Air Act (CAA)- Mobile Source
program) and Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division.
C-76
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS) will
be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under some of EPA's major statutes. EPA will
analyze data on the three pieces of information from the ICDS: on-site actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed,
and compliance assistance provided. The inspectors complete the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) for each
inspection or evaluation subject to ICDS reporting and the information is either entered into ICIS or reported manually by
the Regions and HQ programs.
QA/QC Procedures: ICIS has been developed per Office of Information Management Lifecycle Management Guidance,
which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data
quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.
Data Quality Review: Regional manual reports are reviewed and checked against the inspection or evaluation data
entered into other Agency databases (Air Facilities Subsystem (AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online Tracking
Information System (OTIS), Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)). Manual reports are also checked against
ICIS if the Region entered the manual reported inspections/evaluations into that system. Information contained in the
CCDS, ICDS and ICIS are required by policy to be 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: ICIS is currently the database of record for CAA 112(r) inspections and audits. It is not the official
database of record for inspections and evaluations for other programs. Regions are encouraged to use ICIS specifically
for ICDS reporting. This can result in redundant, incomplete, or contradictory data.
New & Improved Data or Systems: The new Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) will support core
program needs and consolidate and streamline existing systems. As ICIS becomes more widely used by the regions and
HQ programs some of the problems with data entry and reporting should be resolved. As various older systems become
modernized (e.g., PCS), they will incorporate the ICDS data set as part of the system. This should minimize data entry
and reporting problems.
References: ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002.
Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers and
clearinghouse reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of their use of
the centers or the clearinghouse.
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers and
clearinghouse reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of their use of the
centers or the clearinghouse.
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers and
clearinghouse reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a result of
their use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters manages data on the performance of the centers and clearinghouse
respondents manually before entering it into ICIS.
Data source: Headquarters will enter manually collected information into ICIS upon completion and delivery of media
and sector-specific compliance assistance provided by the EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers and the
clearinghouse. 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.
QA/QC Procedures: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS. Data from manual systems
will be validated with internal checks, third party testing reports, and detailed reports showing how data are calculated.
C-77
-------
Data Quality Reviews: Data from manual systems will be validated with internal checks, third party testing reports, and
detailed reports showing how data are calculated.
Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and Headquarters staff for 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 reviewed and certified at mid-year and end of year.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the compliance assistance module in
ICIS based on use of the system.
References: US EPA, Integrated Compliance Information System Compliance Assistance Module, February 2004; US
EPA, Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance Information System Guidance, February 20, 2004.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
improved environmental management practices as a result of EPA assistance.
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a result of EPA assistance.
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that they reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters 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.
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.
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the compliance assistance module
in ICIS based on use of the system.
References: US EPA, Integrated Compliance Information System Compliance Assistance Module, February 2004; US
EPA, Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance Information System Guidance, February 20, 2004.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.
Billions of BTUs of energy conserved.
Annual cumulative quantity of water saved.
Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution.
Reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a baseline year of 1996. (Green Chemistry only).
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs include Green Chemistry, Design for the Environment, Green Engineering,
and other Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs. Each of these programs operates under the principles of the Pollution
Prevention Act and works with others to reduce waste at the source, before it is generated. These programs are designed
to facilitate the incorporation of pollution prevention concepts and principles into the daily operations of government
agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
C-78
-------
Performance Database: Green Chemistry (GC): EPA is developing an electronic database ("metrics" database) which
will allow organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on alternative feedstocks processes
and safer chemicals. The database is being designed to store and retrieve, in a systematic fashion information on the '
environmental benefits and, where available, economic benefits that these alternative green chemistry technologies offer
The database is also being designed to track the quantity of hazardous chemicals and solvents eliminated through
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. By the end of FY 2005, EPA expects to achieve its target of having a single instance of each unique nominated
technology for 1996-2003 in the database.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE does not have a performance database. Instead, DfE is populating an evaluation
spreadsheet for its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardants Alternatives the
Formulator Program, and a collaboration with the Air Office on DfE approaches as implementation mechanisms for
regulating Local Area Sources, such as Auto Refinishing). Spreadsheet content will vary by approach, and generally will
include measures comparing baseline technologies or products to "cleaner" ones, as well as information on partner
adoption and/or market share of cleaner alternatives; for example, the DfE formulator approach tracks chemical
improvements (such as pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and conversely pounds of safer
ingredients) and resource savings. This information will allow benefit calculations. Information is collected on an ongoinq
basis.
