ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About This Report v
Letter From the Administrator vii
Message from the Chief Financial Officer ix
SECTION I MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 1
1. INTRODUCTION 2
What EPA Does 3
What EPA Is 3
How EPA Works: Collaborating With Partners and Stakeholders 3
Working With States 7
Working With Tribes 7
How EPA Works: A Framework for Performance Management 7
Improving Performance Measures and Performance Management 8
EPA Receives President's Highest Quality Award 9
2. FY 2008 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 11
Overview of Performance Trends and Results 11
Performance Measures Met 11
Performance Measures Not Met 11
Data Unavailable 12
Data Now Available 12
Highlights of Program Performance by Goal 12
STRATEGIC GOAL 1 - CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 13
STRATEGIC GOAL 2-CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 18
STRATEGIC GOAL 3 - LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 21
STRATEGIC GOAL 4-HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 25
STRATEGIC GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 30
3. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION 33
EPA's Sound Financial Management: Good for the Environment, Good for the Nation 33
EPA's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2008 34
EPA's Balance Sheet and Statement of Net Cost Highlight EPA's Overall Financial
Condition 34
Responsible Financial Stewardship for the Nation 37
Financial Management for the Future 37
Government-Wide Financial Performance Measurements 38
Limitations of the Principal Financial Statements 39
4. IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS 40
The President's Management Agenda 40
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 43
Grants Management 43
Office of Inspector General Audits, Reviews, and Investigations 44
5. EPA HOLDS ITSELF ACCOUNTABLE: SYSTEMS, CONTROLS, AND LEGAL
COMPLIANCE 46
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 46
Management Assurances 48
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) 48
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) 48
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 49
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. go v.
-------
SECTION II PERFORMANCE RESULTS 54
INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION 55
GOAL1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 56
Goal at a Glance 56
Goal Purpose: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 57
Data Trends 58
Contributing Programs 60
Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air 61
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 63
Additional Information Related to Objective 1 64
Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air 67
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 68
Additional Information Related to Objective 2 70
Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer 71
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 72
Additional Information Related to Objective 3 73
Objective 1.4: Radiation 74
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 76
Additional Information Related to Objective 4 77
Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity 78
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 81
Additional Information Related to Objective 5 82
Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research 83
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 84
Additional Information Related to Objective 6 85
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 87
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 105
Goal at a Glance 105
Goal Purpose: Clean and Safe Water 106
Data Trends 107
Contributing Programs 109
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health 110
FY2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 112
Additional Information Related to Objective 1 113
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality 114
FY2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 115
Additional Information Related to Objective 2 116
Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research 118
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 121
Additional Information Related to Objective 3 121
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 123
GOALS: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 139
Goal at a Glance 139
Goal Purpose: Land Preservation and Restoration 140
Data Trends 141
Contributing Programs 143
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land 144
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 146
Additional Information Related to Objective 1 147
Objective 3.2: Restore Land 149
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 151
Additional Information Related to Objective 2 152
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research 154
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 155
Additional Information Related to Objective 3 156
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 157
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 170
Goal at a Glance 170
Goal Purpose: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 171
Data Trends 172
Contributing Programs 174
Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks 175
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 180
Additional Information Related to Objective 1 181
Objective 4.2: Communities 183
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 186
Additional Information Related to Objective 2 187
Objective 4.3: Ecosystems 188
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 193
Additional Information Related to Objective 3 194
Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research 196
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 201
Additional Information Related to Objective 4 202
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 204
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 247
Goal at a Glance 247
Goal Purpose: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 248
Data Trends 249
Contributing Programs 250
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance 251
Explanation of the Missed Measures 254
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 254
Additional Information Related to Objective 1 255
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation 256
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 260
Additional Information Related to Objective 2 261
Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country 263
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 264
Additional Information Related to Objective 3 265
Objective 5.4: Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
266
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective** 267
Additional Information Related to Objective 4 268
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 270
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS 283
SECTION III FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 304
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 307
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 316
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY IN FORMATION 360
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 362
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND OTHER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
(UNAUDITED) 365
AUDIT OF EPA'S FISCAL 2008 AND 2007 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS 374
SECTION IV OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 501
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND INTEGRITY WEAKNESSES 502
EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2008 Weaknesses 503
Material Weaknesses 503
Agency-Level Weaknesses 504
Significant Deficiencies 509
FY 2008 Key Management Challenges Identified by the Office of Inspector General and
EPA's Response 511
The Office of Inspector General's List of Key Management Challenges for FY 2008....512
EPA's Response to Office of Inspector General Identified Management Challenges....529
IMPROPER PAYMENTS INFORMATION ACT OF 2002
REPORTING DETAILS 536
Risk Assessments 536
Statistical Sampling Process 536
Corrective Action Plans 536
Grants 537
Contracts 537
Commodity Payments 538
Payroll 539
Travel Card/Purchase Card 539
Improper Payment (IP) Reduction Outlook FY 2005 - FY 2009 539
Ensuring Management Accountability 539
Information Systems and Infrastructure 540
Statutory and Regulatory Barriers 540
Conclusions 540
APPENDIX A PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2008 541
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ACCESS 562
APPENDIX C ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 564
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. iv
-------
About This Report
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report
(PAR) describes the Agency's many accomplishments and challenges in both program
performance and overall management. Specifically, the Performance and Accountability Report
presents results in meeting the 219 performance measures established in the FY 2008 Annual
Performance Plan and Budget and explains advances made toward the long-term goals set
forward in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf). The
report also shares ideas for future directions and offers opportunities for comments and
questions. Readers will learn how EPA has made a difference and where the Agency has met
and overcome obstacles. This document satisfies reporting requirements of the following
statutes:
• Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA)
• Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
• Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
• Government Performance and Results 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
The transmittal letter transmits EPA's FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report from the
Administrator to the President and the Congress. The letter states in general terms the
Administrator's priorities, FY 2008 Agency accomplishments and indicates future directions. The
letter also provides an assessment of the reliability and completeness of the financial and
performance data contained in this report and a statement of assurance, as required by the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act,
and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, "Internal Control Systems."
Message from the Chief Financial Officer
The Chief Financial Officer's message describes progress and challenges pertaining to EPA's
performance and financial management. It discusses EPA's efforts to integrate budget and
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
performance information, and it provides information on the Agency's management and financial
reportable controls program under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and financial
management systems under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.
Section I - Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
The Management's Discussion and Analysis provides an overview of the full FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report. It outlines the Agency's organization, discusses
significant FY 2008 environmental performance results, and points out challenges the Agency
encounters in carrying out its work. The Management's Discussion and Analysis also describes
EPA's framework for performance management, briefly analyzes the Agency's financial
performance, and summarizes progress in implementing the President's Management Agenda.
Lastly, this section discusses EPA's progress in strengthening its management practices and
compliance with laws and regulations (the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act and others) to ensure the integrity of its
programs and operations. It contains the Administrator's assurance statement on the soundness
of EPA's overall internal controls and its internal controls over financial reporting. The
Management's Discussion and Analysis is supported and supplemented by detailed information
provided in the Performance, Financial, and Other Accompanying Information sections of this
report and the appendices.
Section II - Performance Results
This section presents performance results for each of the Agency's five strategic goals outlined
in the EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. A "Goal at a Glance" table is presented for each goal,
which summarizes investments, outlines the objectives, and gives an overview of results
achieved in FY 2008. Each section discusses progress toward achieving the strategic
objectives and targets and offers a table of detailed performance results for each of the FY 2008
performance measures contained in the FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Budget. This
performance section addresses all of the elements of an annual performance report as specified
under OMB Circular A-11, "Preparing and Submitting the Annual Performance Report."
Section III - Financial Statements
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.
Section IV- Other Accompanying Information
This section provides additional material as specified under OMB Circular A-136, "Financial
Reporting Requirements." The section entitled "Management Challenges" discusses EPA's
progress in strengthening management practices to achieve program results, including the
Inspector General's list of top management challenges and the Agency's progress in responding
to each issue. This section also contains a "Summary of Financial Statement Audit and
Management Assurances" and information on Improper Payments Information Act reporting.
Appendices
The appendices include summaries of program evaluation results, a list of relevant EPA Internet
links, and a glossary of acronyms.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. vi
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER
November 17, 2008
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
1 am pleased to transmit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year ?t
Performance and Accountability Report. This report present* ihc Agency's programmatic and financial
performance results for the year, discusses successes and challenges, and \\ill inform polic\ ;uul
programmatic decisions.
The information delivered in this report is in compliance will) guidance provided by the Ufficeof
Management and Budget. In addition, this report meets the requirements of the < io\ eminent Performance
and Results Act and other management legislation. In this report, KPA's performance is assessed against
annual commitments in our FY 2008 Annual flan and Budget and progress toward long-ierm goals in ihe
2006-2011 Strategic Ptm
Data used to report progress are reliable and as complete as possible. Inherent to the naiuu- of
our work is a time lag between when we take an action to protect human health or the environment and
when we can measure a result from that action. I hcrefore, for the reporting year, we cannot prov ide
results data for several of our performance measures; however, we portray trend clala, when possible, to
show progress toward results overtime, and we present final results for prior years when data have
become available in I Y 2008.
Performance Highlights
I am pleased to report that in FY 2008, KPA achieved results that demonstrate progress in
advancing the Agency's mission of protecting human health and the environment. The I'Y 2008
Performance and Accountability1 Report describes our key accomplishments. I or example, air qualitv is
expected to improve as a result of implementing stringent new standards, including foro/one, set in the
reporting year. Food is expected to be safer after ihe year's completed reassessment of all food-use
pesticides. We improved over two thousand impaired water bodies, made 85 Supcrfund sites ready 1™
reuse, and protected people from exposure to Iwardous materials As an Agenc>, ue arc more prepared
to respond to emergencies and disasters. We added thousands of acres to the nation's wetlands and we
provided wastewater sanitation to thousands of honKS along the United Slates-Mexico border. Our
enforcement actions were strong and resulted in polluters taking measures to improve the em iionment.
We have worked with partners and stakeholders across the nation to achieve these and other results while
also addressing many challenges over the past year. Across our nation of 300 million partners liom all
sectors of society - businesses, communities, and individuals - we continue to build on our nation's
environmental accomplishments and work toward creating a lasting legacy for future generations.
-------
Management
In FY 2008, the Agency found no new material weaknesses in the design or operation of our
internal controls over programmatic operations and financial reporting. We corrected ihe two information
systems-related material weaknesses that we had identified in FY 2007, and we completed corrective
actions to close two Agency-level weaknesses — Human Capital and Homeland Security — and a
significant deficiency related to the Agency's practices for removing certain transactions from the
financial management system. We continue to strengthen our overall internal controls and internal
controls related to financial reporting, as required in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123,
Under ihe Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, I am providing an unqualified statement of
assurance that EPA's overall internal controls and its internal controls over financial reporting protect the
Agency's programs and resources from fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. My assurance
statement appears in the Management's Discussion and Analysis section of this report,
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, EPA's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) identified what it considers to be the Agency's most serious management challenges in FY 2008.
The OIG acknowledged that it may lake years to resolve these challenges, and the efforts of EPA with
Congress, other federal agencies, states, and communities. An example of one such challenge is securing
the funding levels needed to construct, repair, and maintain drinking water and wastewater system
infrastructure across the country. Additional information on the OIG management challenges and EPA's
response is found in Section IV of this report.
Future
EPA's enclosed FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report offers an opportunity lo review
past achievements and challenges and inform decisions on ways to adjust and strengthen program
strategies. One of my stated priorities as Administrator has been to leave behind a stronger EPA. To this
end, 1 have supported a continuing focus on improving the Agency's performance measures,
strengthening scientific knowledge and capabilities, and bolstering the well-trained and talented Agency
workforce. Despite our progress, the nation faces an array of complex challenges on energy, giobal
climate change, and water resources issues. There also is a need to expand Agency capabilities to
respond to multiple, simultaneous catastrophic events from both natural and human-induced forces.
Our nation's environmental results are significant, as demonstrated in the Agency's
FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report. EPA is on course to deliver a cleaner and healthier
tomorrow, and it has been my privilege to guide this Agency toward that end.
Sincerely,
Stephen IvjjoKnson
-------
Message from the Chief Financial Officer
This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) presents the performance
and financial results that the Environmental Protection Agency achieved during FY
2008. The PAR provides information to the President, the Congress, and the public on
the Agency's accomplishments and challenges in protecting human health and the
environment, use of the financial resources entrusted to us, and progress in addressing
key management challenges. EPA's FY 2008 Citizen's Report, which will be submitted
to Congress on January 15, 2008, will provide a brief overview for the general public of
key performance and financial results presented in the PAR.
EPA continues to rank among the highest performing federal agencies under the
President's Management Agenda (PMA) scorecard. In FY 2008, for the second straight
year, EPA achieved successful "green" progress and status ratings throughout the year
for the five government-wide initiatives, Human Capital, Commercial Services
Management, Expanded E-Government, Improved Financial Performance, and
Performance Improvement, and for a sixth program initiative, Eliminating Improper
Payments.
For the 9th year in a row, EPA received an unqualified opinion on its audited
financial statements. The Agency identified no new material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over programmatic operations or financial reporting.
The Agency closed a number of internal control weaknesses and significant deficiencies
that had been identified in previous years. We also undertook a number of steps to
strengthen EPA's management integrity program, emphasizing the importance of
reviewing rigorously, documenting fully and improving continually the Agency's financial
and programmatic internal controls.
To strengthen EPA's financial stewardship and management capabilities, the
Agency is moving to a new core financial and accounting system which will replace
EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and is targeted for
implementation in 2010. System development is underway, along with extensive testing
and training, to ensure that the new system meets EPA's needs and that an orderly and
effective transition occurs.
EPA's commitment to financial excellence and effective use of taxpayers' dollars
in fulfilling our mission to protect human health and the environment is demonstrated in
the work we do and our notable accomplishments. In FY 2008, EPA successfully
completed migration to GovTrip. EPA also strengthened its financial data security by
reducing access to personal information and realigning security rights. EPA maximized
use of assets through judicious investment of Superfund Trust Fund monies. We have
achieved these results in collaboration with our partners and stakeholders; this
partnership is crucial to developing innovative and cross-cutting strategies to meet the
challenges ahead.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to EPA's dedicated
staff across the country who work to protect human health and the environment on a
daily basis and without whom our progress in FY 2008 would not have been possible.
Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
November 17, 2008
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov. ix
-------
EPA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Section I
Management's Discussion and Analysis
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Since EPA was formed in 1970, the United States has made enormous environmental progress.
America's air, water, and land are cleaner today than they were only a decade ago, and
increasingly, Americans are shifting to a "green" way of thinking. Across all sectors of society,
people are paying increased attention to protecting the environment and protecting people from
environmental threats. The nation as a whole has changed its behavior to reduce its impact on
the environment, and the average citizen knows more today about the environment than when
the Agency was first formed.
EPA's Long-Term Strategic Goals
1. Clean Air and Global Climate Change
2. Clean and Safe Water
3. Land Preservation and Restoration
4. Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
5. Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
As America's environmental steward, EPA
has made great strides in leading the
nation's environmental science, research,
education, and assessment efforts. The
Agency has strengthened regulations to
protect air, water, and food, and, through its
compliance efforts, prevented or reduced
millions of pounds of pollution released into
the environment. With state, tribal, and local
government partners, EPA is working to
protect ecosystems and develop new opportunities and innovative partnerships to accelerate
environmental protection. The Agency has cleaned up Superfund sites and returned land to
beneficial use, and it continues working to protect vulnerable groups, such as children, from
environmental and health impacts.
Despite the nation's progress, however, EPA continues to face serious challenges in improving
and sustaining the environment. The nation's freshwater resources provide safe drinking water
for millions of Americans, and EPA must continue to safeguard these resources while also
investing in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, a challenge for states and local
communities as these systems age. Increased energy consumption and costs underscore the
need to promote the use of alternative energy sources and investment in new technologies.
Global climate change requires that the Agency create partnerships around the world and
across many sectors to help foster production and consumption choices that slow the rate of
global climate change impacts while still growing the economy. At the same time, EPA plays an
important role in strengthening homeland security—protecting against and responding to
terrorist and other threats to the environment. These and other challenges inspire the Agency,
driving its work and commitment to achieve excellent performance and strong results.
This report reviews the results and progress that EPA has achieved in FY 2008 and the
advances the Agency has made toward meeting its longer-term strategic goals. It identifies
program performance and financial accomplishments and the challenges that remain and
demonstrates EPA's commitment to be held accountable for results.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
What EPA Does
EPA strives to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. To
accomplish its mission, the Agency:
• Develops regulations to implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. EPA
evaluates environmental and pollution data and sets national standards for environmental
programs. It delegates to states and tribes the authority and responsibilities to implement
programs and ensure these standards are met.
• Enforces environmental laws, regulations, and standards by taking legal actions.
EPA assists states, tribes, and the regulated community in understanding environmental
requirements and complying with them.
• Provides grants to states, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. EPA
provides grants to states, tribes, and others to support the implementation of environmental
programs, including research to improve the scientific basis for decisions on environmental
and human health concerns.
• Operates laboratories throughout the nation. In these laboratories, EPA studies
environmental challenges, researches approaches to environmental problems, and
develops innovative solutions.
• Supports pollution prevention and energy conservation. The Agency sponsors
voluntary partnerships and programs with more than 10,000 industries, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments on more than 40 pollution
prevention and energy conservation efforts.
• Promotes environmental education. EPA works to educate the public so that all
Americans understand the benefits they gain from clean air, water, and land while also
understanding the responsibilities they share for protecting the environment. EPA publishes
a variety of materials and provides the public access to information on its Web site.
What EPA Is
EPA's staff of more than 17,000 employees is highly educated and technically trained. More
than half are engineers, scientists, or policy analysts; others are legal, public affairs, financial,
information management, and computer specialists. EPA's Headquarters is located in
Washington, D.C. The Agency also has 10 regional offices and more than a dozen laboratories
and field offices across the country. For more information, visit EPA at www.epa.gov.
How EPA Works: Collaborating With Partners and Stakeholders
EPA partners with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and other countries
to address today's complex environmental issues. The Agency also works with business and
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
industry, non-profit organizations, environmental groups, and educational institutions in a wide
variety of collaborative efforts. EPA understands that government alone cannot begin to address
all of the nation's environmental challenges.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resource Management
Assistant Administrator
for Prevention. Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
Region I
Boston, MA
Region 5
Chicago, IL
Inspector General
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
topment needs and conduct
i integrated research and
Region 2
New York, NY
Region 6
Dallas, TX
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator
for International Affairs
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
Region 7
Kansas City, KS
Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Region 8
Denver, CO
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Region 10
Seattle, WA
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. qov.
-------
Highlights of Environmental
Region 10
bnplements Federal Green Chalenge
On Ennli Dnj 2008, Region 10 InuiKticd the Intend
Gnxii n-Mllenpg All Regional federal partners are chal-
lenged no reduce greenhouse gas cnusslora by 5 percent
over the next year by managing energy, tronaponation,
waste, and water. Kcjfknn 10 registered nearly 20 partncis
representing more than IJDOG facilities across Washington
Oregon, AnsKftr ana Idaho,
Regicn8
Milltown Dam is Now Free of Sediment
In March ZOOS, die Milttown Oam in western Montana
wa» breached, and for the rnc time in a century, the Clark
Fotk and Dladctnut Rcvtcs bt^an to flow ftccty. An agicc-
ment with the Atlantic Richfield Company, for more than
$100 miUkra, will rcttik in [he rcnwva] mtrtc, wpIiKiial diuru nfu-
tainen, and electronic goodi from man than 1,000 miles
of river and diouMmfa of ftaad-daiiMgcd residences.
www^^Rgu^Mamurfkni^
Regkxi6
Proposes F*« ft-hour Ozone Attainment Pbn
In July 2008, Region 6 mode u ptopmed vppcovul for an 8-
hour caane atrainnreiu plan for die CbllM-twt Worth
anai, Jte Gal in die luuiucL The plait raduLCH 88 ions of
oaxw-fcxTning nioogen oxkin evnyday. Asa mult of
the»e efforts, aif qtBlity in the area hat imtJimeJ, and the
uanw lmel» in 2008 tm die bwtst unite 1973, when TCTL-
nnHT tttidnmt USMX tDonttunB^ lie^iuii
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov.