Green Engineering (GE): Similar to the Green Chemistry Program, EPA will be developing an electronic database to keep
track of environmental benefits of GE projects including, gallons of water, British Thermal Units (BTUs) and dollars saved
and pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions eliminated
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: EPA has worked closely with state and local P2 programs to develop a national
system that will provide data on environmental outcomes (the core P2 metrics included in the above performance
measures). Many EPA Regional offices, state and local P2 programs are currently collecting data on P2 program
activities, outputs, and outcomes. EPA has worked successfully with these programs to reach consensus on standardized
metrics, including definitions, and to reach consensus on an ongoing system to gather data on these metrics. The core
measures in the National Pollution Prevention Results System were adopted in April 2005. Over 25 state and state-level
P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data using the metrics. The system will also benefit
from new reporting requirements in EPA P2 grants. The new system has the cooperation of key stakeholder groups, such
as the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, which is currently adding data from years 2001-2003 to a January 2003
report providing baseline data for the period 1990. The new system also has the cooperation of the regional Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2RX) centers. As the system is implemented, data collected from the program will be
placed in a new national database, facilitating convenient data storage and retrieval.
Data Source: Green Chemistry (GC): Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and
economic benefit information is included in the nomination packages. The metrics database pulls this benefit information
from the nominations.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the approach and the partner
industry. For example, in DfE's formulation improvement partnerships, partners provide proprietary information on both
their original formulation and their environmentally improved one. Partners sign a memorandum of understanding with
EPA/DfE which includes information on how the company uses cleaner chemistry to formulate a product, the
environmental and health benefits of the product, and customer and sales information. For other partnerships, data
sources typically include technical studies (e.g., cleaner technology substitutes assessments, life-cycle assessments) and
market/sales/adoption information from associations.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will come from profiles of recognized projects by technical journals or organizations, such
as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, or directly reported by project leaders on industry projects or joint
academia-industry projects.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: State and local P2 programs will submit data as described above.
C-79
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Green Chemistry (GC): The information will be tracked directly through internal
record-keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Methods and assumptions vary by approach and partner industry. Each DfE
partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and industrial processes. For most DfE approaches, the
general method is to 1) develop a model for a "typical" or "average" facility, 2) assess the differences between traditional
and alternative technologies on metrics such as toxics use, resource consumption, cost, and performance, 3) track market
share of alternative technologies over time, and 4) multiply the increase in use of alternative, cleaner technologies by the
environmental, cost, and performance differences identified in Step 2. Through this quantitative process, the Agency is
able to calculate the benefits generated by the cleaner technology: e.g. how much toxics use reduction is occurring, how
much less resources are consumed. Similarly, for DfE's formulation improvement approach, the method is to analyze
environmental (e.g., toxics use, resource consumption) and cost differences between the old and improved formulations.
Proprietary information, including sales data, is provided by our partners. For each approach, we will develop a
spreadsheet that includes the methods and assumptions.
Green Engineering (GE): The information will be tracked directly through EPA record keeping systems. No models or
statistical extrapolations are expected to be used.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as described above. No models
or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the Information Quality Guidelines as
found at www.epa.gov/qualitv/informationguidelines/ and under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management
Plan (QMP). The Quality Management Plan is for internal use only.
Green Chemistry: Data undergo a technical screening review by the Agency before being uploaded to the database to
determine if they adequately support the environmental benefits described in the application. Subsequent to Agency
screening, data are reviewed by an external independent panel of technical experts from academia, industry, government,
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated into the database.
The panel is convened by the Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society, primarily for judging
nominations submitted to the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program and selecting winning
technologies.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being uploaded to the
spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the environmental benefits described.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to ensure it meets EPA's Quality Guidelines in terms of
transparency, reasonableness and accuracy.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and other program participants
(e.g., National Pollution Prevention Roundtable) before being placed in the database. Additional QA/QC steps to be
developed, as appropriate.
Data Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs operate under EPA's Information
Quality Guidelines as found at www.epa.gov/qualitv/informationguidelines/ and under the OPPT Quality Management
Plan (QMP).
Green Chemistry (GC): Review of industry and academic data as documented in U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Green Chemistry Program Files available at www.epa.gov/opptintr/qreenchemistrv/
Design for the Environment (DfE): Not applicable. Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data
quality requirements.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The new metrics and data system were based, in part, on recommendations in the
February 2001 GAO report, "EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention" (GAO-
01-283). They also incorporate work by such organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association,
Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
C-80
-------
Data Limitations: Green Chemistry (GC): Occasionally data are not available for a given technology due to confidential
business information (the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program does not process CBI). Because the
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge is a voluntary public program, it cannot routinely accept or process CBI. If the
program stakeholders cannot verify a 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.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or technologies are claimed CBI by the
developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial pollution prevention practices on a wider scale.
Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly quantified. In those
instances, the data will be excluded.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and local P2 programs 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 plans described above to move toward consistent metrics and definitions, some
differences exist. EPA is attempting to address these concerns by strengthening reporting requirements in its P2 grants
(which fund much of the state and local P2 work) and focusing those requirements on outcomes, adding comprehensive
new grant reporting forms and databases which are parallel with the National P2 Results System, and adding a P2
component to EPA Information Exchange Network (which provides financial support and a comprehensive data system to
link state data with EPA).
Error Estimate: Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environmental benefits are not clearly
quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded. Not applicable for other programs contributing data to this
measure.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Green Chemistry (GC), Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE):
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has initiated an industry self-monitoring program called Responsible Care.
Beginning in 2003, member companies will collect and report on a variety of information. Measures tentatively include
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) releases; tons of CO2 equivalent per pound of production; total BTUs consumed per
pound of production; systems for assessing or, reassessing potential environmental, health, and safety risks; percentage
of products re-evaluated; percentage of commitments for chemical evaluation programs; documentation of process for
characterizing and managing product risks; and documentation of communication of risk characterization results. Many of
these measures are similar to the EPA program targets identified under Goal 5, Objective 2. These reports may be an
invaluable source of industry baseline information. It is important that the EPA programs identified under Goal 5 evaluate
the utility of the reports generated under the ACC's Responsible Care Program in support of the EPA's programs as well
as the goals of Responsible Care. (CAPRM II, Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures, March 2003 pp. 313). The
Pollution Prevention (P2) program's data collection system is currently under development through a partnership with the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable and EPA.
References:
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures II: www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.html
Green Chemistry (GC): www.epa.qov/opptintr/qreenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE): www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
Green Engineering (GE): www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm
www.epa.gov/Networkg
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
« Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at Federal Facilities.
• Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical releases to the environment from the business
sector per unit of production ("Clean Index").
• Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related wastes generated by the business sector per unit of
production ("Green Index").
C-81
-------
Performance Database: TRIM: Toxics Release Inventory Modernization, formerly TRIS (Toxics Release Inventory
System) provides facility/chemical-specific data quantifying the amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes
associated with production process in each year. The total amount of each chemical in production-related wastes can be
broken out by the methods employed in managing such wastes, including recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and
disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that are not recycled are tracked for these performance measures. The fourth
performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract System (CAS) numbers for the 23 chemicals identified by EPA as
priority chemicals (www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chernlist.htrn).
Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and recycling data to EPA on a
calendar year basis. For example, in calendar year 2003, 23,957 facilities filed 97,251 TRI reports. FY 2007 results will
not be available until FY 2009 due to 2 year data lag.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by sections 313 of EPCRA and 6607 of
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/). Only certain facilities in specific Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes are required to report annually the quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical
categories released to each environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/).
Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance, emission factors and/or engineering calculations
approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For the Clean and Green Index measures and priority list
chemicals measure, data controls are employed to facilitate cross-year comparisons: a subset of chemicals and sectors
are assessed that are consistently reported in all years; data are normalized to control for changes in production using
published U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) gross product indices (chain-type quantity index for the manufacturing
sector).
QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) FORM R reporting tools,
which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts automated
edits, error checks, data scrubs; corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent processing to verify that
the information provided by the facilities is correctly entered in TRIM. 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: 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 performance data reviews combine to help assure data quality.
Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency does not have direct
assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting processes. TRI release data are reported by
facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis. EPA does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each
facility's reporting data, though on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.
Error Estimate: 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 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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: To improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness, reduce burden, and promote data
reliability and consistency across Agency programs, EPA simplified the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting
requirements. The TRI Form Modification Rule effective September of 2005, will simplify data elements, reduced the
number of reporting codes, and make two technical corrections to the regulations by correcting contact information and
removing an outdated description of a pollution prevention data element. The revised TRI form, will allow the EPA to
better target pollution prevention efforts, improve public access to information about source reduction and pollution control
activities undertaken by some facilities, and encourage manufacturers to comply by making it easier to use. Please see
the following for additional information on this rule: www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/modrule/index.htm
References: www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations provided above: EPA-745-F-93-001;EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa,gov/tri/report/index.htm: www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data guality reports/index.htm: OSWER priority chemicals and
C-82
-------
fact sheets www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm: www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm: Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use, energy use,
materials use, solid waste generated, air releases, and 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 3-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 2005 corresponds most closely with members' calendar year of
2005. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program by April 1, 2006. The data will then be reviewed,
aggregated, and available for external reporting in August 2006.
Data Source: All data are self-reported and self-certified by member facilities. As described below, Performance Track
engages in quality control to the extent possible, 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
3-year participation period, as new members join the program and others leave, the baseline constantly changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of reported data will represent 2
years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the baseline will be 2 years prior rather than 1 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.
C-83
-------
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 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.
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
www.epa.qov/perforrnancetrack/particip/alphabet.htm. 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.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Measure 1: Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring that federally
recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence.
• Measure 2: Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data systems to facilitate the use of EPA's Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) information in setting environmental priorities and informing policy
decisions.
• Measure 3: Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major water, land, and air programs as
determined through the availability of information in the TPEA.
• Measure 4: Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country as determined by program
delegations, approvals, or primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA [Associated
PART Measure: Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs].
• Measure 5: Increase the number of EPA-approved quality assurance plans for tribal environmental
monitoring and assessment activities [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed
monitoring and assessment occurring].
• Measure 6: Increase the percent of EPA agreements with tribes that reflect holistic (multimedia) program
integration and traditional use of natural resources. [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with EPA-
approved multimedia work plans].
• Measure 7 [Efficiency]: Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million dollars.
Performance Database & Data Source: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) developed an information
technology infrastructure, named the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA. The TPEA is a suite often secure
Internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and progress toward environmental program
implementation in Indian country as well as other AIEO business functions. One TPEA application, the Objective 5.3
Reporting System, tracks progress in achieving the six Strategic Targets under Objective 5.3 of EPA's National Strategic
Plan - "Build Tribal Capacity (associated with Measures 1-6). EPA employees use the Objective 5.3 Reporting System to
establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and to record actual program performance
accomplishments for six Strategic Targets. Therefore, the Objective 5.3 Reporting System serves as the data source and
C-84
-------
performance database for each of the six Strategic Targets and their associated PART measures (associated PART
measures represent program performance differently than the Strategic Targets but use the same data).
Measure 1: Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring that federally
recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence. Access to an environmental presence is measured by
the level of General Assistance Program (GAP) funds available to support tribes in hiring staff and acquiring resources to
operate an environmental program. That level has changed over time. Presently, $110,000 is considered the average
annual cost for a tribe to maintain an environmental presence.
The number of tribal entities that have access to an environmental presence is calculated from the annual GAP
appropriation, less recisions and an annual set aside which supports nationally significant programs, divided by $110,000.
That number is compared to the number of tribal entities eligible to receive GAP funding and reported as a percentage.
Values for appropriations and recisions are public records in the EPA annual budget. The GAP set aside values are
maintained byAIEO. The $110,000 level to maintain an environmental presence was determined by consensus of the
EPA Regional Indian Coordinators.
Measure 2: Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data systems to facilitate the use of EPA's Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) information in setting environmental priorities and informing policy decisions. A
Tribal Information Management System (TIMS) is the vehicle for organizing and integrating the various data sources used
in the TPEA. Current TPEA data sources are existing federal databases, both from EPA and other agencies,
supplemented by data collected from the EPA regions as appropriate. All data sources are identified and referenced in the
application. EPA continues to take advantage of new technology to establish direct links with other federal agency data
systems (including the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, and Indian Health Service) to further develop this
integrated, comprehensive, multi-agency TPEA, following the business rules and models of the Federal Enterprise
Architecture.
Presently, 45 data layers are identified in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture. Commitments for the incorporation
of additional data sources are reported annually in the Objective 5.3 Reporting System.
Measure 3: Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major water, land, and air programs as
determined through the availability of information in the TPEA. Identification of data gaps in environmental
information is an issue both for EPA as an agency and other organizations that attempt to analyze data from a national
perspective (Heinz Center, 2002). As EPA identifies environmental data gaps, AIEO will coordinate with other Agency
programs to eliminate those gaps, with special emphasis on gaps in Indian country. Thirty data gaps are listed for
measure 3. These were identified by a Baseline Assessment working group made up of EPA Headquarters and Regional
staff responsible for management of tribal programs. Some obvious issues in Indian country - such as the prevalence of
open dumps and hazardous waste sites - are not on the list of data gaps because national systems already exist to
identity and verify that information (Indian Health Service Open Dumps Report to Congress, and EPA RCRAinfo data
system). Measure 3 is measured as a percentage, which when applied to the total number of gaps equals the elimination
of six data gaps by 2008. Commitments for the elimination of data gaps are reported annually in the Objective 5.3
Reporting System.
Measure 4: Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country as determined by program
delegations, approvals, or primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA. [Associated
PART Measure: Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs]. Measure 4 is tracked by: 1) Treatment in
a manner similar to a State (TAS) approvals-or primacies; 2) the execution of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements (DITCA); and 3) GAP grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid waste or hazardous waste
programs. EPA Regional project officers managing tribal grants use the Objective 5.3 Reporting System to input data by
tribe and the system cumulates them nationally. Thus, it is possible, and even likely, that a tribe will contribute to a target
in multiple ways. Measure 4 implementation activities are input continuously by regional tribal program liaisons and
summed at the end of the fiscal year. The associated PART Measure is reported as a percent of tribes contributing to
Measure 4.