-------
Accomplishment, EPA Regions
Region 5 and the Great Lakes National
Office CbleGt Vast Quantities of e-Wastes aid
PharmacKutKab
During the April 20C8 Earth Week Gimpuign, mine due.
5 million unwanted pilk and more than 5 million pounds
of efccnuok o-.wc WEIC collected at 33 recycling evcnci,
far exceeding the goal of 1 million unwutital pilk and 1
million pounds of electronic watte. Region 5, in conjunc-
tion with 188 partner orgmtationg, including cities,
counties, townships, tribes, enTironmerual groups, busi-
nesses, community orgsnbstiom, faith-baaed orgama-
tkxn, and media outlets, supported thh event.
www.ep2.gov/gtripu/eaitRdaf20Q&7
Region 4
Increases Gneenspace at Five Mile Creek
The Freshwater Land Trust created a 28-mile network of
trails and green space in the greater Birmingham area,
located along Five Mile Creek, with a 3200,000 brown-
fields grant. Community participation, outreach, and edu-
cation efforts contributed to the success of the initiative,
including ongoing creek cleanups, trail improvements,
and water quality monitoring projects.
www.freshwateTlandtrust.org
ion I
Increases "No Discharge" Area Designations
In 2008, EPA approved "No Discharge" designations for
sisniiiciajt stretches of the New Fjiglnnfl euastlme, includ-
ing Boston Harbor and Cape Cod Bay. Region 1 and its
state and local partnen have inrruved water quality arid
protected public health aid marine life by halting sewage
discharges from boats across more than 2,200 miles of the
New England coast.
Rcgfon 2 ReBCncs AgpccmftfTt to Remove
Contaminated Sediment
EPA has signed an agreement with Occidental Chemical
and Tierra Solutions that will result in the most signifi-
cant removal of contaminated sediment from the lower
New Jersey Pass-die River in its history. A total of 200.COO
cubic yards of dioxin-kden material will be removed in
two phases.
www.epa.gov/region02/passaicrivei/
Region 3
Embraces "Recycle Mania"
Region 3 led the nation during Recycle Mania 2008 by reg-
istering 75 colleges for the competition. The top school in
each state will receive an excellence award for achieving
the rank of Number 1 in the "Per Capita Classic" category.
www.epa.gov/reg3wcnxl/solidwasteTnania.Ktm
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa.gov.
-------
Working With States
EPA and states share responsibility for protecting
human health and the environment. The Agency
can authorize states to carry out the day-to-day
work of implementing most national environmental
programs if they have the needed legal authority
and technical and resource capacity. The unique
relationship between EPA and states is the
cornerstone of the nation's environmental
protection system. Working together to leverage
state and federal resources and expertise is critical
to achieving environmental results on the ground.
For more information on EPA-state partnerships
and collaborative approaches to improving
environmental protection, visit:
www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/index.htm.
Working With Tribes
EPA works with tribes in a government-to-government relationship to improve compliance with
environmental regulations in Indian Country. In FY 2008, EPA's Deputy Administrator, working
closely with tribes and states, authorized a new strategy to further improve the "same treatment
as states" policy and programs. For more information, please see the Agency's "Strategy for
Reviewing Tribal Eligibility Applications to Administer EPA Regulatory Programs" at:
www.epa.gov/tribal/pdf/strategv-for-reviewing-applications-for-tas-01-23-08.pdf. In particular,
EPA and tribes are focusing on issues concerning drinking water, sanitation, schools, and
proper management of hazardous waste on tribal lands. EPA's Tribal Compliance Assistance
Center is a Web-based tool that serves as the first stop for comprehensive compliance
information on environmental issues in Indian Country. In addition, EPA launched the tribal
portal (www.epa.gov/tribalportal) to serve as a one-stop resource for tribal environmental
information and data.
EPA Works With States to Improve Results
and Reduce Burden
During FY 2008, the Agency continued to work
closely with the Environmental Council of the
States (EGOS) to address planning, performance
measurement, grants, and related partnership
efforts. For example, during FY 2007 and FY
2008, EPA and the states began using a common
set of performance measures to report the results
of state environmental work under EPA grants.
EPA and the states are also piloting a standardized
grant work plan to sharpen the focus on results.
Additionally, EPA and the states worked together
to identify the most burdensome reporting
requirements and are now implementing
recommendations in 16 priority areas to reduce
state reporting burden.
How EPA Works: A Framework for Performance Management
EPA's five goals, their 20 supporting objectives, and numerous strategic targets are described
fully in the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan rwww.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire report.pdf).
Each year, based on EPA's Strategic Plan, the Agency commits to annual performance
measures in EPA's Annual Performance Plan and Budget, which support the achievement of
longer-term objectives. EPA is accountable for using its resources efficiently and effectively in
managing programs and achieving results. EPA reports on its performance results for annual
performance measures in the context of longer-term measures in the annual Performance and
Accountability Report.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. go v.
-------
EPA's Performance Management Framework
Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability for Results
Additional
Assessment Tools
Rating Tool (PART)
- Program Eva1 -^
• Audits and R
• Mid-Year Report
• FnH-of-Year Report
Annual Plan & Budget
Identifies priorities and resources
for the year, including the Agency's
annual performance measures
Annual National
Program Plans
Strategic Plan
Establishes EPA's overall plan for the
next five years, including goals, objectives,
sub-objectives, and strategic measures
Report on the
Environment
Provides a snapshot of
Annual Performance
& Accountability
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)
Presents EPA's performance results measured
against its annual measures and commitments.
Demonstrates accountability and serves as a
feedback loop to inform adjustments to
EPAStat Quarterly Report
Provides timely performance data for a number
of the Agency's important work areas
In addition to the annual performance measures in the Annual Performance Plan and Budget
and the Performance and Accountability Report, the Agency also tracks and makes publicly
available "fresh and frequent" data in its EPAStat Quarterly Report. These "short cycle" data
show regional performance on a subset of priorities and are another key component of EPA's
performance management system. They provides senior managers with information that can be
used to make programmatic adjustments in a more timely fashion and are used by EPA's
Deputy Administrator as the basis for quarterly discussions with national and regional program
managers. Analysis of regional performance has led to the identification and dissemination of a
number of best practices and innovations taking place in particular regions or states. These
efforts complement the Performance and Accountability Report and serve to further increase
accountability and transparency for the work the Agency does to protect human health and the
environment.
Improving Performance Measures and Performance Management
Measuring performance and making adjustments to improve results are essential to managing
programs effectively. EPA's performance management system continues to evolve and
improve and has matured to the point where the Agency is recognized as a leader in the federal
government.
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
8
-------
EPA Receives President's Highest Quality Award
In December 2007, EPA received the federal government's highest
honor for strong and effective management: the President's Quality
Award for Management Excellence. EPA was only the second
Agency to win the highest tier award—Overall Management—since
the award's inception in 1988. This award recognized the efforts EPA
has taken towards improving performance management.
During FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented a number of key initiatives designed to
further strengthen the Agency's performance management system and help senior leaders "use
measures to manage":
• Identified targeted areas for revising EPA's Strategic Plan. The Agency implemented a
streamlined approach to target improvements in strategies and performance measurement
and integrated the effort with development of EPA's FY 2010 budget. The targeted areas of
focus for the Agency include the impact of global climate change, sustainable agriculture,
contaminants, and import safety.
• Established the EPA Performance Management Council to increase focus on the use
of performance information for decision-making. Chaired by the Deputy Administrator
and composed of senior regional and program managers, the council is examining EPA's
performance management framework to ensure a clear line of sight between performance
measures and the Agency's mission and goals. The council is also identifying key issues
and areas for improvement for the Agency to address. This effort is part of EPA's
implementation of the new Executive Order 13450, Improving Government Program
Performance.
• Increased accountability, transparency, and access to measures and the performance
management system. EPA is doing more to foster a performance management culture
within the Agency and is also doing more to communicate performance results to the public
and partners and stakeholders. During FY 2008, the Agency began broadcasting the
Deputy Administrator's performance management meetings with regional managers to all
EPA employees via IPTV (Internet protocol television). EPA also began holding and
televising topic-specific performance management meetings to focus attention on improving
key operational areas (e.g., the Agency's hiring process). The Agency continued to share
its quarterly performance results with the public and made a number of key improvements
during the year, including enhancing the quality of the measures, redesigning the Web site
to provide better access to the performance data, adding a quarterly blog on the results, and
institutionalizing routine communication with the EPA Administrator and Deputy
Administrator on the Agency's quarterly performance.
• Streamlined and aligned EPA's family of performance measures. The Agency now
conducts annual reviews to improve its performance measures. During FY 2008, EPA
focused on improving the line of sight between its long-term strategic targets, its annual
performance measures, and its internal operational commitments, which include regional
breakouts of performance results. The work resulted in a 9-percent decrease in the number
of measures as well as continued improvements in the clarity and outcome orientation of the
Agency's external and internal measures.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
-------
• Developed new performance management tools for Agency managers. EPA
completed Measures Central, a database that houses all Agency performance measures in
one place for easy access and use. EPA also developed and launched the Executive
Management Dashboard to provide managers with the performance and resource
information they need to effectively manage their programs. The Dashboard includes
summary information and graphics with drill-down capability as well as visual alerts, which
identify problem areas (e.g., resource utilization and planned vs. actual performance
results). The Agency also began producing semi-annual reports on its full suite of
performance measures (annual and operational commitments). These graphical reports
allow a regional or national program manager to pinpoint areas needing attention, such as
when the organization is not on track to meet performance.
• Investigated emerging performance management technologies. Scientific advances
and emerging technologies offer new opportunities for protecting human health and the
environment. For example, sensor technologies can dramatically improve program
management and environmental monitoring with their potential to look across wide
geographic areas, detect a broad range of pollutants, and make more accurate and timely
assessments of environmental loadings and trends. Sensor networks can help close the
gap between our actions and the outcomes we hope to achieve. A good example is the
AIRNow Program, a partnership between EPA and a number of federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies. The Program uses a network of monitors to collect daily air quality data
(national and local) that are then shared with the public on the Internet. Every year, AIRNow
produces thousands of real-time air quality maps for ozone and particulate matter, along
with local forecasts for nearly 400 cities across the nation. It also provides real-time data
and forecasts to media outlets such as USA Today, CNN, and The Weather Channel. In
FY 2008 the AIRNow Program adopted the new Air Quality Index and National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Ozone. During the California wildfires of June 2008, the Program
collected key air quality data on the geographic areas affected, and helped the California
agencies better inform the public on the air quality effects of the fires.
• Improved the Agency's approach to program evaluation. Program evaluation is one of
the performance management tools that EPA managers and staff use to ensure that Agency
programs are achieving results in protecting human health and the environment and to
identify opportunities for improvement. As the systematic study of how well a program is
working and why, program evaluation can fill information gaps and help identify where
activities can have the greatest impact. The purpose of including program evaluations in the
Performance and Accountability Report is to show what the findings tell the Agency about
FY 2008 results achieved and possible implications for adjusting strategies and measures.
In FY 2008, EPA developed a strategy to address barriers to program evaluation. Also, the
Agency completed reviews of a number of Agency programs to assess their design,
effectiveness, and efficiency and to identify areas needing improvement. These are
described in detail in Appendix A.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov. 10
-------
2. FY 2008 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
In FY 2008, EPA achieved significant results under each of the five long-term environmental
goals established in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. This section provides an overview of EPA
performance and presents summary results of accomplishments and challenges under each
goal.
Overview of Performance Trends and Results
EPA's FY2008 Performance Results
32%
52%
rjMet
• Not Met
D Data Available After
November17, 2008
16%
EPA continues to strengthen the Agency's performance measurement and use of this
information to make the management and budget decisions to help EPA achieve its
environmental and human health goals.
Performance Measures Met
In the Agency's FY 2008 Annual Plan, EPA committed to 219 annual performance measures. In
FY 2008, the Agency met 113 of these performance measures, 76 percent of the performance
measures for which data were available at the time this report was published.
EPA significantly exceeded its targets for several of its FY 2008 Performance Measures. In
some cases, a new collaborative effort or a new approach to the performance measure allowed
EPA to accomplish even more than it planned.
Performance Measures Not Met
A goal of the Performance and Accountability Report is to discuss EPA's challenges as well as
its successes, and give the public an explanation of missed goals and how the Agency plans to
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
11
-------
meet these performance measures in the future. Despite the Agency's best efforts, 36
performance measures were not met. Here are a few of the reasons EPA and partners did not
meet FY 2008 goals:
• Unexpected factors that are out of EPA's control often influence results, such as weather or
litigation. For example, heavy population growth and land use patterns continually contribute
to the Chesapeake Bay Program not meeting its goals to reduce nitrogen, phosphorous, and
sediment pollution loads in the Bay.
• The Agency's timelines are not always met due to competing priorities and diverted
resources.
• Many of EPA's performance results rely on the collaborative efforts between the Agency and
its federal, state, and local government partners. When expected water quality submissions
were delayed in states waiting for attorney general certifications, the Agency just missed its
target of 68 percent of states and territories submitting this information. The final result was
62.5 percent.
EPA carefully considers the various causes of these missed FY 2008 results, and adjusts its
program strategies and targets so they incorporate these new obstacles while remaining
ambitious.
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 70 of its 219 performance measures. This delay in reporting can be largely
attributed to the complex nature of environmental problems, and the Agency's sharpened focus
on longer-term environmental and human health outcomes rather than more specific, annual
output measures.
Additionally, many outcome-oriented performance measures require extensive quality
assurance, and since this report is published only 45 days from the end of the fiscal year, much
of the data will not come in until FY 2009 or later.
Data Now Available
EPA is now able, however, to report data from previous years that became available in
FY 2008. Final performance results data became available for 38 of the FY 2007 performance
measures on which the Agency did not report in the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report. Of these 38 performance measures, EPA met 30.
Highlights of Program Performance by Goal
In FY 2008, with resource obligations of $9.66 billion and 16,916 full-time-equivalent employees,
EPA achieved significant results under each of the five long-term environmental goals
established in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. This section highlights the Agency's
accomplishments and continuing challenges under each of its strategic goals and objectives.
Detailed performance information is presented in Section II of this report.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 12
-------
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.
Goal 1 FY 2008
In 2008, the Agency set stringent new standards for a significant Performance Measures
number of air pollutants or pollution sources, which will result in a Data Avaiiabie^After
substantial improvement to human health and the environment. The November 17,2008 = 28
Agency also moved forward in reducing greenhouse gases by greatly
expanding the number of partners with whom the Agency works to (Total Measures = 30)
voluntarily reduce these emissions.
Objective 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air
Key Achievements
• Most Stringent Ozone Standard. In March 2008, EPA issued the most stringent 8-hour
standard ever established for ozone, the primary component of smog. The Agency revised
the ozone standards for the first time in over a decade, basing changes on the most recent
scientific evidence about the effects of ozone on human health. EPA valued the health
benefits from this rule between $2 billion and $19 billion by preventing 260-2,000 premature
deaths, 380 cases of chronic bronchitis, and many other adverse health effects. The cost
estimates of this rule range from $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion.
• Stronger Standard for Lead. In October 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the national
ambient air quality standards for lead, improving health protection for at-risk groups,
especially children. EPA also established new requirements for the existing lead monitoring
network by requiring that monitors be placed near large sources of lead emissions as well
as in large urban areas. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects,
including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys, and immune
system. Children are particularly vulnerable. Exposures to low levels of lead early in life
have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory, and behavior. Lead also can cause
toxic effects in plants and can impair reproduction and growth in birds, mammals and other
organisms. More stringent standards for lead will help to reduce exposure and also the
associated health effects.
• New Locomotive and Marine Diesel Pollution Standards. In March 2008, EPA issued
tough new emission standards that will slash pollution from locomotive and marine diesel
engines by up to 90 percent, helping Americans breathe cleaner air. The benefits of the
new standards will begin immediately in 2008, and EPA estimates that by 2030 the
regulations will have helped to prevent 1,400 premature deaths and 120,000 lost workdays
nationwide. Estimated annual health benefits are valued at between $8.4 billion and $12
billion.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 13
-------
Challenges
• In July 2008, the Agency's Clean Air Interstate Rule was challenged in court and vacated.
EPA had estimated that by 2015 the rule would reduce power plant emissions of sulfur
dioxide by 73 percent and nitrogen oxides by 61 percent in 28 eastern states and the District
of Columbia, preventing thousands of premature deaths and other damaging health and
environmental effects each year. The Agency filed a rehearing petition for this important
regulation in September.
• To be most effective in controlling air pollution, EPA must design comprehensive strategies
that reduce air toxics, increase energy efficiency, and promote cleaner fuels. The Agency
must ensure that its programs work together effectively to minimize the burden on the
regulated community and maximize pollution reduction across all titles of the Clean Air Act
and such new legislation as the Energy Independence and Security Act. This new law adds
significant layers of complexity to the Agency's programs, and requires the Agency to take
many actions on an accelerated timeline. The Agency must engage in a significant level of
data gathering in order to conduct considerable new analyses. The Agency is making every
effort to meet these challenges.
Objective 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Key Achievements
• Better Air Quality in Schools. In FY 2008, EPA sponsored the Eighth Annual Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools National Symposium with more than 500 attendees from across
the country to accelerate the adoption of key drivers of effective and sustainable indoor air
quality management programs in schools. EPA also recognized 43 school districts and
several individuals for making outstanding progress in creating healthy learning
environments for children.
• Environmental Management of Asthma. In FY 2008, held the Third National Asthma
Forum with more than 200 community leaders and national program partners to build action
plans, collaborations, and commitments to achieve asthma health outcomes. EPA's
Communities in Action for Asthma Friendly Environments online network participation
doubled in FY 2008, bringing the total to more than 300 communities working together to
accelerate learning and drive forward best practices.
• Radon Outreach. EPA spearheaded a highly successful National Radon Action Month with
more than 700 unique education and outreach events nationwide and nearly 2,000 radon
poster entries from 26 states.
Challenges
• EPA's Indoor Air Program is a small, voluntary program that requires innovation and
coordination to maintain momentum and maximize limited resources. The program strives to
work effectively with public, private, and nonprofit partners and coordinates its efforts with
EPA regulatory and community-based risk-reduction activities. EPA's voluntary programs
address public health risks from radon and asthma triggers. The program leverages a
significant network of public health partners to achieve results. Specifically, as a result of
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 14
-------
EPA's radon activities, approximately 650 lives are saved annually due to mitigations and
new homes that are built to be radon resistant. Based on recent survey data, EPA and
partner outreach in schools has resulted in more than 50 percent of schools implementing
effective indoor air quality practices. EPA asthma work among key populations has
improved environmental management of asthma triggers, and we anticipate that these
actions will reduce asthma-related emergency room visits in the future.
Objective 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Key Achievement
• Supermarket-EPA Partnership. In FY 2008, EPA launched its GreenChill Advanced
Refrigeration Partnership with the supermarket industry to promote advanced technologies,
strategies, and practices that reduce supermarket emissions of stratospheric ozone-
depleting substances and greenhouse gases. Since initiated, the partnership has nearly
tripled its membership and prevented emissions of 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent, equal to the annual emissions of about 500,000 cars.
Challenges
• EPA faces an ongoing challenge in carrying out the milestone agreement reached at a
September 2007 meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to accelerate recovery of
the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and prevent large quantities of greenhouse gas
emissions. The Agency is continuing work to identify acceptable substitutes to ozone-
depleting substances.
Objective 4 - Radiation
Key Achievements
• Radiological Emergency Response Exercises. During FY 2008, EPA participated in
several major radiological emergency response exercises to increase preparedness in
responding to potential dirty bomb attacks on U.S. cities. In simulated efforts, EPA
assessed impacted areas, recommended precautions to protect public health,
communicated with the public, and decontaminated affected areas.
• Expanded Radiation Data. During FY 2008, the Agency more than tripled the number of
locations included in RadMap, a Geographic Information Systems-based, interactive
desktop tool that can quickly provide emergency responders and health officials with key
information on radiation monitoring system locations across the country. This tool has been
well received in the EPA emergency response community, and the Agency is evaluating
options to broaden responder access to the tool.
Challenges
• EPA exceeded its FY 2008 target for installing air monitoring stations in RadNet, a national
network of monitoring stations that collect air precipitation, drinking water, and milk samples
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 15
-------
for analyzing levels of radioactivity. As the Agency begins to target less populated areas of
the country, identifying willing operators and suitable locations for new RadNet stations will
become more difficult. EPA expects that siting new monitors and making them operational
will require increased effort, particularly by the Agency's regional offices.
Objective 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Key Achievements
• New Climate Leaders. In 2008, EPA recognized 51 new companies as Climate Leaders,
bringing membership in the Climate Leaders Program to more than 200 partners working to
measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and set aggressive long-term reduction goals.
Notably, eight companies took the next step in the partnership by announcing new goals for
reducing greenhouse gases. Collectively, EPA's Climate Leaders represent more than 10
percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and have pledged to prevent estimated
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 9 million cars annually.
• Low Carbon Computer Campaign. In 2008, EPA launched the ENERGY STAR Low
Carbon IT Campaign to help reduce the growing demand for electricity and save money
while addressing climate change impacts. The campaign encourages companies to enable
power management, or sleep mode, on computers and monitors, potentially saving more
than 44 billion kilowatt-hours or $4 billion worth of electricity and avoiding greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to those of about 5 million cars each year.
Challenges
• Addressing climate change continues to be one of EPA's biggest challenges. In FY 2008,
the Agency published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit public input on
the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could
be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act. This action was in response to the April 2,
2007, Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that greenhouse gas
emissions could be regulated if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Objective 6 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• Research to Inform National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In FY 2008, EPA
researchers characterized the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air particles of
different sizes, showing that breathing in these particles affects blood clotting, can cause
changes in heart rate, and can result in mild lung infections. Studies are ongoing to
determine the effects of long-term particulate matter exposure on humans. In addition,
EPA's Office of Research and Development provided research, data, and advice, which
were critical in National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews and decisions on ozone,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and lead.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. go v. 16
-------
Challenges
• Measuring annual progress toward EPA's research goal of reducing uncertainties in linking
pollutant sources to health outcomes is a difficult challenge. However, in FY 2008, EPA
sought advice from an independent expert panel and is now focusing on air pollutants in
three particular areas: near roadways, near specific sources of air pollution, and in specific
geographical areas impacted by multiple sources of pollution.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 17
-------
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.
In the past year, the Agency proposed a new regulation to allow for Goal 2 FY 2008
the underground storage of greenhouse gases in a manner that Performance Measures
protects ground water sources of drinking water and ensures drinking eT f 7
, . , . . .... „ .. . . . . .. _ _,„,- Data Available After
water is safe. Additionally, the Agency reported a cumulative 2, 165 November 1 7 2008 = 1 1
waterbodies that were listed as impaired in 2002 are now fully
attaining water quality standards. (Total Measures = 38)
Objective 1 - Protect Human Health
Key Achievements
• Protected Drinking Water. In FY 2008, 92 percent of the population served by community
water systems received drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking water
standards. These results exceeded the Agency's annual goal of 90 percent—a particularly
noteworthy accomplishment as community water systems face challenges daily in applying
existing drinking water regulations and implementing standards for new contaminants.
• Open Beaches. Under EPA's Beach Program during calendar year 2007, the most recent
year for which EPA has data, 35 states and territories monitored more than 3,600 beaches
to ensure that they were safe for swimming. Of the more than 663,164 beach season days
during the year, coastal and Great Lakes beaches stayed open 95 percent of the time,
consistent with previous years' performance.
• Proposed Regulation to Protect Underground Drinking Water Sources. In FY 2008,
EPA proposed a new regulation for the Underground Injection Control Program to allow for
the underground storage of greenhouse gases in a manner that protects ground water
sources of drinking water. This regulation will not only help protect the nation's drinking
water but also will support promising new technologies for addressing climate change.
Challenges
• Population growth and climate factors are causing concern about water scarcity.
Communities across the country are facing challenges in securing reliably safe supplies of
drinking water. Small drinking water systems, including those supplying drinking water to
tribes, are particularly challenged by the need to improve infrastructure and develop the
capacity to meet new and existing standards.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 18
-------
Objective 2: Protect Water Quality
Key Achievements
• Restored Impaired Waters. EPA continues to make strong progress in addressing impaired
waters. By the end of FY 2008, a total of 2,165 water bodies that were listed as impaired in
2002 were restored to fully attain the Agency's water quality standards, exceeding EPA's
annual target of 1,550. By attaining water quality standards, waters become safer for
drinking, fishing and swimming.
• Reduced Nonpoint Source Pollution. In FY 2007, the most recent year for which EPA now
has data, the Agency exceeded its annual goals for reducing specific nonpoint sources of
pollution. EPA's partners reduced phosphorus by 7.5 million pounds; nitrogen by 19.1 million
pounds; and sediment by 3.9 million tons in water bodies around the country. FY 2008
results will be available in spring 2009. Reducing nonpoint sources of pollution will
decrease stormwater runoff and improve water quality.
• Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plans. By the end of FY 2008, EPA and states completed
35,979 EPA-approved waterbody pollutant reduction plans (Total Maximum Daily Loads, or
TMDLs), exceeding EPA's annual target of 33,801. A Total Maximum Daily Load is a plan
for ensuring that a waterbody meets the Agency's water quality standards for specific
pollutants.
Challenges
• Potential climate change effects on water quality and quantity and their implications for
program goals pose challenges for EPA's National Water Program. In FY 2008 the Agency
began to evaluate the need for changes to water programs to address climate change. In
FY 2009, EPA managers will begin implementing the National Water Program Strategy:
Response to Climate Change. This strategy identifies five key goals for understanding
climate change impacts and response actions: 1) use water programs to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions; 2) adapt implementation of core water programs; 3) strengthen
the link between EPA water programs and climate change research; 4) educate water
program professionals and stakeholders on climate change impacts; and 5) establish the
management capability within the water program to engage on climate change challenges.
• The condition of the nation's wastewater infrastructure impedes progress in improving the
quality of waterbodies across the country. Many community water systems need assistance
to sustain current levels of service. EPA's 2004 Clean Watershed Needs Survey reports
that wastewater treatment needs are $202.5 billion, a $16.1-billion increase over needs
identified in 2000. Demands on EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund are increasing,
prompting heightened interest in ways to further leverage existing funds. States are
exploring innovative financing capabilities available to the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds, such as loan guarantees, private sector partnerships, utility sponsorships, and
watershed financing to craft cost-effective financing solutions to address the needs.
• Tens of thousands of homes, primarily in tribal communities, lack access to basic sanitation.
Challenges remain in providing first-time access to tribal homes for wastewater services and
continued service to those homes already connected. Even where facilities exist, technical,
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 19
-------
financial, and managerial capacity in small, rural, and tribal communities remains a
significant issue. EPA continues to participate in an Interagency Tribal Infrastructure Task
Force and Access subgroup to address challenges in tribes. In FY 2008, the Access
subgroup developed an implementation plan and recommendations to the task force. In
addition, five workgroups were established to address clean water and drinking water quality
issues in tribal communities.
Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• Research on Disinfection Byproducts. In FY 2008, the Agency completed research on
health risks associated with drinking water exposures to disinfection byproducts. This
research provides scientific support for more robust health risk assessments of both
regulated and unregulated disinfection byproducts, enabling water suppliers to make more
informed treatment decisions that control exposure to disinfection byproducts while meeting
disinfection requirements.
• Supporting Drinking Water Regulations. In FY 2008, EPA released an online Drinking
Water Treatability Database that provides information decision-makers can use to determine
appropriate treatment technologies for drinking water contaminants. In addition, the
research program provided scientific support to help meet challenges associated with
simultaneous compliance of the Disinfection Byproduct Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule,
and other components of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
• Water Criteria for Beaches. EPA researchers developed "Virtual Beach" and "Beach
Advisor" modeling software, which use site-specific weather and other factors to predict
recreational water criteria. Unlike existing approaches that take more than 24 hours, this
software can help local beach managers make same-day decisions on beach closures or
advisories.
Challenges
• Measuring and quantifying the impact of the Agency's research program on its water-related
regulatory and program decisions is a difficult challenge. EPA's Office of Research and
Development has initiated surveys and, for drinking water research in particular, developed
a software tool and analytical methodology for assessing the percentage and type of
research products being used in regulatory or rulemaking decisions. Using these tools, the
Office of Research and Development can better assess and improve the use and delivery of
its science.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 20
-------
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.
Over the past year, EPA made significant progress in preserving and
restoring the land and protecting the public from risks by ensuring that 96 Goal 3 FY 2008
percent of hazardous waste facilities are permitted and 66 percent of the Performance Measures
nation's underground storage tanks are in compliance. Additionally, EPA Met = 22 Not Met = 5
protected human health and the environment by achieving construction Data Available After
complete at 30 Superfund sites, 34.6 percent of hazardous waste November 17,2008 = 2
facilities, and 12,768 leaking underground storage tank sites. Human
exposures to site contamination were controlled at 24 Superfund sites
and 96.2 percent of hazardous waste facilities, and groundwater
protection was achieved at 20 Superfund and 83.4 percent hazardous waste facilities.
Objective 1 - Preserve Land
Key Achievements
• Reduced Municipal Solid Waste. In FY 2007, the most recent year for which there are
data, EPA contributed to reducing, reusing, and recycling 23.5 billion pounds of municipal
solid waste.1 This is equivalent to reducing 6.9 million metric tons of carbon equivalent.
• Permitting Hazardous Waste Facilities. In FY 2008, 96 percent of the nation's hazardous
waste management facilities were operating under permits or other approved controls to
protect human health and the environment. These permits ensure that facilities control
groundwater contamination and safely remove or isolate hazardous waste to prevent
exposure.
• Preventing Releases From Underground Storage Tanks. In FY 2008, there were
significantly fewer releases from underground storage tanks than the Agency's annual
performance goal of "no more than 10,000 releases." To account for this success, EPA has
made its future performance goal more challenging by lowering it to no more then 9,000
releases.
Challenges
• While only a small percentage of hazardous waste facilities remains to be permitted by EPA,
these sites often involve more complex permit actions. For example, large and complex
federal facilities can contain nontraditional treatment units such as for open burning and
open detonation, used to treat water propellants, explosives, and munitions. These units
require more time to evaluate technical information, address risks, and deal with public
concerns. Permits will ensure that controls are in place to protect people and the
environment at the sites. For FY 2009 through FY 2011, EPA established a new ambitious
hazardous waste management goal to promote progress in addressing these more complex
and challenging facilities.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 21
-------
• One of EPA's challenges has been maintaining and even increasing the Underground
Storage Tank compliance rates. Starting in FY 2009, EPA has adjusted its target down to
reflect the states' new Energy Policy Act of 2005 inspection requirements, where states now
inspect facilities that had only been infrequently inspected in the past. This increased
inspection attention accounts for the lower compliance target, though we expect the
increased inspection frequency to ensure better compliance and fewer releases in the
future.
Objective 2 - Restore Land
Key Achievements
• Cleanup Completed at 30 Superfund Sites. In FY 2008, EPA completed cleanup
construction ("construction complete") at 30 Superfund sites, achieving its annual target for
that measure. Since the Superfund Program's inception, EPA has completed construction
at 1060 sites
• Risks Addressed at Superfund Sites. Protecting human health by controlling human
exposures and protecting the environment by controlling migration of contamination by
groundwater are top priorities for EPA's Superfund Remedial Program. In FY 2008, EPA
increased the number of sites where human exposures are under control by a net of 24
sites, and the number of sites where the migration of contaminated groundwater is under
control by a net of 20 sites, exceeding the Agency's annual targets.
• Superfund Sites Ready for Anticipated Use. Superfund cleanup helps communities return
some of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites to safe and productive uses. In FY 2008,
the Agency determined that 85 Superfund sites were ready for anticipated use, exceeding
the annual target of 30. For these sites, construction remedies have been completed;
cleanup goals to reduce unacceptable risk that may affect current and future land uses have
been achieved; and institutional controls have been implemented. The cumulative number
of sites ready for anticipated use sitewide is 343.
• Controlled Contamination at High Priority Facilities. In FY 2008, EPA continued to focus
on those hazardous waste facilities presenting the greatest risk to human health and the
environment. EPA exceeded all three targets for its list of the 1,968 high-priority hazardous
waste facilities requiring cleanup or "corrective action" under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). At these high-priority facilities, human exposure to contaminants
is now under control at more than 96 percent of facilities, compared to a target of 95
percent. The migration of contaminated ground water is under control at more than 83
percent of facilities, compared to a target of 81 percent. Final cleanup remedies have been
constructed for more than 34 percent of these facilities, exceeding the target of 27 percent.
Challenges
• While EPA's Superfund Remedial Program met all of its FY 2008 targets, it is facing
significant challenges, including maintaining a high rate of construction completions in future
years. Many of the remaining National Priorities List sites will involve more complex
cleanups than those completed to date. In addition, the Department of Defense is currently
inventorying and assessing all military munitions response sites. Newly discovered
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 22
-------
munitions at National Priorities List facilities are delaying cleanups at federal facilities.
Finally, recent dramatic increases in the price of fuel, materials, and labor across the country
are resulting in rapidly escalating construction costs, which are likely to affect program
progress.
• In FY 2009, EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program will
expand its focus from 1,968 high-priority facilities to all 3,746 facilities expected to need
corrective action. To meet its ambitious goal of constructing final remedies at 95 percent of
these sites by 2020, the Agency will have to increase its annual targets. Providing final
remedies for this large number of facilities—more than the Agency has addressed in a
single year so far—represents the program's biggest challenge. EPA, working with its
regional offices and state partners, has developed plans to meet the 2020 goal.
• The goal of completing 13,000 cleanups per year from leaking underground storage tanks
has become increasing challenging to EPA and our state and tribal partners. There are a
number of factors affecting this challenge, such as the increasing costs and complexity of
cleanups, decreasing state budgets and increasing state workloads, and other factors.
Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• Research on Ethanol and Fuel Byproducts. In FY 2008, EPA conducted modeling and
field investigations to evaluate how methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), ethanol, and other
fuel additives move and transform in the environment. Regulators in California, Michigan,
New York, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are using EPA tools to predict the
impact of ethanol on gasoline spills and to examine effects on water aquifers.
• EPA Demonstrates National and International Leadership in Nanotechnology. Over the
past year, EPA has been a national and international leader in nanotechnology
environmental health and safety. On the national level, EPA played a leading role in
developing an interagency nanotechnology environmental health and safety research
strategy that outlines federal priorities and agency responsibilities. In the international
arena, EPA provided U.S. and international leadership in 1) reviewing the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) harmonized test guidelines for their
applicability to nanomaterials, and 2) designing and implementing an Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development program to test 14 representative nanomaterial
types.
• New Technology Leads to Cost Savings of More Than $1 Million. EPA developed and
tested a new, more cost effective technology to treat ground water contaminated with
hexavalent chromium, a chemical that is known to cause ulcers, rashes, respiratory
problems and cancer. EPA successfully implemented a full-scale version of the new
technology at the former Macalloy Corporation Superfund site in Charleston, South Carolina,
resulting in risk reduction and taxpayer savings of more than $1 million.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 23
-------
Challenges
• Measuring and quantifying the impact that EPA's research has on national and state
regulatory decisions is a difficult challenge. The Agency has initiated surveys and
developed a software tool and analytical methodology for assessing the percentage and
type of research products being used in regulatory or rule-making decisions. Using these
tools, EPA can better assess and improve the use and delivery of its science.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 24
-------
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.
In 2008, EPA completed a thorough reassessment of all food pesticides, „ . . ,v onno
... ' , . ,,. , ,- , _, . - ,. ,. r ,- -. . Goal 4 FY 2008
setting the most health protective standards in the world for pesticides and Performance Measures
food safety. In addition, the Agency helped increase wetlands by 32,000 Met = 50 Not Met = 20
acres, provide wastewater sanitation for 15,000 houses along the U.S.- Data Available After
Mexico border, and reached its research goal of providing tools and models November 17,2008 = 22
to document the condition of lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, and estuaries
in all 50 States. (Total Measures = 92)
Objective 1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Key Achievements
• Chemical Assessment and Management Program. Launched in March 2008, the
Chemical Assessment and Management Program uses industry-provided data to create risk
and hazard-based prioritizations to assess whether high- and moderate-production volume
chemicals produced in the United States pose risks to human health and the environment.
In FY 2008, the Agency completed 150 risk-based prioritizations and 55 hazard-based
prioritizations are on track to be completed in early FY 2009.
• Reducing Exposure to Lead-Based Paint. In March 2008, EPA issued the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Rule, which requires renovation contractors to receive training and to
use lead-safe work practices when renovating housing and child-occupied facilities built
prior to 1978.
• Reevaluating Risks of Older Pesticides. In FY 2008, EPA completed its last pesticide
"Reregistration Eligibility Decision" under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, the federal law regulating pesticides. Under this multi-year effort, the
Agency identified a wide range of potential risks to human health and the environment
posed by older pesticides still on the market and developed plans to address the risks,
including reducing workers' exposure to pesticides and eliminating pesticides in urban
watersheds.
• Reducing Perfluorooctanoic Acid Levels. In February 2008, EPA released the first
progress report from its Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Stewardship Initiative.
Perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical used in many products including Teflon and microwave
popcorn bags, has been shown to be extremely persistent in the environment and may have
adverse effects in humans. All participating companies reported some reductions in product
content and emissions, while three of eight companies reported reductions in emissions of
Perfluorooctanoic acid and related chemicals by more than 98 percent. With this Initiative,
industry is on target to meet a 95-percent reduction in perfluorooctanoic acid emissions and
product content by 2010.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 25
-------
• Tests for Hormone-Altering Effects in Chemicals. In FY 2008, EPA made significant
progress in its Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program, validating nine additional tests and
completing a peer review by EPA's Science Advisory Board, which recommended that the
test battery be used. Research has shown that chemical contaminants affect the endocrine
systems of certain fish and wildlife, resulting in developmental and reproductive problems.
Challenges
• The Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program continues to experience scientific
uncertainties associated with test development and validation. Also, EPA required
additional time to address complex regulatory, policy, and scientific issues raised during
extended public comment periods on the endocrine program before it can begin the testing
phase.
• EPA's chemical risk assessment and management capabilities are being severely
challenged to meet President Bush's commitment under the "Security and Prosperity
Partnership for North America," to assess the safety of 6,300 high- and moderate-volume
chemicals and initiate risk management actions where needed by 2012. EPA has been
successful in meeting its FY 2008 assessment targets. The Agency is expected to
accelerate the pace of assessment in upcoming years to ensure that it meet Security and
Prosperity Partnership commitments.
Objective 2 - Communities
Key Achievements
• Revitalize Brownfields Properties. FY 2007 results for EPA's Brownfields and Land
Revitalization Program show that 1,371 properties were assessed, and 77 properties were
cleaned up, leveraging 5,209 jobs and $1.7 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. In
addition, 2,399 acres were made ready for reuse through site assessment or property
cleanup. FY 2008 results will be available in FY 2009.
• Drinking Water and Wastewater Services Along the U.S.-Mexico Border. In FY 2008,
5,162 homes, out of 98,515 (2003 baseline), that lacked potable water service connections
in the U.S.-Mexico border region were provided connections to drinking water systems, and
31,686 homes, out of 690,723 (2003 baseline), that lacked wastewater service connections
received wastewater services. In addition, construction was certified for 3 water and
wastewater infrastructure projects in the region, which are expected to benefit more than
133,818 people when completed.
• New International Recycling Initiative. In May 2008, EPA's Administrator led a U.S.
delegation to the meeting of G8 Environment Ministers in Kobe, Japan. In recent years,
global environmental issues such as climate change have become major international
political issues. Ministers and senior officials from 19 countries including the G8 (The Group
of Eight highly industrialized countries) and representatives of eight international
environment-related organizations participated in the meeting. Intensive discussions were
held on climate change, biodiversity, and the "reduce, reuse, recycle" concept. The "Kobe
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Action Plan," established at the meeting, directs G8 countries to
place high priority on policies to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 26
-------
Objective 3 - Ecosystems
Key Achievements
• Remediating Contamination in the Great Lakes. In 2007 (the most recent year for which
EPA has data), approximately 973,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments were
remediated in the Great Lakes by EPA and its partners. This includes 450,000 cubic yards
pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act. FY 2008 results will be available in the fall of 2009
• Reducing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Great Lakes. At measured sites in the
Great Lakes, average concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in whole lake trout and
walleye samples continued to decline by approximately 6 percent annually, and the average
concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in the air continued to decline by approximately
7 percent annually, meeting the Agency's FY 2008 targets.