Measure 5: Increase the number of EPA-approved quality assurance plans for tribal environmental monitoring
and assessment activities. [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring]. Measure 5 reports on active Quality Assurance Project Plans. Data are loaded into the Objective
5.3 Reporting System by regional tribal program liaisons from information maintained by regional Quality Assurance
C-85
-------
Officers. All ongoing environmental monitoring programs are required to have active Quality Assurance Project Plans.
Measure 5 data are input continuously by regional tribal program liaisons and summed at the end of the fiscal year. The
associated PART Measure is reported as a percent of tribes contributing to Measure 5.
Measure 6: Increase the number of EPA agreements with tribes that reflect holistic (multimedia) program
integration and traditional use of natural resources [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with EPA-
approved multimedia work plans]. Measure 6 reports on Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), Tier I, II, & III Tribal
Environmental Agreements (TEAs), Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
These data are input by tribal program liaisons at the EPA regions and summed annually. As in Measure 4, it is possible,
that a tribe will contribute to the measure in more than one way. Measure 6 TEAs, PPGs, MOAs and MOUs are loaded
into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System by regional tribal program liaisons and summed at the end of the fiscal year. The
associated PART Measure is reported as a percent of tribes contributing to Measure 6.
Measure 7 [Efficiency]: Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million dollars.
Measure 7 is calculated annually by taking the number of tribes receiving GAP grants, the number of TAS approvals or
primacies, the number of DITCAs, and number of GAP grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid waste
or hazardous waste programs and dividing that cumulative number by the annual GAP appropriation (less recisions and
annual set aside). The measure reflects the expansion of program implementation capacity and the establishment of
specific environmental programs in relation to the level of resources contributed by the EPA program statutorily targeted
towards those goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System contains all the information for reporting
Measures 1-6 (and their associated PART measures). Measures 4, 5, and 6 assume the regional tribal program liaisons
input accurate data. Measure 4 and 7 can also be verified from Integrated Grants Management System records and the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System. Measure 5 can be verified from Regional Quality Assurance Officer databases.
Measure 6 can be verified from official correspondence files between EPA Regions and Tribes, or from project officer
case files.
QA/QC Procedures: Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture contains quality assurance and metadata
documentation prepared by the originating agency or program. Additionally, because the information in the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture will be used for budget and strategic planning purposes, AIEO requires adherence to the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Information Quality Guidelines.
Data Quality Reviews: Data correction and improvement is an ongoing component of the Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture. The Objective 5.3 Reporting System relies on multiple staff-level reviews and a number of limitations
concerning the ability to analyze environmental conditions in Indian country specific to measures 2 and 3 have been
identified. As a result, a special application, the Tribal Information Management System (TIMS) Data Center was
developed. This Data Center supports the submission of corrections to boundary information, narrative profiles, and
factual database information - particularly latitude and longitude coordinates for facilities. AIEO will collect and pass
along recommendations regarding the correction or modification of databases whenever errors are detected or
suggestions for database improvement are received. Each database manager will retain the responsibility of addressing
the recommended change according to their quality assurance protocols. Because the data submittals will be used for
budget or strategic planning purposes, AIEO will require that all submittals meet the OCFO's Information Quality
Guidelines.
Data Limitations: The largest part of the data used by the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture has not been coded to
particular tribes by the recording agency. AIEO uses new geographic data mining technologies to extract records based
on the geographical coordinates of the data points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and longitude
coordinates that place it in the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned to the Arapaho and
Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation. This technique is extremely powerful because it "tribally enables" large
numbers of information systems which were previously incapable of identifying tribes. This approach will be applied to all
EPA databases. There are limitations, however. When database records are not geographically identified with latitude
and longitude, the technique does not work and the record is lost to the system. For EPA regulated facilities in the Facility
Registry System, AIEO estimates that 64% have latitude and longitude recorded. Therefore, the accuracy of EPA's data
concerning environmental conditions in Indian country will depend on additional improvements to Agency data systems.
Error Estimate: Analysis of variation of reservation boundary coverages available to EPA indicates deviations of up to
5%. Another source of error is records that are not sufficiently described geographically to be assigned to specific tribes.
C-86
-------
For some agencies, such as the USGS, the geographic record is complete, so there is no error from these sources It is
estimated that 36% of the regulated facilities in EPA's regulatory databases are not geographically described. The TPEA
identifies the non-geographically indexed facilities by postal zip code for zip codes that overlap tribal boundaries.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The technologies used by the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture are new, secure
and state-of-the-art. The geographic interface is a product called ARC/IMS, which is a web-based application with a fully
functional Geographic Information System (CIS), scalable. The Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture uses XML
protocols to attach to and display information seamlessly and in real-time from cooperating agency data systems without
having to download the data to an intermediate server. In addition, the baseline assessment project has developed web-
based, secure data input systems that allow regional project officers to input programmatic data directly into performance
reporting systems. TIMS and other customizable reports.