• Protecting Mississippi Wetlands. On August 31, 2008, EPA signed the Final
Determination prohibiting the Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project to protect at least
67,000 acres of some of the richest wetland and aquatic resources in the nation, which
serves as critical fish and wildlife habitat. EPA determined that the proposed project would
result in unacceptable damage to this valuable fish and wildlife habitat and its
environmental, economic, and recreational implications. This marks EPA's twelfth use of the
section 404(c) wetlands permitting Clean Water Act authority.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
ACRES RESTORED/PROTECTED/
ENHANCED FY 2000-2008
I
Restoring Gulf of Mexico Habitat. In FY 2008,
EPA's regional offices and industry partners
coordinated efforts of more than 72 organizations to
restore a total of 25,215 acres of coastal and marine
habitat in the Gulf of Mexico, significantly exceeding
EPA's FY 2008 goal of 18,200 acres.
Reducing Nitrogen Pollution in Long Island Sound.
Based on 2007 results available in FY 2008, EPA has
reduced point source nitrogen pollution in Long Island Sound by 27 percent since 1999. As
a result, at least 28 fewer tons of nitrogen are entering the sound per day, improving water
quality for living marine resources.
Improving Drinking Water in Pacific Island Territories. As of June 30, 2008, 78 percent
of the Pacific Island territory population served by community water systems received
drinking water meeting all applicable health-based drinking water standards, improving from
a low of about 39 percent in 2003. As a result of work conducted over the past 5 years, in
FY 2008, 100 percent of Guam's population served by community water systems received
water that meets drinking water standards for the first time.
Upgrading Florida Keys Wastewater Infrastructure. Monroe County and other local
governments continue to make significant progress in upgrading inadequate wastewater
infrastructure in the Florida Keys. As of June 2008, about 30,748 Monroe County
households (41 percent of the total) were connected to wastewater management systems
that meet state treatment requirements. This number has increased dramatically every year
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
27
-------
since 2000, when only 250 households were connected to systems meeting state
requirements.
• Improving Wetlands in Columbia River Basin. In the Lower Columbia River Basin,
12,986 acres of wetland and upland habitat have been protected, enhanced, or restored,
exceeding the Agency's 2008 target of 3,000 acres.
Challenges
• Weather, water temperatures, and the ability to accelerate reduction of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sediment pollution loads to the Chesapeake Bay between now and 2010
will determine EPA's success in meeting its long-range strategic target for acres of
submerged aquatic vegetation. Based on FY 2007 monitoring results available in FY 2008,
the Agency had achieved 35 percent of the long-term goal of 185,000 acres of submerged
aquatic vegetation, and it has set a challenging target of 45 percent by 2011. Monitoring
results for FY 2008 will be available in March 2009.
• Population growth, land use, and other factors have affected progress in reducing nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sediment pollution loads entering the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the
efforts of EPA, states, and other Chesapeake Bay Program partners, pollution reduction
strategies have not improved water quality conditions nor restored submerged aquatic
vegetation to the extent envisioned. Although Chesapeake Bay Program partners have
achieved reductions in nutrient loads from wastewater treatment facilities, loads from urban
sector runoff (stormwater) continue to increase. Over the next year, EPA will be working with
its partners to implement and enforce nutrient permit limits for wastewater treatment facilities
and support environmentally sound development.
Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• Models Forecasting Human Toxicity of Chemicals. During FY 2008, EPA completed the
first phase of ToxCast™, a research program that builds computational models to forecast
the potential human toxicity of chemicals. These hazard predictions will provide EPA
regulatory programs with scientific information to help prioritize chemicals for more detailed
toxicological evaluations and lead to more efficient use of animal testing. In 2008, EPA
profiled 320 chemicals, primarily pesticides.
• New Process for Developing Human Health Assessments. In FY 2008, EPA announced
a new process for developing human health assessments that are included in the Agency's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database that captures the
potential human health effects of specific substances in the environment. EPA released 16
draft and 5 final assessments in FY 2008, and the new process should increase the number
of assessments completed in future years. EPA is finalizing a performance measure that will
track progress in implementing the new process starting in FY 2009.
• Ecological Research Program. In 2008, EPA's Ecological Research Program reached its
goal of providing tools and models to document the condition of lakes, streams, rivers,
wetlands, and estuaries in all 50 states. In addition, the program transitioned to helping
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 28
-------
environmental managers understand how their choices affect the type, quality, and
magnitude of the goods and services society receives from ecosystems.
• Human Health Research. In FY 2008, EPA's Human Health Research Program furthered
the Agency's understanding of how exposures to environmental pollutants can impact
human health. This research is providing scientists new tools for measuring human
exposures and EPA regulators and risk assessors new useful information about how
chemicals like flame retardants and pesticides (conazoles and pyrethroids) act in the body.
In addition, EPA released a summary of research findings, A Decade of Children's Health
Research, based on more than 100 research projects conducted in the Children's
Environmental Health Centers. This report highlights 10 years of research on how
exposures vary for newborn to school-age children and how responses can be based on
genetics.
• Global Change Research. EPA's Global Change Research Program continues to assess
the potential impacts of climate change and climate variability on the United States and to
evaluate alternative adaptation strategies. In support of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, EPA completed two major assessments: Preliminary Review of Adaptation
Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources and Analyses of the Effects of
Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems.
• Homeland Security Research. In FY 2008, researchers examined the persistence of
contaminants on surfaces if left untreated, as well as the impacts of two decontamination
technologies—vaporized hydrogen peroxide and chlorine dioxide—on the integrity of
common building materials.
Challenges
• Measuring and improving the efficiency of research is a difficult challenge faced by all
research agencies and organizations. EPA engaged the National Academy of Sciences and
other agencies in a dialogue on this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences released
a report in 2008. EPA is now implementing the National Academy of Sciences
recommendations for assessing both "investment" and "process" efficiency in EPA's
research. The National Academy of Sciences study recommended that federal research
programs evaluate both "investment" and "process" efficiency and that process efficiency
measures should be a minor component of a broader suite of research evaluation tools. The
study further recommends the use of expert-review panels for evaluating investment
efficiency of research and development programs. To implement these recommendations,
EPA is examining its process efficiency measures, which focus on inputs relative to outputs.
EPA is also working with its existing expert review panel to incorporate investment efficiency
into the broader performance reviews that assess the quality, relevance, and performance of
EPA's research programs.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 29
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting
environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for government,
business, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long term sustainable
outcomes.
Goal 5 FY 2008
In 2008, EPA took enforcement actions to secure commitments from Performance Measures
polluters to spend an estimated $11.8 billion on pollution control activities. Met = ] ° Not Met = 3
These pollution control activities will result in an estimated 3.9 billion Data Available After
pounds of pollution reductions. This year's historic and tremendous November 17,2008 - 5
reductions exceed those for the last three years combined. ,Totai Measures = 18i
Objective 1 -Achieve Environmental Protection Through Improved Compliance
Key Achievements
• Reducing, Treating, and Eliminating Pollutants. In FY 2008, under EPA's environmental
compliance programs, EPA negotiated commitments in enforcement settlements for an
estimated 3.9 billion pounds of pollutants to be reduced, treated or eliminated in the first
year after pollution controls are installed. This is 3.01 billion pounds more than the 890
million pounds estimated to be reduced in FY 2007.2
• Investments in Pollution Control Technology. In FY 2008, in compliance with EPA
requirements, regulated entities committed to invest a total of $11.8 billion in pollution
control and abatement equipment and technologies to improve their environmental
performance or environmental management practices.3
• Commitments to Reduce Harmful Air Pollutants. The 10 largest stationary source air
enforcement cases will result in estimated commitments to reduce approximately 1.5 billion
pounds of harmful air pollutants in the first year after pollution controls are installed, with
human health benefits estimated to be $34 billion. Estimated health benefits include:
o Reducing approximately 4,000 premature deaths in people with heart or lung disease;
o 200,000 fewer days of missed work or school; and
o 2,000 fewer emergency room visits due to respiratory illnesses such as asthma.4
Challenges
• Under its national compliance and enforcement program, EPA is revising its approach to
setting priorities and measuring results to align performance measures more closely to key
environmental risks and patterns of noncompliance. EPA's new approach focuses on the
environmental problems solved using enforcement and compliance actions. Work is
continuing on refining the suite of measures and developing baselines and targets.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 30
-------
Objective 2 - Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and
Other Stewardship Practices
Key Achievements
• Eliminating Priority Chemicals. EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities,
which comprises a variety of public and private companies and organizations that generate
wastes containing one or more priority chemicals, greatly exceeded the Agency's FY 2008
goal of eliminating 1 million pounds of these chemicals by achieving a 5.7 million pound
reduction of chemicals.
• Preventing Pollution and Conserving Energy. Results from EPA's FY 2007 Regional
Pollution Prevention Grant Program, finalized this year, show that together grantees
reduced 66 million pounds of pollutants, conserved 1.5 billion gallons of water, conserved
2,100 billion British thermal units (Btus) of energy, and saved $38.5 million.
• State Pollution Prevention Programs. In FY 2008, EPA worked with the National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable to compile FY 2004 through FY 2006 performance results from state
pollution prevention programs. These data show that the pollution prevention community
reduced 7.6 billion pounds of waste, while saving 4,800 billion British thermal units of
energy, 4.1 billion gallons of water, and $6.4 billion.
• Environmentally Sound Computers. EPA's Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool Program, which assists institutions purchasing electronics in selecting environmentally
sound computer products, helped conserve 3,292 billion British thermal units of electricity
and save $83.6 million in energy costs in FY 2007. During FY 2008, the program initiated
efforts to develop similar voluntary consensus standards for televisions and other electronic
products.
Challenges
• In FY 2008, EPA's Pollution Prevention Program sought advice from the Agency's Science
Advisory Board on how to measure environmental outcomes produced over multiple years.
Observing that the program has taken a conservative approach to measurement and
consequently under-reports its results, the board offered a number of suggestions for
improving measures. EPA is pursuing these improvements to better communicate program
performance and impact to the public.
Objective 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Key Achievements
• More Tribal Program Participants. In FY 2008, the number of tribal governments and
inter-tribal groups participating in EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
increased. As a result, more tribes are now building infrastructure to handle a variety of core
environmental issues on tribal lands.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 31
-------
Challenges
• Tracking performance and results in Indian Country continues to present challenges. EPA
is working with tribes to improve performance measures and to implement GAP Online, an
electronic work plan development and reporting system. By enabling the Agency to
standardize, centralize, and integrate regional data and to assign accountability for program
performance, the system will strengthen EPA's ability to monitor and evaluate performance
results in Indian Country and improve environmental protection on tribal lands.
Objective 4 - Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability Through Science and
Research
Key Achievements
• Biofuels Strategy. In FY 2008, EPA developed the Draft EPA Biofuels Strategy to promote
policies and practices that can lead to the sustainable production of biofuels. The energy
efficiency and environmental soundness of the country's biofuels system determines the
degree to which biofuels reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Also, the Agency supported 14 new
biofuel-related research projects and is working with other federal agencies to define a set of
criteria and indicators for sustainable biofuel production.
• Advancing Sustainability. EPA's People, Prosperity, and the Planet Program held its
fourth annual student design competition for Sustainability in 2008. Winning designs
included technology to produce plastic from wastewater, a laboratory to produce biodiesel
from a cafeteria's vegetable oil waste, and a hand-held water sanitizer for disinfecting
drinking water in households of poor communities around the world. EPA supported these
finalists with grant funding to bring the designs to market.
Challenges
• Measuring the results of the Office of Research and Development's efforts to encourage
decision-makers to incorporate Sustainability principles into human health and
environmental decisions is a difficult challenge. EPA has developed new measurement
tools to better gauge the annual and long-term success of its Science and Technology for
Sustainability Research Program.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 32
-------
3. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION
EPA's Sound Financial Management: Good for the Environment, Good for the Nation
EPA continues to protect the environment with the support of strong financial management:
The accomplishments described in this section demonstrate that EPA adheres to the highest
standards for financial management.
• Clean Audit Opinion. For the 9th consecutive year, the Agency's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) issued an unqualified or "clean" opinion on EPA's financial statements. This means
that the auditors can provide reasonable assurance that EPA's financial statements are
presented fairly in all material respects and conform with generally accepted accounting
principles for the federal government. In simple terms, a clean opinion means that the
numbers are reliable.
• Compliance With Federal Financial Systems Requirements. The Agency is compliant with
the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act, meaning that EPA's financial systems
comply substantially with federal systems' requirements and accounting standards. EPA
uses the reliable and timely information in its financial system to make wise decisions on
how to use its resources.
• President's Quality Award. In December 2007, EPA received the President's Quality Award
for Management Excellence. Sound financial management was one of several criteria for
the award. Of 54 federal agencies that applied for the award, EPA was the only winner in
Overall Management, the highest tier of recognition.
In addition to the signs of excellence noted above, the Agency maintained its "green" rating for
the Improved Financial Performance initiative under the President's Management Agenda
through its many significant achievements in FY 2008, a few of which are highlighted as follows:
• EPA successfully converted to the Department of the Treasury's new accounting system
and eliminated one-third of the business processes to improve data accuracy.
• The Agency implemented an event-driven control that flags the 170,000 changes made to
EPA vendor information. This control protects the security of personal information in EPA
systems.
• Through its data integration effort, EPA linked the Federal Emergency Management
Agency/EPA national response framework with utilization information so that costs are now
available on-line in real time to Agency managers and decision makers on the frontlines
during an emergency event.
• EPA's Working Capital Fund (WCF) met its break-even goal, with a profit of $704,000 or .3
percent of its revenue, validating the accuracy of service rates charged to customers. In
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 33
-------
addition, the WCF was able to refund $250,000 to its customers through prudent fiscal
management.
• The Agency strengthened its financial data security by reducing access to personal
information by 75 percent and realigning security rights by 94 percent.
• EPA maximized use of assets through judicious investment of Superfund and Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund monies, earning nearly $242 million in interest
during FY 2008.
• EPA's checkbook is balanced—the general ledger matches the fund balance records
maintained by the Department of the Treasury. This match translates to greater integrity of
financial reports and budget results.
• EPA paid 99 percent of its invoices on time and avoided late payment penalties. Its
improper payment rate was less than 1 percent, which means that the right amount was
paid to the right recipient in nearly every instance.
• The EPA Administrator asserted under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act that the
Agency's internal controls are adequate and provide reasonable protection for EPA's
programs and operations from waste, fraud, and abuse.
EPA's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2008
EPA's Balance Sheet and Statement of Net Cost Highlight EPA's Overall Financial
Condition
Financial statements are formal financial records of the Agency that document its activities at
the transaction level. The transaction level is where a "financial event" occurs. A financial event
is any occurrence having financial consequences to the federal government related to the
receipt of appropriations or other financial resources; acquisition of goods or services; payments
or collections; recognition of guarantees, benefits to be provided, other potential liabilities; or
other reportable financial activities.
EPA prepares four consolidated statements: Balance Sheet, Statement of Net Cost, Statement
of Changes in Net Position, and the Statement of Custodial Activity and one combined
Statement of Budgetary Resources. Together, these statements with their accompanying notes
provide the complete picture of EPA's financial situation. Reviewers can glean a snapshot of
EPA's overall financial condition by examining key pieces of information from these statements.
The complete statements with accompanying notes, as well as the auditor's opinion, are
available in Section III of this document.
The Balance Sheet displays assets, liabilities, and net position as of September 30, 2008, and
September 30, 2007. The Statement of Net Cost shows EPA's gross cost to operate, minus
exchange revenue earned from its activities. Together, these two statements provide
information about key components of EPA's financial condition—assets, liabilities, net position,
and net cost of operations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 34
-------
(Dollars in Billions)
Total Assets
Total Liabilities
Net Position
Net Cost of
Operations
FY 2007
$17,554,689
$1,755,298
$15,799,391
$8,713,206
FY 2008
$17,106,998
$1,664,042
$15,442,956
$8,041,210
Increase
(Decrease)
($447,691)
($91 ,256)
($356,435)
($671,996)
Accounting 101
Assets—What EPA owns and manages
Liabilities—Amounts EPA owes as a
result of past transactions or events
Net position—The difference between
assets and liabilities (similar to net worth)
Net cost of operations—The difference
between the costs incurred by EPA
programs and EPA's receipts
Assets—What EPA Owns and Manages
EPA's assets were worth $17.1 billion at the end of
FY 2008. More than 92 percent of EPA's assets fell
into two categories: 1) its Fund balance with the
Department of the Treasury, the equivalent of the
Agency's "checkbook" balance available to pay
expenses, and 2) investments, which will be used to
pay for future Superfund or leaking underground
storage tank cleanups. All of EPA's investments are
backed by U.S. government securities.
•in
8.
4.
n .
— I
— I
D Fund Balance with Treasury
• Investments
DAM other
2008
2007
Figure 1 (Dollars in Billions)
Liabilities—What EPA Owes
EPA's liabilities were $1.7 billion at the end of FY 2008, a decrease of $91 million from the FY
2007 level. EPA's largest liability, its combined accounts payable and accrued liabilities,
includes $794 million and represents 48 percent of what the Agency owes. The next largest
category, representing 18 percent of EPA's liabilities, covers other liabilities and includes EPA's
debt due to Treasury, custodial liabilities which are necessary to maintain assets for which EPA
serves as custodian, environmental clean up costs, and other miscellaneous liabilities. The
remaining two categories are approximately equal and each represents 17 percent of the
Agency's liabilities. Payroll and benefits payable includes salaries, pensions, and other
actuarial liabilities. Superfund cashout advances include funds paid by EPA to fund cleanup of
contaminated sites under the Superfund program. The charts below compare FY 2007 and FY
2008 liabilities by major categories.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
35
-------
FY 2008 (Current Year)
D $305,589, 18%
D $277,573, 17%
• $286,630,17%
D $285,838, 16%
D $244,984, 14%
] $190,269, 11%
D $794,250, 48%
FY 2007 (Prior Year)
D $1,034,207, 59%
D Accounts Payable and
Accrued Liabilities
• Cashout Advances, Superfund
(Prepaid clean up
investments)
D Payroll and Benefits Payable
Pensions and Other Actuarial
Liabilities
D Other Liabilities
D Accounts Payable and
Accrued Liabilities
• Cashout Advances,
Superfund (Prepaid clean
up investments)
D Payroll and Benefits
Payable Pensions and
Other Actuarial Liabilities
D Other Liabilities
Net Cost of Operations—How EPA Used Its Funds
The chart below shows how EPA divided its funds among its five program goal areas in FY
2008:
Compliance,
762,888 (10%)
Comm & ECO ,
1,346,414
(17%)
Land ,
1,467,332
(18%)
FY 2008
Air, $977,400
(12%)
Water,
3,487,176
(43%)
D Air
• Water
D Land
D Comm & ECO
• Compliance
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
36
-------
Responsible Financial Stewardship for the Nation
EPA serves as a steward on behalf of the American people for land, research and development,
infrastructure, and human capital. In FY 2008, EPA devoted $3.4 billion to its stewardship
activities, as shown in the pie chart below.
Infrastructure efforts focus on
clean water and drinking water
facilities. EPA funds construction
of wastewater treatment projects
and provides grants to states to
support wastewater and drinking
water treatment facilities. EPA
devoted nearly $2.7 billion to
projects to ensure that Americans
have clean, safe water to drink,
which translates to less than $9
per American. That amount of
money would buy two cases of
bottled water in a grocery store.
Stewardship Numbers
Dollars in thousands
• $1,956
n $700,853 0%
20%
$47,443
1%
• $2,676,188
78%
Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
• Research and development activities enable EPA to identify the most important sources of
risk to human health and the environment. For an annual cost of approximately $2.31 per
American—about the price of a large cup of gourmet coffee—EPA funds research into the
environmental effects on children's health, contaminants in drinking water, air pollutants, the
nation's ecosystems, and other areas that directly affect the quality of Americans' daily lives.
• Human capital includes EPA's educational outreach and research fellowships, all designed
to enhance the nation's environmental capacity.
• Land includes contaminated sites to which EPA acquires title under the Superfund authority.
This land needs remediation and cleanup; its quality is well below any standard for usable
and manageable. To gain access to contaminated sites, EPA acquires easements that are
in good and usable condition. These easements also serve to isolate the site and restrict
usage while the cleanup is taking place.
Financial Management for the Future
As challenges to the environment grow, sound stewardship of EPA's financial resources
becomes increasingly critical to the Agency's ability to protect the nation's and the world's
environment and health. Reliable, accurate, and timely financial information is essential to
inform decisions on how to address the issues facing land, water, air, and ecosystems.
To strengthen EPA's financial stewardship capabilities, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
has focused on the fundamental elements of financial management: people and systems.
People: EPA is taking advantage of every available tool to recruit the best people with the
necessary skill sets to meet tomorrow's financial challenges:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
37
-------
• EPA is training its people in financial analysis and forecasting, not just process. Not only is
it important for staff to understand the numbers, but they need to understand what they
mean. EPA is integrating financial information into everyday decision-making so that the
Agency maximizes the use of its resources.
• EPA is aggressively recruiting financial managers and accounting students through the
Student Career Experience Program. New recruits are technologically savvy and utilize
modern tools to drive financial decisions.
• EPA's financial management team encourages and supports telework, providing benefits to
the employees, the Agency and the environment.
EPA is proud of its diverse financial workforce—half of the staff and half of the management
represent minority groups.
Systems: EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) has served the Agency well
for 19 years, but it cannot take advantage of new technology. EPA's new system, CGI
Momentum, will begin operation in October 2010. Extensive testing and training are taking
place to ensure that the new system works properly and that an orderly transition occurs.
Government-Wide Financial Performance Measurements
The U.S. Chief Financial Officers Council publishes Government-wide performance measures
on the "Metric Tracking System" (MTS) website http://www.fido.gov/mts/cfo/public. These
measures are a series of key financial management indicators that allow government financial
managers, Congress, and other stakeholders to assess the financial performance of each
agency.
During FY 2008, the Agency has maintained its green status in 8 of the 9 performance metrics.
The red rating on the Delinquent Accounts Receivable from the Public over 180 Days metric
continues to be a long-standing issue, which EPA is working both internally and externally to
improve. For example, improvement is being realized through litigation debt collections made by
the Department of Justice on EPA's behalf.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE METRICS
Financial Management Indicator
Fund Balance with Treasury, Net
Amount in Suspense (Absolute) Greater than 60 Days Old
Electronic Payments
Percent Non-Credit Invoices Paid On-Time
Interest Penalties Paid
Purchase Card Delinquency Rates
Travel Card Delinquency Rates-lndividually Billed
Travel Card Delinquency Rates-Centrally Billed
Delinquent Accounts Receivable from the Public over 1 80 Days
Rating
•
O
Rating
•
o
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
38
-------
Limitations of the Principal Financial Statements
The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and
results of operations of EPA, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515 (b). While the
statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for federal entities and the formats
prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, the statements are in addition to the
financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources that are prepared from the
same books and records. The statements are for a component of the U.S. government, a
sovereign entity.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 39
-------
4. IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS
The President's Management Agenda
The President's Management Agenda challenges federal agencies to be "citizen-centered,
results-oriented, and market-based" (www.whitehouse.gov/results). In FY 2008, EPA achieved
successful "green" progress and status ratings every quarter for all five government-wide
initiatives, Human Capital, Commercial Services Management, Expanded E-Government,
Improved Financial Performance, and Performance Improvement, and for a sixth program
initiative, Eliminating Improper Payments. EPA's scores demonstrate that the Agency is among
the highest-performing entities in the federal government. Additionally, EPA establishes
quarterly commitments a year in advance and has met its goal of "green" in FY 2008.
The following table summarizes EPA's FY 2008 progress under the President's Management
Agenda. More information about the Agency's work under the President's Management Agenda
is available at www.epa.gov/ocfo/pma.htm.
EPA's FY2008 Progress Under the President's Management Agenda
Initiative
Human Capital
Fosters strong
performance and
results by improving
human capital
management,
accountability, and
linkage between
employee
performance and
EPA goals and
mission
accomplishment.
Status
Green
Progress
Green
Proud To
BeOS
Results/
09 Plans
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
Highlights
• Initiated effort to consolidate from 15 to three Human Resources
Shared Service Centers. Anticipated completion by December 2009.
• Aligned General Service (GS) and Senior Executive Service (SES)
Performance Appraisal and Recognition System cycles and
continued to improve linkage of employees' performance plans to
mission success.
• Continued implementing SES mobility and Candidate Development
Programs and expanded Supervisory Leadership Program to
improve leadership development across the Agency.
• Exceeded SES time-to-hire target of 73 days, with an average hiring
time of 66 days.
• Exceeded the 45-day time-to-hire goal for GS hires averaging 27
days and notified more than 70 percent of all applicants of their
results within 45 days.
• Continued expansion of competency assessments for EPA's seventh
of 19 Mission Critical Occupations resulting in no significant
proficiency gaps.
• Developed new EPA recruitment strategy for targeting a diverse
applicant pool with non-traditional approaches to attract new hires.
• Implemented multiple human capital initiatives under the
Administrator's Stronger EPA initiative to improve employee
recruitment, development, and morale.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa.ciov.
40
-------
Initiative
Commercial
Services
Management
Having public-private
competition enables
the Agency to
determine the most
economical mode of
delivering services
while ensuring the
highest quality of
those services.
Expanded E-
Government
Utilizes technology
to better serve the
United States and its
people including
electronic
information, online
transactions, and
new information
management
capabilities.
Improved Financial
Performance
Focuses on running
environmental
programs in a
fiscally responsible
manner so citizens'
dollars are used
wisely and their
health and
environment are
protected.
Status
3
Green
3
Green
^_^^
r ^
\^ j
Green
Progress
O
Green
o
Green
^_^^
M ^
\^ J
Green
Proud To
BeOS
Results/
09 Plans
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
Highlights
• Completed 37 competitions to date, covering 351 FTE, with
anticipated cost avoidance of $138.4 million.
• Completed three competitions in FY 2008, covering 62 FTE, with
$1 15.4 million anticipated cost avoidance.
• Announced one competition in the past year, covering 6.27 FTE, for
records management services in the Office of the Administrator.
• In March 2008, announced selection of the Agency's Most Efficient
Organization in its largest and most complex standard competition to
date for 47 FTE. Will provide desktop support services in all
Headquarters offices, including remote locations, with $115.4 million
in anticipated cost avoidance over an eight-year period.
• E-Travel: In September 2008, successfully completed migration to
GovTrip, meeting the E-Travel milestones ahead of schedule.
• IT Security: Received an A+ rating on the Congressional Computer
Security Scorecard based on the Agency's 2007 Federal Information
Security Management Act Report.
• E-Rulemaking: As of September 2008, www.Regulations.gov
received over 600,000 comments on federal rulemakings and more
than 200 million hits, demonstrating public reliance on this single
portal to view and comment on proposed rulemakings and public
notices. This EPA-managed system now accounts for more than 90
percent of all the federal rulemakings.
• Successfully implemented efforts to make financial information
readily accessible to decision-makers administering and overseeing
grants. Integrated reports contributed to a 10-percent reduction in
unliquidated obligations in expired grants.
• Developed and tested a framework to integrate financial and
contracts reporting. Reports that combine financial and contracts
data are now available to contract managers to help them address
issues relating to the utilization of contract funds and the evaluation
of obligations and unliquidated balances.
• Tested and deployed reports that provide improved tracking of the
cost of Nationally Significant Incidents; continued developing
guidance and procedures for tracking these costs; and developed a
new online log to improve management of the purchase card process
during emergency response events.
• Met interim and annual financial statements deadlines.
• Increased awareness of the importance of internal controls by
launching Agency online awareness training completed by more than
3,400 employees to date.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa.ciov.
41
-------
Initiative
Performance
Improvement
Contributes to better
EPA performance,
measurement and
management,
increased
accountability, more
informed decision-
making, and more
transparent reporting
of environmental and
human health results
to the public.
Eliminating
Improper
Payments1
Focuses on
identifying,
preventing, and
pliminptinn
dll I Ml IOLM IU
erroneous
payments.
Status
3
Green
^_^^
o
Green
Progress
€
Green
^_^^
O
Green
Proud To
BeOS
Results/
09 Plans
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
EPA met
its goal of
green in its
5th year of
Proud To
Be
EPA has
set a goal
of green
next year
Highlights
• Inaugurated EPA's Performance Management Council, providing
the Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrators and Deputy Regional
Administrators a forum to discuss performance issues and best
practices, and advance EPA's vision for performance management.
• Developed and implemented an EPA Action Plan for Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, endorsed by the Office of
Management and Budget, that leveraged ongoing strategic and
annual planning and reflected measure improvements.
• Reduced measures by 9 percent and improved alignment, as a
result of the new Office of the Chief Financial Officer-led Agency
Performance Management Workgroup's involvement in annual
measures review.
• Completed Measures Central, a central repository of EPA
performance measurement information, and strengthened measures
governance, realizing the Deputy Administrator's goal of improving
the Agency's access to, analysis of, and use of measures to
manage.
• As a result of EPA's ability to demonstrate that its internal controls
regarding improper payments are adequate, the Office of
Management and Budget granted the Agency a three-year relief (FY
2006 -FY 2009) from statistical sampling of payments in the two state
revolving funds.
Additional reporting details required by IPIA are
provided in Section IV of this Performance and Accountability Report.
• Continued monitoring payment activities under a three-year relief
from the sampling requirements on payments in the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
• Continued to show a low incidence of improper payments (<0.1
percent).
EPA's Improper Payment Reduction Effort
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
Fiscal
Year
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Target
Error Rate
Baseline
0.49%
0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
0.30%
Actual
Error
Rate
0.51%
0.47%
0.13%
0.18%
0.07%
0.39%
Actual Improper
Payments
(dollars in millions)
$12.4
$10.3
$3.0
$3.5
$1.6
$8.3
The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 requires the Agency to annually review all programs and activities
that it administers and identify all such programs and activities susceptible to significant improper payments.
Significant improper payments are annual payments in the program exceeding both 2.5 percent of the program
payments and $10 million.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
42
-------
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
Distribution of PARJed Programs
Across EPA's Strategic Goals
Goal 5,
Compliance/
Stewardship: 6
Enabling Support
Programs: I
EPA uses Program Assessment Rating Tool assessments,
along with program evaluations, audits, and other reviews,
to inform policymaking, facilitate allocation of resources,
and improve environmental outcomes while ensuring the
most effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In FY
2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for
Program Assessment Rating Tool measures that
leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures
and results provided in Section II of this report,
"Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment
Rating Tool measures, which make up over 2/3 of EPA's
performance measures. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget
and other documents, including future Performance and Accountability Reports.
EPA's Program Assessment Rating Tool ratings, as well as the ratings for other federal
programs that have been assessed, are available at www.Expectmore.gov. As of FY 2008,
EPA developed 245 improvements for the Program Assessment Rating Tool measures, and 80
of these improvements have already been made. EPA is currently working on an additional 156
improvements.
EPA PART Improvement Plans
Type of Improvement
Plans
Performance
Management
Budgetary
Legislative
Number
105
109
30
1
Focus
Focused on improving the Agency's ability to measure,
track, and assess programmatic performance and
intended environmental outcomes.
Designed to improve EPA's program management
practices and facilitate the delivery of environmental
results.
Designed to ensure that EPA's resources are directed
toward delivering strong environmental results.
Designed to affect EPA programs' legislative
requirements so that the program purpose is clear and
environmental outcomes can be achieved.
Grants Management
EPA has met or exceeded all of the major performance
metrics under its Grants Management Plan and
implemented a comprehensive system of internal controls.
As a result of these controls, the Agency has:
EPA met or exceeded all of the
major performance metrics
under its Grants Management
Plan
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
43
-------
• Enhanced transparency through the Agency's competitive process for discretionary grants.
• Implemented policies to demonstrate the environmental results of EPA grants.
Based on the substantial progress made over the past seven years, the Agency eliminated its
longstanding grants management weakness and, to address future challenges, has developed a
new grants strategic plan covering the period 2009-2013.
EPA Grants Management Performance Measures
Performance Measure
Percentage of grants managed by
certified project officers
Percentage of new grants subject to
the competition order that are
competed
Percentage of new grants to nonprofit
recipients subject to the competition
order that are competed
* Percentage of active recipients who
receive advanced monitoring
Percentage of advanced monitoring
reports closed within 120 days
Percentage of eligible grants closed
out
** Percentage of grant workplans that
include well-defined environmental
outcomes
Target
100%
85%
75%
10%
90%
99%
90%
N/A
Progress in FY 2007
99.7%
94.7%
89.3%
10.6%
93.4%
99.6% in 2005 and earlier
95.8% in 2006
61%
Progress in FY 2008
99.7%
95%
87.5%
10.4%
97.9%
99.7% in 2006 and earlier
95.5% in 2007
66.4%
* This performance measure is tracked on a calendar year basis.
** The first phase of a two-phase Comprehensive Performance Review was completed in May 2008. The first phase
evaluated the consistency of grants work plans with the Environmental Results Order. A random sample of grant
work plans was reviewed to determine how well they identified outputs and outcomes. The review found that 66.4
percent of the work plans were consistent with the order. OGD is establishing a work group to address
recommendations in the Comprehensive Performance Review for improving work plans and, under the new Grants
Management Plan, has established follow-on metrics for FY 2010.
Office of Inspector General Audits, Reviews, and Investigations
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) contributes to the Agency's mission to improve human
health and environmental protection by assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of EPA's
program management and results; ensuring that Agency resources are used as intended; and
developing recommendations for improvements and cost savings. In FY 2008, the Office of
Inspector General identified key management challenges and internal control weaknesses and
provided recommendations accounting for more than $96 million in potential savings and
recoveries. Appendix A lists Office of Inspector General program evaluations and reviews
completed in FY 2008 in support of each of the Agency's five strategic goals.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
44
-------
EPA's Office of Inspector General also contributes to the integrity of and public confidence in
the Agency's programs and to the security of its resources by preventing and detecting possible
fraud, waste, and abuse and pursuing judicial and administrative remedies. For example, in
response to an Office of Inspector General recommendation concerning management of grant
funds for U.S.-Mexico border water projects, EPA is requiring completion of project and design
planning before awarding grant funds for construction of new facilities.
Data Quality
In July 2008, the Office of Management and Budget directed all agencies to update the data quality
information for all of their performance measures every two years. While EPA had already been updating
this information annually, the Agency went a step further—exploring more meaningful ways of presenting
data quality information to reveal trends and help identify and fill data gaps.
As a result of this work, throughout Section II of this report, "Performance Results," EPA has provided
examples of data quality information for certain measures. These examples, selected by EPA, display
current annual targets in the context of prior year performance results. The examples also display such
key information as methods of data collection, assumptions, and data limitations.
Estimated Millions of Pounds of Pollution Reduced Through Enforcement Action:
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
What This Shows:
The estimated number of pounds of pollution reduced through enforcement has been approximately one
billion pounds for the past four years, consistently exceeding target values for this measure. EPA
believes our progress in this area is a result of the focus on nine National Priority areas, selected for their
environmental significance and high noncompliance.
Source:
Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS FE&C is collected through the Case
Conclusion Data Sheet, which Agency staff began preparing after the conclusion of each civil, judicial and
administrative enforcement action. In FY 2008, The Criminal Enforcement Program also collected
information on pollution reductions on a separate case conclusion data form.
Data Limitations:
Pollutants reduced or eliminated reported in the Case Conclusion Data Sheet are projected estimates that
will result over a one year time period 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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
45
-------
5. EPA HOLDS ITSELF ACCOUNTABLE: SYSTEMS, CONTROLS, AND
LEGAL COMPLIANCE
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act requires agencies to conduct an annual
evaluation of their internal controls over programs and financial systems, and report the results
to the President and Congress. As part of this effort, agencies are required to report on the
effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, which includes safeguarding of assets
and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with the requirements of
Appendix A of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123.
The Administrator prepares an annual statement of assurance based on the Agency's self-
assessment of the adequacy of its internal controls over programmatic operations, financial
reporting, and financial systems. Each of EPA's national program and regional offices submits
an annual assurance letter attesting to the soundness of the internal controls within their
organizations. These assurance letters provide the basis for the Administrator's statement of
assurance, included under "Management Assurances" of this section.
In FY 2008, the Administrator issued an unqualified statement of assurance. During its FY 2008
evaluation, the Agency found no material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
controls over programmatic operations (Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act Section 2). A
material weakness is a condition that could significantly impair or threaten fulfillment of a major
Agency program, function, or activity and is significant enough to report to the President and
Congress. Additionally, the evaluation found that the Agency's financial systems conform to
government-wide financial systems requirements and substantially comply with requirements of
OMB Circular A-127, Financial Management Systems (Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Section 4), and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA).
To evaluate its internal controls over financial reporting, the Agency reviewed 10 key financial
processes and tested 275 key controls. Based on this evaluation, no material weaknesses or
new significant deficiencies were identified and internal controls were found to be operating
effectively and efficiently. A significant deficiency is a condition that adversely affects the ability
to initiate, authorize, record, process or report external financial data reliably.
In FY 2008, the Agency closed a number of internal control weaknesses and significant
deficiencies that had been identified in previous years—two material weaknesses, two Agency
weaknesses, and one significant deficiency. An Agency weakness is a condition that does not
reach the level of a material weakness, but merits the Administrator's attention on a periodic
basis.
The two material weaknesses closed, Physical Security of Critical Assets and Key Applications
Need Security Controls, were system-related significant deficiencies which, under the Federal
Information Security Management Act, the Agency was required to report as material
weaknesses under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and non-compliances under
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 46
-------
the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. EPA completed corrective actions
associated with these as material weaknesses and downgraded Key Applications Need Security
Controls to the level of an Agency weakness, which is expected to be fully corrected and closed
in FY 2009.
The two Agency-level weaknesses closed, Human Capital and Homeland Security, were
identified in FY 2001 and 2006, respectively. In the case of Human Capital, the Agency took
sufficient corrective action to close it as an Agency-level weakness but will continue to address
issues at the office level. The
significant deficiency closed,
Integrated Financial
Management System
Suspense Table, was identified
during the audit of the Agency's
FY 2007 financial statements.
8 Year Trend of Material and Agency Weaknesses
Fiscal Years 2001-2008
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
RscalYear
2C06
2C07
In FY 2008, EPA also identified
three new Agency-level
weaknesses: Key Applications
Need Security Controls
(downgraded from a material
weakness), Redistribution of
Superfund Payments, and
Program Evaluation. EPA has
corrective actions underway to rectify two other Agency-level weaknesses and one other
significant deficiency and will continue to monitor progress in correcting these issues until they
are resolved. Actions that EPA has taken to correct its material and Agency-level weaknesses
and significant deficiencies are described under "Management Challenges and Integrity
Weaknesses" in Section IV of this report. The accompanying graph depicts EPA's progress in
correcting its material and Agency-level weaknesses since 2001.
EPA took a number of steps during FY
2008 to strengthen its management
integrity program, emphasizing the
importance of maintaining and
documenting internal controls and
increasing Agency-wide awareness of
these responsibilities. In May 2008,
the Agency launched online training
for all EPA employees designed to
raise awareness of personal
responsibilities for maintaining
effective internal controls as an
integral part of day-to-day work.
Additionally, the Agency revised and
updated its internal control policy document (EPA Order 1000.24, Management's Responsibility
for Internal Controls) to clarify roles and responsibilities and be consistent with the Office of
Management and Budget's government-wide guidance. EPA's Order reinforces the importance
of maintaining and documenting internal controls, provides a framework for conducting internal
control reviews, and updates Agency managers' roles and responsibilities.
EPA's Key Management Challenges for FY 2008
Reported by the Office of Inspector General
Threat and Risk Assessments
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Performance Measurement
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Oversight of Delegation of States
Chesapeake Bay Program
Voluntary Programs - Update
For details see "EPA's Key Management Challenges for FY
2008," in Section IV- Other Accompanying Information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
47
-------
Management Assurances
Fiscal Year 2008
Assurance Statement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control and financial management systems that meet the objectives of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). EPA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over the
effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with
OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control. Based on the results of this evaluation, I can
provide reasonable assurance that as of September 30, 2008, no material weaknesses were found in the design or
operation of the Agency's internal controls.
In addition, EPA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
includes safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, in accordance with the
requirements of Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123. Based on the results of this evaluation, I can provide reasonable
assurance that as of June 30, 2008, no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the internal
controls ove/'finiicial report ingTN X'?
/
-------
report—including an independent evaluation by the Inspector General—to the Office of
Management and Budget. Agencies also report quarterly to the Office of Management and
Budget on the status of remediation of weaknesses found.