References: Office of Chief Financial Officer Information Quality Guidelines: www.epa.qov/qualitv/informationquidelines/.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Verifications completed.
• Testing Protocols completed.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories
from the 1990 base.
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information quarterly and annually. The
Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy Reporting System." The contractor is responsible for validating
the data.
Data Source: The Agency's contractor collects quarterly energy data from each of EPA's laboratories. The 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). The data from the on-site consumption logs are compared to invoices to verify that reported
consumption and cost data are correct.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported energy use at each facility against
previous years' data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or decreases in energy quantities and
costs.
Data Limitations: EPA does not have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an on-site utility meter reading
corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange requirements for major EPA
environmental systems, enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
• States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using new web-based data
standards that allow for automated data-quality checking.
• States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to report environmental data electronically to
EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-line customer support.
• Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion.
Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.
Data Source: Data are provided by state, private sector, local, and tribal government CDX users.
C-87
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin reporting to the system.
The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance Plan [Quality Assurance
Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001] and the CDX
Design Document v.3, Appendix K registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype
System Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3. December 2000]. Specifically, data are reviewed for
authenticity and integrity. The CDX Quality Assurance Plan was updated in FY 2004 [Quality Assurance Project Plan for
the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004; contact: Wendy Timm, 202 566 0725] to incorporate new technology and policy
requirements. Work is underway to complete the revision of the Design Document. Automated edit checking routines are
performed in accordance with program specifications and CDX quality assurance guidance [Quality Assurance Project
Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001].
Data Quality Reviews: CDX successfully completed independent security risk assessment in the summer 2001. In
addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures and customer service operations are provided weekly to CDX
management and staff for review. Included in these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new
users, number of submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of errors/problems,
and actions taken. These reports are reviewed and actions discussed at weekly project meetings.
Data Limitations: The CDX system 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.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors, such as pre-populating data whenever
possible, edit checks, etc. The possibility of an error in the number of states registered for CDX, e.g., double-counting of
some sort, is extremely remote (far less than 1 %).
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX coalesces the registration/submission requirements of many
different state-to-EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and tribal governments-to-EPA data exchanges into a single web-
based system. The system allows for a more consistent and comprehensive management and performance tracking of
many different external customers. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of web forms
and web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce automated quality assurance
procedures for the system and reduce human error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EP Vs
programs and partners in the Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process
Performance Database: Initial collection of indicators compiled during the drafting of EPA's "Report on the
Environment," supplemented by indicators currently used in the Agency's strategic planning and performance
measurement process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, Annual Performance Report, Annual
Operating Plan, and National Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements), will comprise an Agency baseline of
indicators (www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will review the planning documents and
establish a baseline of indicators in consultation with key Agency steering committees.
QA/QC Procedures: As the baseline is established, protocols also will be developed to ensure that the data supporting
the indicators are accurate and complete.
Data Limitations: The challenge is to develop suitable indicators with sufficient data of known quality.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The baseline indicators and supporting data are in development.
-------
References: EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" and "Technical Support Document" (EPA pub. no. 260-R-02-006).
Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document (Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both Dated June 2003
Website: www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roePDF.htm
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Responders to the baseline questionnaire on customer satisfaction on the EPA
Website report overall satisfaction with their visit to EPA.GOV baseline levels.
Performance Database: Customer satisfaction questionnaire
Data Source: Data are provided by customers completing the questionnaire.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Customers visiting EPA's Website are given an opportunity to provide feedback
by completing a short customer satisfaction questionnaire. In an effort to maintain the objectivity of the questionnaire
results, EPA has contracted with an independent group, which specializes in hosting online surveys, to gather and
analyze data. No personal information is collected as a result of completing the survey.
QA/QC Procedures: The EPA Website provides access to information produced by the EPA's program and Regional
offices. Information published on the Website must go through a product review conducted by the program/Region
producing the information. Additionally, all information must adhere to Agency Website policies and guidance. The
customer satisfaction questionnaire database has controls in place to prevent repeated entries.
Data Quality Reviews: An annual EPA Website accounts audit is conducted by The Office of Environmental Information's
(OEI's) Office of Information Analysis and Access and requires EPA's program offices to review the content and quality of
their material and to re-authorize who can post to their Web area. The customer satisfaction database is reviewed
quarterly.
Data Limitations: The customer satisfaction questionnaire is voluntary.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA Website was converted to a single look and feel that provides a more
consistent approach to presenting information on the Web.
References: EPA Website (www.epa.gov)
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security
programs reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA)/Government Information Security Act
Performance 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 staffs ability to validate all of the self-reported compliance data
submitted by program systems' managers.