EPA's Chief Information Officer, senior agency program officials, and Inspector General
submitted EPA's Federal Information Security Management Act Report for FY 2008 on October
1, 2008. The report presents the results of the Agency's annual security program reviews and
reflects EPA's continued efforts to ensure that information assets are protected and secured in a
manner consistent with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from the loss, misuse, or
unauthorized access to or modification of information. The Agency plans to focus its FY 2009
efforts on providing Agency managers with near real time information on their security posture
based on Agency collected security metrics.
In FY 2008, EPA and the Office of Inspector General reported no significant deficiencies in its
information security systems.
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
EPA uses the results of the Office of Inspector General audits and evaluations to assess its
progress toward its strategic goals and make corrections and adjustments to improve program
effectiveness and efficiency. The Agency is continuing to strengthen its audit management,
addressing audit follow-up issues and working to complete corrective actions expeditiously and
effectively to improve environmental results. During FY 2008, for example, the Office of
Inspector General, in conjunction with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, initiated a
comprehensive audit follow-up review process to promote greater Agency awareness of,
accountability for, and completion of outstanding unimplemented Office of Inspector General
recommendations.
In FY 2008, EPA was responsible for addressing Office of Inspector General recommendations
and tracking follow-up activities for 384 audits. The Agency achieved final action (completing all
corrective actions associated with the audit) on 163 audits, which included program
evaluation/program performance, assistance agreement, and single audits. EPA's FY 2008
management activities for audits with associated dollars are represented in the table below:
Category
A. Audits with management decisions but
without final action at the beginning of the period
B. Audits for which management decisions were
made during the period
(i) Management decisions with disallowed costs
(56)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed
costs (95)
Disallowed Costs
(Financial Audits)
Number Value
67 $ 63,555,893
151 $ 15,697,008
Funds Put To Better
Use
(Performance Audits)
Number Value
7 $ 95,477,000
6 $ 21,228,301
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
49
-------
C. Total audits pending final action during the
period (A+B)
D. Final action taken during the period:
(i) Recoveries
a) Offsets
b) Collection
c) Value of Property
d) Other
(ii) Write-Offs
(Hi) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management
decided should/could not be completed
E. Audits without final action at end of period
(C-D)
218 $79,252,901
159 $ 5,537,144
$ 233,935
$ 1,405,776
$ 0
$ 1,390,746
$ 1,553,210
$ 953,477
59 $73,715,757
13 $116,705,301
4 $ 2,683,900
$ 68
$ 2,683,832
9 $114,021,401
EPA's FY 2008 management activities for audits without dollars are summarized below:
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken. Of the 384 audits that EPA tracked, a total of 215
audits—which include program evaluation/program performance, assistance agreement,
contracts, and single audits—were without final action and not yet fully resolved at the end
of FY 2008. (The 27 audits with management decisions under administrative appeal by the
grantee are not included in the 215 total; see discussion below.)
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken Beyond 1 Year. Of the 215 audits, EPA officials had
not completed final action on 47 audits within 1 year after the management decision (the
point at which the Office of Inspector General 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. These audits are listed below by
category—audits of program performance and single audits—and identified by title and
responsible office. Additional details are available on EPA's Web site at
www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par.
o Audits of Program Performance. Final action for program performance audits occurs
when all corrective actions have been implemented, which may take longer than 1 year
when corrections are complex and lengthy. Some audits include recommendations
requiring action by more than one office. EPA is tracking 35 audits in this category:
Office of Administrator:
2007-P00013 Evaluation of National Environmental Performance Track
Office of Air:
2005-P00010 Evaluation of Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Quality
Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
2006-P00027 Undistributed Superfund Costs
2007-100019 2006 Agency Financial Statement - General
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. go v.
50
-------
2001-P00013 State Enforcement Effectiveness - National Audit
2004-P00021 Evaluation of EPA's Petroleum Refinery Enforcement and
Compliance
2005-P00024 Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
2006-P00034 Environmental Justice Survey
2007-P00027 Benchmarking other Organization's Statistically Valid Compliance
Office of Environmental Information:
2007-P00007 Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
2007-P00008 EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe Software
Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances:
2006-P00009 Impact of Data Gaps on EPA's Implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act
2007-P00018 EPA Did Not Properly Process Hospital Disinfectant
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
2000-P00028 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Actions
2003-P00010 Mega EPA's National Hardrock Mining Framework
2003-P00012 EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse
2004-P00005 Mega Financial Responsibilities at Superfund Mine Sites
2005-P00026 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Financial Responsibility
Requirements
2006-P00013 SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
2006-P00016 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
2006-P00027 Undistributed Superfund Costs
2006-P00007 More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
2006-P00022 EPA Needs to Better Implement CIPP
2007-P00002 Asbestos Cleanup in Libby, Montana
2007-200003 Superfund Cooperative Agreement Obligations
2007-P00005 Review of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Interim
Status Permits
Office of Water:
2002-P00012 Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
2004-P00030 EPA's Pretreatment Program
2005-P00025 Challenges/Opportunities to Implement the Watershed Approach
2006-P00007 More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
2006-P00016 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
2007-P00025 EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Followup
Region 2:
2007-P00016 Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site
Region 3:
2007-P00004 Nonpoint Source Best Management Practices in Chesapeake Bay
Restoration
Region 5:
2007-S00002 Superfund Special Accounts
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov. 51
-------
o Single audits. Final action for single audits occurs when non-monetary compliance
actions are completed. This may take longer than 1 year to implement if the findings are
complex or if the grantee does not have the resources to take corrective action. Single
audits are conducted of nonprofit organizations, universities, and state and local
governments. EPA is tracking completion of corrective action on single audits for the
period beginning October 1, 2007.
Region 5:
2005-300114 North Lawrence Water Authority, FY 2003
Region 9:
2005-300212 Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2003
2005-300211 Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2002
Region 10:
2002-300009 Iliama Village Council
2002-300042 Iliama Village Council
2003-300047 Stevens Village Council
2003-300117 Stevens Village Council
2003-300145 Circle Village Council
2004-300011 Northway Village Council
2005-300084 Hoonah Indian Association - FY 2002
2005-300218 Chalkyitsik Village Council
2005-300239 Chalkyitsik Village Council
2006-300085 Stevens Village Council FY 2003
o Audits of Assistance Agreements. Final action for assistance agreement audits can take
longer than 1 year, as the grantee may appeal, refuse to repay, or be placed on a
repayment plan that spans several years.
Region 3:
2001-100101 Center for Chesapeake Communities Assistance Agreements
o Audits Awaiting Decision on Appeal. EPA regulations allow grantees to appeal
management decisions on financial assistance audits that seek monetary
reimbursement from the recipient. In the case of an appeal, EPA must not take action to
collect the account receivable until the Agency issues a decision on the appeal. At the
end of FY 2008, 27 audits were in administrative appeal. When these audits are out of
appeal and all issues have been resolved, they will be captured in audit follow-up data
reported in EPA's Performance and Accountability Report.
1 This figure includes 25 percent of the total amount of waste reduction, waste prevention, recycling, and
buy-recycled efforts reported by those WasteWise partners who submitted annual reports to EPA for
2007. EPA is not claiming that all of the waste reduction, waste prevention, recycling, and buy-recycled
efforts achieved by WasteWise partners are attributable to the WasteWise program. EPA is working on a
method to better quantify the impact of WasteWise on business behavior and waste reduction.
2 Data source: Integrated Compliance Information System(ICIS), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
3 Data source: Integrated Compliance Information System(ICIS), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 52
-------
4 The estimate of benefits reducing PM2.5 precursors was generated using the mean values of benefit
per ton estimates from source/pollutant combinations from the Laden et al. (2006) epidemiological study
discussed in the Ozone NAAQS Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). U.S. EPA, 2006. The benefit-
per-ton estimates do not include health benefits from reducing ozone precursors, ecological benefits,
visibility benefits, or other unquantified/nonmonetized health benefits. For more detailed information
regarding benefit per ton estimates, please see U.S. EPA. Technical Support Document: Calculating
Benefit Per-Ton estimates, Ozone NAAQS Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0225-0284, 2008. Available:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064803f33e4.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov. 53
-------
ERA'S FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Section II
Performance Results
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 54
-------
INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION
This section provides performance information for each of EPA's five strategic goals: 1) Clean
Air and Global Climate Change, 2) Clean and Safe Water, 3) Land Preservation and
Restoration, 4) Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and 5) Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship. Each goal chapter is introduced with a "Goal at a Glance" section which provides
a tabular goal overview outlining the performance measures met or not met by objective, and a
program cost comparison by EPA strategic goal, providing a snapshot view of the overall Goal
progress. Following the data, the goal purpose is discussed which reviews the goal and the
public benefits it provides, and the progress that the Agency has made toward achieving each of
the strategic objectives supporting that goal and the challenges we face. This general
information is intended to provide an overview of EPA's FY 2008 performance and progress
toward its longer-term goals and objectives.
In each goal overview section, information on data trends is provided to present progress EPA
has achieved on selected performance measures over time. The quality of the data is
discussed, including an explanation of what the data tell us, their source and limitations.
Following the goal overview, each objective is discussed, outlining the performance measures
achieved and the cost of the objective in comparison to the total goal costs. Detailed
performance information is provided in each objective discussion, including tables outlining
FY 2008 resources for the program projects supporting the objective. Each objective discussion
includes additional information related to the objective, which includes a discussion of grants,
weblinks and an EPA Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) update.
At the end of each goal section, EPA provides a table of results. The table is organized by
objective and includes the longer-range strategic targets that are a part of EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan. Objective-by objective, the table provides detailed FY 2005 through FY 2008
results for each annual performance measure included in EPA's FY 2008 Annual Plan and
Budget. For measures where EPA has missed or significantly exceeded its FY 2008 target or
does not yet have complete FY 2008 performance data, the table provides explanations.
Measures that are not currently used for Program Assessment Rating Tool assessments appear
in italics.
At the end of the Performance Section, readers will find a list of Program Assessment Rating
Tool measures, by strategic goal and the date by which EPA expects to begin reporting data
against them. Additional information on Program Assessment Rating Tool assessments and
EPA's progress in making program improvements is available at www.expectmore.gov.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 55
-------
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Goal at a Glance
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.
Goal I FY 2008 Performance Measures
Met = 2 Not Met = 0 Data Available After November I 7, 2008 = 28
(Total Measures = 30)
Goal 1 Performance Measures
(FY2008)
Objective 1: Objective 2:
Healthier Healthier
OutdoorAir IndoorAir
Objectives:
Protect the
Ozone Layer
Objective 4:
Radiation
Objective 5: Objective 6:
Reduce Enhance
Greenhouse Science and
Gas Intensity Research
1 Goal Not Met • Data Lag • Goal Met
Goal 1 Performance Measures
(FY2007)
1 Goal Not Met • Data Lag • Goal Met
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
(Dollars fn Thousands)
FY 2008 Statement of Net Cost by Coal
Clan Air and Global Ornate Change
| Clem and SafeVAur
| Land Preservitlon and Restoration
, Compliance and Bwfronmental Stewardship
Goal 1 FY 2008 Performance and Resources
Strategic Objective
1 - Healthier OutdoorAir
Protect human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-
based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Objective 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
Objective 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have
stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and the risk to
human health from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, particularly among
susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
Objective 4 - Radiation
Working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be
prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should
unwanted releases occur.
Objective 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Through EPA 's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric
tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent
greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by 2012.
Objective 6 - Enhance Science and Research
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.
Goal 1 Total
FY2008
Obligations
(in thousands)
$685,364.3
$51,632.2
$18,413.6
$47,698.3
$152,864.9
$101,830.0
$1,057,803.3
% of Goal
7 Funds
65%
5%
2%
5%
14%
10%
100%
"This year, EPA established stringent new air quality standards for lead, strengthened air
quality standards for ground-level ozone, and issued new emission standards that will
cut pollution from locomotive and marine diesel engines by up to 90 percent."
- Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
56
-------
Goal Purpose: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Air pollution affects everyone. The average adult breathes more than 3,000 gallons of air every
day, and children breathe even more air per pound of body weight. Air pollutants, such as those
that form urban smog, can remain in the environment for long periods of time and can be carried
by the wind hundreds of miles from their origin. Millions of people live in areas where urban
smog, very small particles, and toxic pollutants pose serious health concerns. People exposed
to certain air pollutants can experience burning in their eyes, an irritated throat, or breathing
difficulties. Long-term exposure to certain air pollutants can cause cancer and damage the
immune, neurological, reproductive, respiratory systems, and premature death.
EPA implements the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and other environmental laws and
uses innovative approaches, such as emissions trading, to reduce and prevent the harmful
emissions from power plants and other large sources, motor vehicles, and fuels that contribute
to outdoor air pollution. The Clean Air Act Amendments authorize EPA to set limits on how
much of a pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States, ensuring that all Americans
have the same basic health and environmental protection. Although the law allows individual
states to establish stronger pollution controls, no state is allowed to have weaker pollution
controls than those set for the country as a whole. States take the lead in carrying out the Clean
Air Act because pollution control problems often require a particular understanding of factors
such as local industries, geography, and transportation patterns. The U.S. government, through
EPA, supports state clean air programs by providing scientific research, expert studies,
engineering designs, and money. In its 2008 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of
Federal Regulations, the government looks back at 10 years of major rules and finds that EPA
air rules provide more benefits than costs.
Because most people spend much of their lives indoors, the quality of indoor air is another
major area of concern for EPA. Sources of indoor air pollution include oil; gas; kerosene; coal;
wood; tobacco products; household cleaning products; and building materials and furnishings,
such as asbestos-containing insulation, damp carpets, and lead-based paints. Often, the people
who are exposed to indoor air pollutants for the longest periods of time are also those most
susceptible to the ill effects of indoor air pollution: the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill,
especially those suffering from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. EPA provides hotlines,
publications, outreach, and other initiatives to improve the quality of air in homes, schools, and
offices.
EPA also works to address global climate change. Since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, emissions of several greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxides) have increased substantially, contributing to climate change. Important questions
remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will
affect the rest of the climate system. To help answer these questions, the President's climate
change program is focused on furthering understanding of the science of climate change and
developing new technologies to reduce emissions. EPA's voluntary and incentive-based
programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as ENERGY STAR®, SmartWay,
Climate Leaders, and the Landfill Methane Outreach Program, are a critical part of the
President's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, under EPA's stratospheric ozone layer protection program, the Agency coordinates
numerous regulatory programs designed to protect and restore the ozone layer. It also
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 57
-------
continues to participate actively in developing international stratospheric ozone protection
policies.
Data Trends
For almost four decades, EPA has successfully reduced air emissions of harmful pollutants
without impeding economic growth. This chart shows that even though economic growth
indicators such as Gross Domestic Product, Vehicle Miles Traveled, Energy Consumption, and
Population have been increasing, pollutant emissions have been steadily decreasing.
Environmental protection and economic growth can simultaneously take place.
Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions
a
Gross Domestic Product
Population
Energy Consumption
Aggregate Emissions
(Six Common Pol(utants)
80 90 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
58
-------
Data Quality
EPA uses data from its performance measurements to manage and to ensure that the data are
complete and reliable; information is subject to the Agency's Quality System policies and
procedures. Every performance measure in this report has corresponding in-depth information
to explain the data's source, limitations, and other factors. This report includes examples in
each goal to better inform EPA's stakeholders. For a complete list of this information, visit
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf. This is particularly helpful for Goal 1
performance measures, since due to reporting cycles, much of the 2008 data will not be
available until 2009.
Performance Measure
Tons of participate matter 2.5 (PM2.s) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
|DTons Reduced
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
What This Shows: Mobile sources are emitting increasingly greater amounts of particulate
matter 2.5 (fine particles). Therefore, there is a positive effect on human health and the
environment since exposure to fine particles is linked to a variety of health problems, such as
aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function, irregular heartbeat, heart attack,
and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.
Source: National Emissions Inventory Database. See: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/.
Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses Estimates foron-road,
off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed into the relevant models, which
in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.
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 grams/mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles
traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation data). See:
www. epa.gov/otaq/m6. htm.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
59
-------
Contributing Programs
Acid Rain Program, AirNow, Air Toxics, Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, Clean Air
Research, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Development and Implementation, Mobile
Sources, New Source Review, Regional Haze, Indoor Air Quality, Stratospheric Ozone Layer
Protection Program, Radiation Programs, Voluntary Climate Programs.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 60
-------
Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Objective 5
$152,864.9^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3 -—
5%
Objective 3
$18,413.6^
2%
Objective 2
$51,632.2
5%
Objective 1: Healthier
Outdoor Air, Performance
Measures
The Clean Air Act directs EPA to identify and set national ambient air quality standards for
commonly found air pollutants that adversely affect public health and the environment. EPA has
set national air quality standards for six common air pollutants—ground-level ozone (smog),
carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (measured as
particulate matter 2.5 and particulate matter 10). For
each of these six pollutants, EPA has set health-
based, or "primary," standards to protect public
health as well as environment-based, or "secondary,"
standards to protect the public welfare (e.g., crops,
vegetation, wildlife, buildings and monuments,
visibility). The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review
the health- and environment-based standards at least
once every five years and revise them as necessary
to continue to protect public health and the
environment.
In September, 2008, EPA announced
the award of $492,200 to the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection for clean
diesel projects across the state. This
funding was part of $14.8 million that
was made available this year for
State Clean Diesel programs
nationally. Diesel engines contribute
significantly to air pollution, especially
in urban areas. The fine particles in
diesel exhaust pose serious health
risks, including aggravated asthma
and other respiratory symptoms.
Children are especially vulnerable to
these effects.
In FY 2008, EPA promulgated the most stringent 8-
hour standard ever for ozone, revising the standards
for the first time in more than a decade. The Agency
based the changes on the most recent scientific
evidence about the effects of ozone, the primary
component of smog. The United States has made
significant progress in reducing ground-level ozone across the country. Since 1980, ozone
levels have dropped 21 percent as EPA, states, and local governments have worked together to
improve the quality of the nation's air. EPA estimates that the final standards will yield health
benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion. Those benefits include preventing cases of
bronchitis, aggravated asthma, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature death, as well as hospital
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
61
-------
and emergency room visits. EPA's regulatory impact analysis shows that the value of the
benefits are likely greater than the cost of implementing the standards. Cost estimates range
from $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion.
New Diesel Standards Deliver Clean Air: EPA promulgated emission standards in FY 2008
that will slash pollution from locomotive and marine diesel engines by up to 90 percent, helping
Americans to breathe cleaner air. When fully implemented, these new standards will reduce
soot or particulate matter by 90 percent, or 27,000 tons, and reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions by 80 percent, or nearly 800,000 tons. Nationwide, this regulation will help prevent
1,400 premature deaths and 120,000 lost workdays annually by 2030. The estimated annual
health benefits are valued between $8.4 billion and $12 billion. When older locomotive and
marine engines reach the end of their useful lives, and new engines enter into the nation's
diesel fleet, the benefits of today's action will increase. The rule cuts emissions from all types of
diesel locomotives, including line-haul, switch, and passenger rail, as well as from a wide range
of marine sources, including ferries, tugboats, Great Lakes freighters, and all types of marine
auxiliary engines.
For the first time ever, this rule requires remanufacturing standards for marine engines,
reductions in engine idling, and the use of after-treatment technology that will further reduce
diesel emissions. After-treatment technology aims to remove emissions from the air that the
engine itself cannot take out, by cleaning pollutants out of the exhaust emission immediately
before exhaust is emitted from the vehicle. Phasing in tighter long-term standards for particulate
matter and nitrous oxides emissions will begin in 2014 for marine diesel engines and in 2015 for
locomotive engines. Advanced after-treatment technology will apply to both types of engines.
The effective dates for nitrous oxides emissions will be two years earlier than last year's
proposal, bringing cleaner air sooner.
State and Local Governments Gain Flexibility on Transportation Conformity: State and
local governments gained more flexibility to meet transportation conformity requirements without
reducing important health and air quality benefits under a new EPA final rule. Transportation
conformity is a Clean Air Act requirement that ensures that federally supported highway and
transit project activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of a state air quality
implementation plan. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, enacted August 2005, provides state and local governments more time to
meet conformity requirements, more flexibility before the consequences of not meeting
conformity requirements apply, and the option of shortening the timeframe of conformity
determinations. EPA revised the transportation conformity rule in June 2008 to make it
consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Also, this final rule streamlines conformity
requirements for transportation projects in carbon monoxide nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
Clean Fuels Programs Dramatically Reduce Air Pollution: EPA's clean fuels programs have
exceeded expectations in reducing ozone-forming pollutants and air toxics. In FY 2008, EPA
published The Fuel Trends Report: Gasoline 1995-2005 (available at:
www.epa.qov/otaq/reqs/fuels/rfq/properf/rfqperf.htm) based on data collected from 1995 through
2005, which found that emission reductions were often significantly greater than regulatory
requirements. The data, which provide a view of recent gasoline property trends, are mainly
from EPA's reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs. Highlights of the report include:
• Gasoline sulfur decreases. Average annual sulfur content in all gasoline dropped from
about 300 parts per million in 1997 to about 90 parts per million in 2005.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 62
-------
• Reformulated gasoline nitrogen oxides reductions exceed requirements. Reformulated
gasoline exceeded applicable nitrogen oxides performance standards during both Phase I
(1998 to 1999) and Phase II (2000 and beyond).
• Reformulated gasoline toxics reductions exceed requirements. On average, Phase I
reformulated gasoline complied with Phase II standards, and toxic performance still
improved with the transition to Phase II standards.
• Conventional gasoline nitrogen oxides and toxics emissions decreased. Between
1998 and 2005, the summer nitrogen oxides emissions of conventional gasoline dropped
5.7 percent, while summer exhaust toxics dropped 4.7 percent.
• Ethanol use in reformulated gasoline increased, and methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) use decreased. In the summer of 1996, about 11 percent of the reformulated
gasoline sold contained ethanol, while virtually all of the remaining reformulated gasoline
contained methyl tertiary butyl ether. By the summer of 2005, the ethanol share increased to
about 53 percent, with corresponding decreases in methyl tertiary butyl ether.
Renewable Fuels Standards: EPA raised the 2008 renewable fuels standard—the amount of
renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel to power private vehicles—to 7.76
percent. This move is in response to the Energy Independence and Security Act, which
President Bush signed in December 2007.
In November 2007, EPA announced a renewable fuel standard of 4.66 percent, based on a
previous law mandating that at least 5.4 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into the
nation's transportation fuels in 2008. The new increase of 7.76 percent complies with a new
minimum of 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel that the Energy Independence and Security Act
requires.
The Energy Independence and Security Act increases the overall volume of renewable fuels
that must be blended each year, reaching 36 billion gallons by 2022. To achieve these volumes,
EPA annually calculates the percentage-based standard, which applies to refiners, importers,
and non-oxygenate blenders of gasoline.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 1: Objective 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air
Program Project
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
FY 2006
Obligations
$236,021.6
$11,638.1
$21,837.4
FY 2007
Obligations
$205,599.0
$11,175.5
$27,339.6
FY 2008
Obligations
$232,504.1
$11,724.9
$28,838.0
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
63
-------
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$9,516.2
$23,553.1
$102,861.6
$26,192.2
$63,366.2
$604.2
$6,779.9
$3,093.8
$2,364.1
$432.0
$121.9
$6,974.8
($0.6)
$976.9
$4,138.5
$3,194.1
$46,681.6
$2,941.2
$5,506.0
$576.5
$34,694.5
$4,331.2
$1,664.4
$3,924.2
$313.4
$449.4
$189.3
$2,153.8
$9,478.6
$0.0
$1,642.3
$638,212.4
$619.6
$22,837.7
$105,383.1
$26,981.5
$59,807.3
$945.5
$2,817.4
$2,585.1
$2,367.7
$504.6
$123.0
$7,196.3
$0.0
$978.3
$4,210.7
$3,507.6
$49,738.4
$3,223.1
$5,122.0
$619.0
$36,583.9
$4,759.2
$1,542.6
$3,641.6
$288.5
$488.9
$240.7
$2,071.8
$6,138.6
$0.0
$1,769.8
$601,207.6
$2,357.7
$27,327.4
$108,377.9
$28,121.5
$71,043.4
$760.8
$3,107.8
$2,311.2
$1,735.8
$585.9
$142.2
$8,797.5
$0.0
$963.1
$4,196.7
$2,464.3
$51,260.6
$3,967.3
$5,418.4
$935.0
$34,173.7
$4,941.9
$1,722.6
$5,029.8
$252.9
$573.0
$296.1
$2,916.1
$6,979.6
$29,798.9
$1,738.1
$685,364.2
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
• EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign is using a two-step approach to reduce pollution
from diesel engines: emission standards for new diesel engines took effect in 2004, and
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
64
-------
more stringent emission standards for these engines in combination with ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel went into effect in 2007. EPA will be implementing new stringent emissions
standards for nonroad engines in 2008. However, because new vehicles and engines are
purchased gradually over time to replace older units, EPA has developed innovative, sector-
based strategies to address pollution from diesel construction equipment and heavy-duty
vehicles that are currently on the road. As part of these programs, EPA awards grants to
communities to retrofit engines and implement other strategies (e.g., fuel switching, idling
reduction) to reduce diesel pollution.
• For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated funds for the first time under the Energy Policy
Act (2005) to help reduce harmful emissions from heavy duty diesel engines. Through the
National Clean Diesel Campaign, EPA will award grants to assist its eligible partners in
building diesel emission reduction programs across the country that improve air quality and
protect public health. For fiscal year 2008, the amount of funding available is $49.2 million.
This year, Clean Diesel funding is split into two basic components:
o National Clean Diesel program (70 percent of funding)
o State Clean Diesel Grant program (30 percent of funding)
• Across the country, EPA's regional offices awarded $14.8 million for 50 state grants to
reduce emissions in a variety of fleets and technologies. In addition, the regional offices
awarded $27.6 million for approximately 150 diesel emissions reduction projects. In
addition, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality awarded $3.4 million for grants for
emerging technology projects and innovative financing projects. As these grants are
implemented, areas will see less pollution. Communities will include these reductions in their
clean air plans for ozone and particulate matter.
• In 2007, states received $200 million in State and Tribal Assistance Grants. These funds
allowed states to continue revising their State Implementation Plans to attain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone and particulate matter 2.5, and to
reduce regional haze. These funds also provided for the continued operation of states'
ambient air monitoring networks, including particulate matter 2.5, air toxics, and visibility
monitoring.
• In partnership with the Department of Interior, EPA continues to track improvements in
visibility in national parks and other protected areas. The Agency has improved its methods
for estimating visibility range based on light-absorbing properties of particulate matter.
• Through AirNow, and EPA program that offers daily air quality forecasts as well as real-time
air quality conditions for over 300 U.S. cities, citizens are more aware of air quality and
associated health effects. States continue to use air monitoring data to understand the
causes of particulate matter pollution so that they can develop better strategies to reduce it.
• For the National Air Toxics Trends Stations, data completeness, precision, and accuracy
indicators showed improvement. EPA developed more accurate sampling and analysis
methods for two national risk drivers, acrolein and hexavalent chromium. Work under
community-scale air toxics monitoring grants progressed toward completion; individual
project goals typically include risk assessment and identifying and characterizing local
sources of hazardous air pollutants. In FY 2007, 20 new grants for air toxics monitoring
community-scale assessments were awarded to state, local, and tribal agencies across the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 65
-------
United States. EPA completed air toxics characterization and trends analyses and made
them available to the public.
• EPA is working with the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, the American Lung
Association, and others on the Great American Woodstove Changeout—a national effort to
help state, local, and tribal agencies establish campaigns to change old, dirty, "conventional"
woodstoves to new, cleaner burning appliances like masonry heaters and gas, pellet, and
EPA-certified woodstoves. Already in place in targeted areas, the Great American
Woodstove Changeout is a voluntary effort that can effectively reduce emissions of
particulates and air toxics indoors and help bring areas into attainment with the national fine
particle standard. As part of each campaign, EPA encourages and supports air pollution
control agencies in reaching out to the public to "Burn Clean," that is, to burn only seasoned
wood and no garbage. Burn Clean and Changeout materials are available at:
www. epa.gov/woodstoves.
Web Links:
AIRNow: http://airnow.gov/
Air Program: www.epa.gov/ebtpages/air.html
Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act: www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/
Toxic Air Pollutants Program: www.epa.gov/air/toxicair/
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 66
-------
Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Objective 6
$101,830.0^
10% ^
Objective 5
$152,864.9^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3
5%
Objective 3 /
$18,413.6^
2%
Objective 2
$51,632.2
5%
Objective 1
^$685,364.3
64%
Objective 2: Healthier
Indoor Air, Performance
Measures
EPA employs two key strategies to improve the nation's indoor air: 1) increasing public
awareness of actual and potential indoor air risks so that individuals can take steps to reduce
their exposure, and 2) relying on partnerships with a variety of organizations to spur action. EPA
conducts outreach activities to provide the public, as well as the professional and research
communities (e.g., American Medical Association; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers), with essential information about indoor air risks. In partnership
with nongovernmental and professional entities, the Agency develops and disseminates
multimedia materials to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of all types of
buildings—including schools, homes, and workplaces—and bring about healthier indoor
environments.
40,000 Schools Benefit From Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools: EPA's "Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools "effort provides individual schools, school districts, educational
organizations, and educators with information on best practices, industry guidelines and sample
policies, and management plans for
improving indoor air quality. The EPA
Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
Awards Program recognizes schools
and school districts that have
demonstrated a strong commitment to
improving children's health by
promoting good indoor air quality. A
recently released study by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
found that 30 to 40 percent of the
nation's schools have effective indoor
In 2008, EPA Region 7 recognized Lincoln Public
Schools for its continued work in implementing
EPA's Tools for Schools program. Lincoln Public
Schools is the recipient of the EPA Tools for
Schools Leadership Award. The award recognizes
Lincoln Public Schools for their continued work
implementing EPA's Tools for Schools program,
which emphasizes prevention, diagnoses and
solutions for indoor air quality. Lincoln Public
Schools is the second largest public school district
in Nebraska, serving approximately 32,100 students
through 54 neighborhood schools.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
67
-------
air quality management programs in place that are grounded in EPA's program guidance; this
translates to approximately 40,000 schools. In FY 2007, 1,300 additional schools began
implementing indoor air quality management programs based on the Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools Program.
EPA Aims to Reduce Asthma Triggers for Millions of People: Asthma is a serious, life-
threatening respiratory disease that affects more than 22 million Americans, including 6.8 million
children. Rates of asthma have risen sharply over the past 30 years, particularly among children
aged 5 to 14.2 Although there is no cure, asthma can be controlled by managing environmental
asthma triggers and providing medical treatment. EPA's goal is to reduce exposure to asthma
triggers for 6.5 million people by 2012. To this end, EPA provides educational material about the
environmental factors—indoor and outdoor—that trigger asthma. Through FY 2007, an
estimated 4.5 million people have taken all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers, thereby avoiding approximately 64,000 emergency room visits
annually. In FY 2007, the Agency worked in conjunction with grantees to train more than 4,500
health professionals on asthma and environmental trigger management and increased national
awareness of asthma triggers, through the Goldfish Public Service Campaign, to an all-time
high of 33 percent. EPA exceeded its goals in FY 2007 and is on track to meet its FY 2008
goals.
Reducing Radon Exposure Saves Lives: Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of
lung cancer in America and contributes to nearly 20,000 deaths from lung cancer each year.3
The purpose of EPA's indoor radon program is to promote voluntary action to reduce risks from
radon. EPA estimates that in FY 2006 (the most recent year for which the Agency has complete
data), the use of two voluntary public actions that EPA promotes—retrofitting homes with radon
mitigation systems and building homes with radon-resistant techniques—saved approximately
600 lives.
Radon is an invisible radioactive gas that seeps into homes undetected through foundation
cracks and can reach harmful levels if trapped indoors. It travels up from underground sources
of uranium in the earth's crust. EPA estimates that one in 15 homes will have a radon level of 4
picocuries per liter of air or more, a level the Agency considers high. Through Radon Leaders
Saving Lives, EPA is working in partnership with the American Association of Radon Scientists
and Technologists and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and with state
and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and radon professionals across the country to
get more action on reducing the radon risk in existing and new homes. Radon preventive
actions have saved an estimated 6,000 lives in the last 20 years. EPA has a goal to double that
number, to 12,000 lives saved, in the next five years. At the 2008 national radon meeting the
Radon Leaders Saving Lives partners unveiled a new Web portal (www.radonleaders.org) to
facilitate achieving the 2012 goal. EPA will also launch a new "green" themed public service
campaign during National Radon Action Month in January 2009.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
2 See the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Asthma Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/
3 See EPA's Radon Health Risks Web page at www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html and EPA's "EPA
Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes," June 2003, EPA-402-R-03-003, at:
www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/402-r-03-003.pdf.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 68
-------
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly due to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Indoor Air: Asthma Program
Indoor Air: Environment Tobacco Smoke
Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace
Program
International Capacity Building
Research: Air Toxics
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
FY 2006
Obligations
$7,986.6
$117.6
$48.9
$235.7
$1,565.7
$306.5
$5,471.4
$348.5
$193.8
($83.2)
$35.0
$9.9
$730.1
$76.9
$333.5
$258.5
$4,953.4
$251.9
$467.3
$50.4
$3,281.7
$351.9
$139.6
$285.7
$24.7
$36.4
$15.3
$441.9
$19,883.2
$132.9
$47,951.7
FY 2007
Obligations
$7,314.2
$0.0
$72.5
$176.8
($74.7)
($11.9)
$5,614.3
($54.6)
$30.8
($548.4)
$38.7
$9.4
$776.0
$73.6
$326.1
$269.0
$4,694.0
$255.0
$405.6
$49.4
$3,199.3
$365.6
$120.0
$274.5
$22.2
$37.5
$18.5
$528.6
$22,586.9
$135.7
$46,704.6
FY 2008
Obligations
$10,032.1
($9.7)
$58.6
$151.0
($107.6)
($26.9)
$5,735.4
($108.8)
$3.2
($30.3)
$45.1
$11.0
$974.3
$76.0
$339.4
$189.9
$4,288.1
$303.1
$406.6
$66.1
$2,858.4
$385.1
$134.5
$373.8
$20.8
$44.2
$22.8
$588.6
$24,673.5
$133.9
$51,632.2
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
69
-------
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
As part of its ongoing work, in FY 2006 EPA awarded grants to conduct demonstrations,
training, and education and/or outreach projects in all indoor-environment program areas
(including radon, asthma, and schools) that will reduce exposure to indoor air pollutants. These
assistance agreements incorporated environmental results reporting and tracking requirements,
which have improved the Agency's ability to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the grant.
Standardized results templates are now a part of State Indoor Radon Grants work plans, and
EPA expects to see improved comparability of reporting with the template.
Web Links:
Indoor Air Quality: www.epa.gov/air/basic.htmltfindoor
Asthma: www.cdc.gov/asthma/children.htm
Radon Program: www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 70
-------
Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Objective 6
$101,830.0
10%
Objective 5
$152,864.9-^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3 —__
5%
Objective 3
$18,413.6^
2%
Objective 2
$51,632.2 -I
5%
Objective 3: Protect the
Ozone Layer, Performance
Measures
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Scientific
evidence amassed over the past 30 years indicates that the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
and other ozone-depleting substances has destroyed stratospheric ozone.
Sharp Decreases in Methyl Bromide Result From EPA Actions: EPA has been at the
forefront in developing and implementing flexible, innovative, and effective approaches to
ensure stratospheric ozone layer protection. In FY 2008, in accordance with the Clean Air Act
and Montreal Protocol, EPA issued final exemptions for methyl bromide production and
authorized important critical uses. The exemptions for continued production and import of
methyl bromide will honor the U.S. commitment to obtain methyl bromide for American farmers,
in a manner that is consistent with the Montreal Protocol but that also protects the ozone layer.
Authorized critical uses include strawberry and tomato production as well as commodity
fumigation. In 2008, production or import of methyl
bromide in the United States will be almost 88 percent
less than 1991 levels.
Supermarkets Join Forces to Reduce Ozone-
Depleting Substances: GreenChill is an EPA
cooperative alliance with the supermarket industry and
suppliers to promote advanced technologies,
strategies, and practices that reduce emissions of
stratospheric ozone-depleting substances and
greenhouse gases. Since launching last November, the
GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership has
nearly tripled its membership. GreenChill now has a
total of 28 partners, including 19 supermarket chains,
four advanced refrigeration systems manufacturers,
Since launching November 2007,
the GreenChill Advanced
Refrigeration Partnership has
tripled its membership and
prevented emissions of 2.5 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent, equal to the annual
emissions of almost 500,000 cars.
GreenChill partners in the food
retail business have refrigerant
emissions rates nearly 50 percent
lower than the EPA-estimated
industry average.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo(J3).epa. gov.
71
-------
and five chemical manufacturers.
GreenChill partners are working to meet their goals with approaches such as improving
equipment leak tightness at installation, developing a Retrofits Best Practices Guideline, and
setting goals to convert more supermarkets to advanced refrigeration technologies. To chart
their progress in the future, GreenChill's supermarket partners created baseline measurements
of corporate-wide refrigerant emissions in 2007 and developed refrigeration management plans
to reduce those emissions in 2008. Compared with the rest of the supermarket industry,
GreenChill partners are already emitting fewer ozone-depleting refrigerants and greenhouse
gases than their competitors—and saving money at the same time. The partners' savings in
operating costs total almost $13 million. In addition to reducing ozone-depleting substances, this
program has the benefit of preventing emissions of 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent, equal to the annual emissions of almost 500,000 cars. If every supermarket in the
nation joined GreenChill and reduced emissions to the current GreenChill average, the industry
could annually prevent the release of 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and
157 tons of ozone-depleting substances.
International Action Helps Reduce Ozone-Depleting Substances: The participation of
developing countries is essential to ensure timely restoration of the ozone layer. The United
States works with its international partners through the Montreal Protocol to reduce ozone-
depleting substances. In 2007, the United States, with support from EPA, proposed to
accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (MFCs) by 10 years, adding interim
reduction steps, setting an earlier baseline, and, as first priority, phasing out the
hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are most damaging to the ozone layer. These proposals further
U.S. efforts to address ozone layer protection, cleaner air, and climate change by calling on the
global community to accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
FY 2006
Obligations
$12.2
$93.5
$5,455.7
$8,582.9
$8.7
$2.5
$322.6
$14.7
$50.2
$64.3
FY 2007
Obligations
$18.3
$73.0
$5,376.0
$11,315.0
$9.8
$2.4
$401.2
$13.7
$49.3
$68.0
FY 2008
Obligations
$14.7
$66.4
$5,040.0
$9,683.0
$11.3
$2.8
$421.6
$13.6
$49.7
$47.7
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
72
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$1,536.0
$84.6
$149.7
$19.7
$1,200.1
$85.7
$38.1
$109.8
$2.5
$9.1
$3.8
$156.2
$33.1
$18,035.7
$1,477.8
$92.5
$139.2
$19.9
$1,200.4
$92.8
$32.1
$127.1
$2.8
$9.5
$4.7
$21.8
$34.3
$20,581.6
$1,301.5
$113.5
$146.1
$27.1
$1,099.2
$97.0
$37.4
$136.5
$0.5
$11.1
$5.7
$53.5
$33.6
$18,413.5
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Web Links:
Ozone Depletion: www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airatmospozonedepletion.html
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
73
-------
Objective 1.4: Radiation
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Objective 6
$101,830.0^
10%
Objective 5
$152,864.9-^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3 ——_
5%
Objective 3
$18,413.6-
2%
Objective 1
^$685,364.3
64%
Objective 2
$51,632.2-1
5%
Objective 4: Radiation,
Performance Measures
EPA's Radiation Protection Program minimizes unnecessary releases of radiation and helps
mitigate impacts to human health and the environment, should unwanted releases occur. The
program manages a nationwide environmental radiation monitoring program, RadNet, and
actively responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material. It also
oversees the safe disposal of radioactive waste and provides generally applicable standards to
all federal agencies for protecting human health and the environment from radioactive material.