C-89
-------
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB:
OMB guidance memorandum: www.whitehouse.qov/omb/memoranda/2003.html: ASSERT web site:
https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assenV; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security Self_Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems, November 2001: csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html; and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL107-347: csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of actions taken for environmental improvement, reductions in environmental risks, and
recommendations made for environmental improvement.
• Number of actions taken for improvement in business practices, criminal/civil/administrative actions,
potential dollar return, and recommendations made for improved business practices.
Performance 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. Because intermediate and long-term results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable results are
reported in the year completed, while others remain prospective until completed and verified. Database measures include
numbers of:1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2) legislative, regulatory policy,
directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program, and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4)
best practices identified and transferred; 5) examples of environmental and management improvements; 6) monetary
value of funds questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; and 7) public or congressional inquiries resolved.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG performance evaluations, audits,
research, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports that track environmental and management actions or
improvements made and risks reduced or avoided. OIG also collects 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.
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 General15, and regularly
reviewed by OIG management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external independent
peer reviews.
Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external groups on data or
database weaknesses in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results System. All data reported are audited
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.
15 Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office,
GAO-03-673G, June 2003
C-90
-------
Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +/-2%, while the error rate for reported long-term outcomes is
presumably greater because of the longer period needed for tracking results. Errors tend to be those of omission.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and Results System as a
prototype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing it in FY 2006 with a more sophisticated system designed to integrate data
collection and analysis. We also expect the quality of the data to improve as staff gain greater familiarity with the system
and measures. This system is a best practice in government for linking an array of measures from outputs to eventual
results and impacts. With enhanced linkages to customer satisfaction results and resource investments, it will provide a
full-balanced scorecard with return on investment information for accountability and decision making.
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.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Agency's audited Financial Statements are timely and receive an unqualified
opinion.
Performance Database: Output measure. There is no performance database.
Data Source: OMB acknowledgement of receipt of financial statements; OIG audit report.
QA/QC Procedures: The Agency's financial statements are subject to OCFO management review and an OIG audit.
Data Quality Review: The annual financial audit opinion, rendered by the OIG, is a gauge of the accuracy and fair
presentation of the financial activity and financial balances of the Agency. The unqualified opinion is rendered by the OIG.
References: Fiscal Year 2004 EPA Annual Report.
C-91
-------
Appendix D
Acronyms
November 15, 2005
-------
APPENDIX D - ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
ABD Assessment Data Base
ACC American Chemistry Council
ACS Annual Commitment System
ADAM Administrative Data Mart
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AHIP America Health Insurance Plans
AOC Areas of Concerns
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
APG Annual Performance Goal
AQM Air Quality Management
AQS Air Quality Subsystem
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water
Administrator
ASSERT Automated Security Self Evaluation and
Remediation
BAS Budget Automation System
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act
B&F Building and Facilities
BFR Brominated Fire Retardant
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BMA Brownfield Management System
BMP Best Management Practices
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselor
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BPD Bureau of Public Debt
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
BSI Business Strategy, Inc.
BTU British Thermal Units
CAA Clean Ah- Act
C&A Certification and Accreditation
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
CCDS Case Conclusion Data Sheet
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CDX Central Data Exchange
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CHR Community Health Representatives
CID Criminal Investigation Division
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO Carbon Monoxide
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial off the Shelf
CRIMDOC Criminal Docket
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSRS Civil Service Retirement System
CTD Conductivity/Temperature/Depth
CWA Clean Water Act
CWS Community Water System
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CY Calendar Year
DCWASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority
DFAS Defense Financial and Accounting Service
DfE Design for the Environment
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DITCA Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Engery
DQO Data Quality Objective
DSFC Division of Sanitation Facilities
Construction
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECAT Emergency Consequence Assessment Tool
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
EDSP Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EFC Environmental Finance Center
e-gov Electronic Government
ELA Energy Information Agency
EIIS Ecological Incident Information System
EMP Environmental Management Practices
EMAD Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program
EMP ACT Environmental Monitoring for Public
Access and Community Tracking
EMS Environmental Management System
E-Payroll Electronic Payroll
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ER Emergency Room
ERAMS Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ETS Emissions Tracking System
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
D-l
-------
FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDR Facility Data Report
FECA Federal Employee Compensation Act
FERS Federal Employee Retirement System
FFMIA Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act
FISMA Federal Information Security Management
Act
FMFIA Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
FR Financial Report
FRP Facility Response Plans
FTAA Free Trade Area of the America
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
GAO Government Accountability Office
GAP General Assistance Program
GC Green Chemistry
GE Green Engineering
GHG Greenhouse Gas
CIS Geographical Information System
GLACS Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant
Surveillance
GLENDA Great Lakes Environmental Database
GLFMP Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GMRA Government Management Reform Act
GPRA Government Performance and
Accountability
GSA General Services Administration
G WR Groundwater Release
GW Gigawatts
HAPS Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HPV High Production Volume
HQ Headquarter
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
IDEF Interim Data Exchange Format
IFMA International Facilities Managers
Association
IGMS Integrated Grants Management System
IHS Indian Health Service
IIC International Joint Commission
IMC Information Management Coordinator
IPIA Improper Payments Information Act
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISSC Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
IT Information Technology
KWH Kilowatts
LIMS Laboratory Information Management
System
LTG Long-Term Goals
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MACTS Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standards
MARS Management and Accounting Reporting
System
MD&A Management's Discussion and Analysis
MIC Maximum Contaminant Level
MMTCE Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MOA Memoranda of Agreement
MOU Memoranda of Understanding
MSP Merit System Principles
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
MYP Multi-Year Research Plan
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACEPT National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAHB National Association of Home Builders
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program
NAPL Non-aqueous Phase Liquids
NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NAtChem National Atmospheric Chemistry Database
NCCRII National Coastal Condition Report II
NCCT National Center for Computational
Toxicology
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NDZ No-discharge Zone
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEP National Estuary Program
NGO Non-governmental Organizations
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey
NIMS National Incident Management System
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanographic Atmospheric
Administration
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPL National Priorities List
D-2
-------
NRC National Research Council
NSR New Source Review
NTI National Toxics Inventory
NTTS National Total Tracking System
NVFEL National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
0AM Office of Acquisition Management
OAQPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OARM Office of Administration and Resources
Management
OAS Organization for American States
OCA Other Cleanup Activity
OC Office of Compliance
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OCHP Office of Children's Health Protection
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
ODMPT Ozone Depletion Potential-Weighted Metric
Tons
OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development
OEHE Office of Environmental Health and
Engineering
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OFS Office of Financial Services
OGD Office of Grants and Debarments
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPPIN Office of Pesticide Program Information
Network
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
OPM Office of Personnel Management
ORBIT OCFO Reporting and Business Intelligence
Tool
ORD Office of Research and Development
OST Office of Science and Technology
OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OTIS Online Tracking Information System
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tank
OW Office of Water
P2 Pollution Prevention
PAR Performance and Accountability Report
PARS Performance Appraisal and Recognition
System
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Pb Lead
PBDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
PDF Pesticide Data Program
PER Permitting for Environmental Results
PESP Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PFOA Perfluoroctanoic Acid
PIVOT Performance Indicators Visualization and
Outreach Tool
PM Paniculate Matter
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Pre-manufacture Notice
RMP Risk Management Plan
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Work
PPA Pollution Prevention Act
PPG Performance Partnership Grants
PRIA Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
PWSS Public Water Supply Supervision
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QMP Quality Management Plan
RAC Response Action Contracts
RAD Reach Access Database
RACMIS Remedial Action Contract Management
Information System
RCC Resource Conservation Challenge
RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act
ROMS Research Database Management System
RED Registration Eligibility Decision
RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RLF Revolving Loan Fund
RMP Risk Management Plans
RSEI Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
RTP Research Triangle Park
SAS Statistical Analysis System
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDS Sanitation Deficiency System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SHPSS School Health Policies and Programs Study
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification
SIMS Shellfish Information Management System
SIP Site Implementation Plan
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Station
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOL Statute of Limitations
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
D-3
-------
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
SPIM Superfund Program Implementation Manual
SRF State Revolving Fund
S&T Science and Technology
STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grants
STAR Science to achieve Results
STARMAP Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling
and Analysis Program
STARS Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWP Source water protection
TAG Technical Assistance Grants
TAP Technical Assistance Provider
TAS Treatment as a State
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TEP Technical Evaluation Panel
TfS Tools for Schools
Time/LTM Temporally Integrated Monitoring of
Eco-systems and Long-Term Monitoring
(networks)
TIMS Tribal Information Management System
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
TPEA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TUWRAP Toxics Use and Waste Reduction Assistance
Program
TWG Targeted Watershed Grants
UCI Underground Injection Control
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
USTR United States Trade Representative
UV Ultra-violet
VA Vulnerability Assessment
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracking and
Environmental Results
WCF Working Capital Fund
WHO World Health Organization
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Project
WPDG Wetland Program Development Grants
WQS Water Quality Standards
D-4
-------
Appendix E
Public Access
November 15, 2005
-------
APPENDIX E: 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
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
Educational Resources: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/educational.htm
- Office of Environmental Education: http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/
- Teaching Center: http://www.epa.gov/teachers/
About EPA: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
- History: http://www.epa.gov/historv/
- Organization: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/organization.htm
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/
E-l
------- |