EPA Works With Other Departments and Agencies to Safely Dispose of Waste: EPA
supports safe and environmentally sound radioactive waste management by maintaining
certification and oversight responsibilities for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) waste disposal
activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; providing technical support to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in applying pending standards at Yucca Mountain; coordinating with
other federal agencies and states to develop mechanisms for controlling industrial materials with
a radioactive component; and developing waste management regulations to facilitate the
disposal of low-activity mixed waste by combining existing
mandated requirements with traditional radiological waste
management components. The EPA waste characterization
program is focused on inspecting Department of Energy
radioactive waste generator sites and supports the
department's goals for disposal of defense-related
transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant. In 2008, the Department of Energy made
approximately 1,000 waste shipments of transuranic waste
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
On September 30, 2008, EPA
established radiation
standards for the proposed
spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste
disposal facility at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The
Yucca Mountain standards
are in line with approaches
used in the international
radioactive waste
management community.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
74
-------
EPA Reduces Time Needed to Review Waste for Disposal: EPA continues its oversight
responsibilities for waste disposal activities at waste generator sites and the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant site itself. Through the Program Assessment Rating Tool process, EPA developed a
way to track progress in this program area by measuring the time it takes for EPA to approve
waste characterization program modifications at Department of Energy waste generator sites
without diminishing EPA's oversight responsibilities and without modifying EPA's technical
approach. From an FY 2004 baseline of 150 days, EPA had already reduced the number of
days for approval to 86 in FY 2007, the most recent year for which the agency recorded data.
EPA Nears Target for Monitoring Systems: In FY 2008, EPA continued to enhance RadNet
and strengthen the response capabilities in the existing monitoring system, including its ability to
provide near real-time data directly to EPA decision-makers, states, local officials, and the
Department of Homeland Security. With the information that the radiation monitoring program
provides, health officials can guide the public to take essential actions to reduce exposures to
radiation. By monitoring potential impact to population and public health, RadNet supports
EPA's role in incident assessment. Through the Program Assessment Rating Tool process,
EPA developed a measure to track progress in this program area by measuring the percentage
of the most populous U.S. cities with a RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system, which
will provide data to assist in protective action determinations. EPA is well on its way to its target
of 90 percent of the most populous cities by 2010, having reached 87 percent by 2007.
EPA Participates in Emergency Preparedness and Response Exercises: EPA's
Radiological Emergency Response Team members are systematically provided with the
knowledge, skills, equipment, and support systems needed to respond to emergencies involving
radioactive materials. To this end, the program undertakes preparedness activities, including
developing and streamlining response plans and procedures, providing guidance and training to
first responders, and testing plans and procedures during exercises. In FY 2008, EPA
participated in several major radiological emergency response exercises designed to increase
preparedness. EPA was a major player in "TOPOFF," the Top Officials 4 Full-Scale Exercise,
which included more than 15,000 participants representing federal, state, territorial, and local
entities working in Oregon, Guam, Arizona, and Washington, D.C. EPA also developed and
implemented an exercise designed to practice response to an overseas incident; supported the
Department of Energy in its nuclear weapons exercise, Diablo Bravo; and supported several
nuclear power plant exercises throughout FY 2008.
EPA Increases Readiness for Emergency Response: EPA developed a measure to track
progress in readiness for emergency response by measuring the level of readiness of radiation
program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and
recovery operations (measured as the percentage of radiation response team members and
assets that meet response criteria). The 2005 baseline for the emergency response program
readiness was 50 percent. The measured readiness level was 83 percent in FY 2007, the most
recent year for which data are available. EPA, working with federal and state partners, has
continued to develop and expand RadMap during FY 2008. RadMap is a geographic information
systems-based, interactive desktop tool providing quick access to information on long-term
radiation monitoring locations across the country. RadMap is designed for emergency
responders and provides access to key information on more than 1,600 radiological monitors
and sampling stations. The number of systems covered in RadMap more than tripled during FY
2008.
EPA Radioactive Materials Labs Conduct Thousands of Tests: Throughout FY 2008, EPA
scientists and field response staff provided continued support to state, tribal, and local
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 75
-------
governments who were faced with situations involving radioactive material. EPA's two
laboratories with unique radioanalytical expertise conducted more than 11,000 analyses of air,
water, and soil samples. Additionally, the labs supported partners with training, field sampling
and analyses, and technical advice on radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 4 - Radiation
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
FY 2006
Obligations
$58.8
$5,102.5
$416.5
$15,739.0
$5,667.8
$45.0
$14.7
$585.7
$78.4
$275.8
$318.4
$5,259.2
$820.6
$753.0
$85.7
$5,193.0
$418.7
$172.3
$208.8
$14.6
$46.8
$19.7
$617.3
$171.0
$42,083.3
FY 2007
Obligations
$93.8
$3,947.6
$333.1
$17,120.0
$6,345.1
$53.2
$17.0
$596.5
$77.3
$287.6
$354.7
$5,707.0
$946.6
$770.7
$94.1
$5,412.5
$480.4
$155.6
$191.0
$16.9
$51.6
$25.4
$215.6
$186.6
$43,479.9
FY 2008
Obligations
$73.2
$7,886.6
$278.1
$17,094.4
$6,767.8
$60.1
$17.0
$827.2
$75.0
$281.1
$242.7
$5,775.6
$1,070.3
$807.7
$126.9
$4,819.3
$483.7
$176.9
$270.7
$4.8
$58.8
$30.4
$291.7
$178.3
$47,698.3
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
76
-------
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
Web Links:
Radiation and Radioactivity: www.epa.gov/ebtpages/radiationandradioactivitv.html
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 77
-------
Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 5
(in thousands)
Objective 6
$101,830.0^
10%
Objective 5: Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Intensity,
Performance Measures
Objective 5
$152,864.9-^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3 ——_
5%
Objective 3
$18,413.6-
2%
Objective 1
-$685,364.3
64%
Objective 2
$51,632.2-1
5%
In February 2002, the President announced a new approach to global climate change, designed
to harness the power of the marketplace and technological innovation. The President set a
national goal to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012, which the US is on track to
meet. In support of the President's goal, EPA's climate protection programs promote the
avoidance of 162 million metric tons of carbon equivalent annually by 2012, up from 58 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2002. Of this additional 104 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent, 24 million will be attributable to the sustained growth of many climate programs and
are reflected in the Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity
improvement; the remaining 80 million metric tons of carbon equivalent will contribute to
attaining the President's goal of 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement.
EPA manages a number of efforts, such as ENERGY STAR and The SmartWay Transport
Partnership, to remove marketplace barriers to accelerate the adoption and deployment of
energy efficiency technology and in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors of the
economy. EPA programs do not provide financial subsidies. Instead, they work by overcoming
market barriers to energy efficiency: lack of clear and objective information on technology
opportunities; lack of awareness of products, services, and transportation choices; low
incentives to manufacturers for research and development; split incentives; and high transaction
costs.
EPA Programs Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: EPA's climate protection
programs reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other potent greenhouse gases, such
as methane and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and will continue to deliver substantial energy and
environmental benefits over the next decade. Because many of the investments promoted
through EPA's climate programs involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or
more, the investments made to date will continue to deliver environmental and economic
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
78
-------
benefits through 2012 and beyond. EPA currently estimates that, based on investments in
equipment already made because of EPA's programs, organizations and consumers across the
country will net savings of about $130 billion and reduce greenhouse emissions by more than
800 million metric tons of carbon equivalent over the next 10 years.4 These programs continue
to offer highly cost-effective approaches for delivering environmental benefits across the
country.
EPA's international activities help provide developing and industrialized countries with greater
information and the increased technical capacity they need to implement emission reduction
policies and climate protection programs. In addition, EPA works with state and local
governments interested in technical, educational, and outreach assistance for clean energy
projects that reduce carbon emissions.
ENERGY STAR Saves Billions in Energy Consumption: In 2007, Americans, with the help of
ENERGY STAR, saved $16 billion on their energy bills and avoided greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those of 27 million vehicles. To date, more than 2.5 billion ENERGY STAR-
qualified products have been sold, and nearly 840,000 new homes and 4,000 office buildings,
schools, hospitals, and public buildings have earned the ENERGY STAR label. ENERGY STAR
qualified products, homes, and buildings provide the quality, features, and personal comfort
today's consumers expect. EPA introduced ENERGY STAR in 1992 as a voluntary market-
based partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through increased energy efficiency.
Today, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, ENERGY STAR offers businesses
and consumers energy-efficient solutions to conserve energy, save money, and help protect the
environment for future generations. More than 12,000 organizations are ENERGY STAR
partners, committed to improving the energy efficiency of products, homes, buildings, and
businesses.
More Than 4,000 Manufacturing Plants Earn EPA's ENERGY STAR Rating: Energy use in
commercial buildings and manufacturing plants accounts for nearly half of the total U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 50 percent of energy consumption nationwide. For more
than a decade, EPA has worked with businesses and organizations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through strategic energy management practices. Today, there are ENERGY STAR
qualified facilities in every state across the country. To qualify for the ENERGY STAR, a building
or manufacturing plant must score in the top 25 percent using EPA's National Energy
Performance Rating System.
The number of commercial buildings and manufacturing plants to earn the ENERGY STAR for
superior energy efficiency is up by more than 25 percent in the past year, and the amount of
carbon dioxide emissions reduced has reached an all-time high of more than 25 billion pounds.
Nearly 4,100 buildings and manufacturing plants have earned the ENERGY STAR through the
end of 2007, with the addition of more than 1,400 in 2007 alone. They include about 1,500 office
buildings, 1,300 supermarkets, 820 K-12 schools, and 250 hotels. Also, more than 185 banks,
financial centers, hospitals, courthouses, warehouses, dormitories, and—for the first time—big-
box retail buildings earned the ENERGY STAR. More than 35 manufacturing plants, such as
cement, auto assembly, corn refining, and—new this year—petroleum refining, are also being
recognized. In total, these award-winning commercial buildings and manufacturing plants have
saved nearly $1.5 billion annually in lower energy bills and prevented carbon dioxide emissions
equal to the emissions associated with electricity use of more than 1.5 million American homes
for a year, compared with typical buildings. Commercial buildings that have earned the
4 2006 estimated annual results.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: oc/b/'nfo@epa.qov. 79
-------
ENERGY STAR use nearly 40 percent less energy than average buildings and emit 35 percent
less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus reducing their carbon footprint. About 500
ENERGY STAR buildings use 50 percent less energy than average buildings. Many of these
buildings excel due to good energy management practices such as routine energy efficiency
benchmarking.
SmartWay Transport Saves More Than 500 Million Gallons of Diesel: Cars, trucks, aircraft,
and other components of the nation's transportation system emit nearly one-third of total U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. SmartWay Transport is EPA's flagship voluntary program for
improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution from the freight
transportation industry. This innovative collaboration, launched in 2004, is composed of
partnerships, financial incentives, policy and technical solutions, and research and evaluation
projects that find new ways to optimize the transportation networks in a company's supply chain.
Endorsed by major freight industry associations, companies,
and trade publications, SmartWay Transport is leading the
way to greater fuel efficiency and lower emissions from the
freight sector, while presenting a model of government and
industry cooperation for public and private benefits.
Participating companies benchmark their current freight
operations, identify technologies and strategies to reduce
their carbon emissions, track emission reductions, and
project future improvement.
In September, 2008, EPA
committed more than $1
million to assess the
economic and technical
feasibility of recovering and
using methane from coal
mines in China. If methane
recovery programs are
implemented at all three
project sites, up to 1.8 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent could be reduced
each year. That's equal to the
annual emissions of up to
330,000 passenger vehicles.
As of September 2008, more than 1,000 SmartWay partners
drive approximately 600,000 trucks and travel nearly 52
billion miles per year. Wth their three-year commitments to
upgrade trucks with auxiliary power units, fuel-efficient tires,
enhanced trailer aerodynamics, and other improvements,
SmartWay partners are saving more than 500 million gallons
of diesel fuel—a cost benefit of more than $2 billion—and
eliminating nearly 6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global climate
change. SmartWay partners will also reduce nitrogen oxides by 30,000 tons and particulate
matter by 800 tons.
Hybrid Delivery Trucks Aim to Reduce Fuel Consumption: EPA's Clean Automotive
Technology Program demonstrated a new hydraulic hybrid United Parcel Service delivery
vehicle. The unique United Parcel Service delivery vehicle features EPA-patented hydraulic
hybrid technology. During FY 2008, EPA worked with its industry technology transfer partners
transferring its hydraulic hybrid vehicle experience and know-how, developing the first
generation of road-worthy pre-production hydraulic hybrid vehicles to begin road testing over the
next few years. United Parcel Service announced that it has ordered seven hydraulic hybrid
delivery trucks for its fleet, the first two of which will be deployed in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
early next year. Developed by EPA, Eaton Corporation, and Navistar, the vehicles store braking
energy as hydraulic pressure, then use that to launch the vehicle from a stop, achieving a fuel
economy improvement of 45-50 percent.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Climate Change Published: In FY 2008, EPA
released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting public input on the
complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be
effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act. This action was in response to the April 2, 2007,
Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that greenhouse gas emissions
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. go v. 80
-------
could be regulated if EPA determines
greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute
to air pollution that can reasonably be expected
to endanger public health or welfare. With the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA
is evaluating the broader ramifications of the
decision throughout the Clean Air Act, which
covers air pollution from both stationary and
mobile sources. The Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking solicits public input as
EPA considers the specific effects of climate
change and potential regulation of greenhouse
gas emissions. In the advance notice, EPA
presented and requested comment on the best
available science, requested relevant data, and
asked questions about the advantages and
disadvantages of using the Clean Air Act to
potentially regulate stationary and mobile
sources of greenhouse gases. The Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also reviewed
various petitions, lawsuits, and court deadlines
before the Agency, as well as the profound
effect that regulating under the Clean Air Act
could have on the economy.
EPA-State Clean Energy and Climate Change
Forum Held
• Led by Regional Administrator Richard Greene, EPA's
Region 6 Office welcomed more than 30 officials and
representatives from six states to the first regional
dialogue on climate change.
• The first-of-its-kind forum is part of the Region 6 Clean
Energy and Climate Change Strategy that calls for
expanding partnerships to address the factors that
contribute to climate change.
• The forum's main goals were to familiarize participants
with state and federal perspectives; better understand
individual and mutual concerns; and identify follow-up
needs.
• Senior representatives from state environmental
agencies took part in the roundtable discussions and
shared their climate change strategies and
suggestions.
• In addition representatives from Great Britain shared
lessons learned from the United Kingdom's climate
change policies.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly due to rounding.
Goal 1: Objective 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Program Project
Climate Protection Program
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
FY 2006
Obligations
$85,882.0
$79.3
$571.2
$56.7
$16.0
$1,980.7
$101.3
$364.6
$419.1
$9,747.4
$525.2
$937.8
FY 2007
Obligations
$117,999.8
$158.7
$565.3
$84.7
$20.6
$2,727.3
$125.6
$470.8
$589.0
$11,194.8
$763.1
$1,151.9
FY 2008
Obligations
$123,247.9
$124.0
$482.1
$95.5
$23.2
$3,517.8
$122.3
$468.1
$401.6
$10,122.2
$900.7
$1,170.6
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
81
-------
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$120.3
$7,405.7
$559.8
$243.6
$668.1
$20.0
$59.0
$24.8
$494.6
$215.5
$110,492.7
$161.2
$9,386.4
$803.1
$276.0
$856.8
$27.8
$82.1
$40.4
$570.3
$297.1
$148,352.8
$217.7
$8,268.2
$811.7
$308.8
$1,130.6
$10.4
$93.4
$48.2
$1,016.7
$283.2
$152,864.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 5
Grants:
Grants are an integral part of the Climate Change Program's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through energy efficiency, clean energy, and cost-effective partnerships with
industries and governments. The climate change grant program seeks proposals from eligible
entities that will advance national, regional, state and local energy efficiency and clean energy
programs through market-based approaches to program design, outreach, and delivery, as well
as by fostering information exchange. Programs or projects should demonstrate potential to
create lasting change in the marketplace for energy-efficient and clean energy products,
services, and best practices. Grant funding also supports technical, outreach, and education
projects to advance public and private sector climate goals; projects for collecting and analyzing
economic data relating to climate change; and programs, such as Methane to Markets, that
facilitate climate technology transfer in developing countries. All of the activities supported by
the climate change program's grant funds reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to
achieving performance goals.
Web Links:
Energy Star Program: www.energystar.gov/
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
82
-------
Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 1, Objective 6
(in thousands)
Objective 6
$101,830.0^
10%
Objective 5
$152,864.9^
14%
Objective 4
$47,698.3 —__
5%
Objective 3 /
$18,413.6^
2%
Objective 2
$51,632.2
5%
Objective 1
-$685,364.3
64%
Objective 6: Enhance
Science and Research,
Performance Measures
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect and
improve air quality.
Research Informs National Ambient Air Quality Standards: In FY 2008, EPA completed 100
percent of its planned actions toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard-
setting and air quality management decisions. In controlled human studies, EPA scientists
evaluated how ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles in the air affect the respiratory and
cardiovascular health of humans. Researchers found that breathing in these particles affects
blood clotting, can cause changes in heart rate, and can result in mild lung infections. Other
studies in animals suggest that long-term particulate matter exposure increases the risk of
atherosclerosis, commonly known as "hardening of the arteries," a condition in which fatty
substances coat the inner lining of arteries. EPA continues to study long-term particulate matter
exposure to and effects in humans.
The Agency provided research, data, and advice, which were critical in National Ambient Air
Quality Standards reviews and decisions on ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides (SOX), and
lead. Additionally, the Agency's research supported locomotive and marine rule decisions, as
well as decisions in the greenhouse gas advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. Ongoing
research continues to provide information that can be used in future rulemaking and other
decisions.
EPA's Clean Air Research Program developed and evaluated a new, real-time, in situ method to
measure air pollutants, which allows researchers and environmental managers to characterize
area source emissions. EPA researchers put this method into practice to measure total site
elemental mercury at a chlor-alkali facility in FY 2008. This effort significantly increased
knowledge about fugitive mercury emissions from chlor-alkali facilities. The Clean Air Research
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
83
-------
program also teamed up with Region 8 and the state of Colorado to complete a two-week field
study using optical remote sensing to characterize emissions of volatile organic compounds and
greenhouse gases from upstream oil and gas operations.
EPA Research Helps States: EPA provided states with new tools and models in 2008 to
improve their understanding of particulate matter and other pollutant sources in support of State
Implementation Plans. For example, states are applying one model called Positive Matrix
Factorization to evaluate the contributions of various sources, such as cement manufactures, to
ambient air particulate concentrations. The sector-specific model results are informing
regulatory decisions on performance standards for that sector. Another example is a new "open-
path optical remote sensing method," developed to characterize air emissions as they happen.
This method can measure mercury at chlor-alkali facilities, as well as air contaminants such as
volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gas emissions generated from oil and gas
operations. The research will help EPA inform regulatory decisions by improving emissions
inventories. Additionally, state and local organizations are using this method to develop action
plans for meeting EPA's particulate matter regulations. The Agency also released an update of
the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system including improvements to the sulfur,
nitrogen and mercury predictions. This system integrates multiple models to help environmental
managers and policymakers predict and make decisions regarding air quality and air emission
impacts on humans and ecosystems.
Research Improves Understanding of Health Effects from Air Pollution: EPA research in
FY 2008 produced valuable information on the health effects of diesel exhaust. This research
demonstrated that diesel exhaust can affect certain susceptible groups (notably asthmatics in
this case) altering indicators that suggest a tendency to wheeze, a hallmark of asthma
exacerbation. These findings contribute to a strategy to compare the potency of various sources
of particulate matter and their effects on human health, including those with specific
susceptibility.
EPA research in FY 2008 also helped understand the neurotoxic effects of exposure to volatile
organic compounds, a class of hazardous air pollutants. The research informed incorporation of
physiologically based pharmacokinetic models into setting Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
volatile organic compounds, such as those associated with new fuels and fuel additives.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 6 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
FY 2006
Obligations
$3,744.7
$20,921.9
$6,616.2
$375.6
$210.4
FY 2007
Obligations
$0.0
$456.0
$5,475.5
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2008
Obligations
$0.0
($100.3)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
84
-------
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Radiation: Protection
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Troposphere Ozone
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Research: NAAQS
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Research: Clean Air
Total
$128.1
$724.0
$1,417.2
$19,269.0
$11,450.0
$952.7
$91.6
$25.8
$2,678.4
$152.7
$515.2
$677.1
$2,770.6
$901.9
$1,530.1
$191.8
$8,445.4
$899.1
$402.8
$916.7
$24.0
$95.2
$40.1
$442.5
$53,270.9
$348.2
$0.0
$140,229.9
$172.4
$458.7
$0.0
$13,810.6
($534.9)
($37.8)
$92.0
$22.4
$1,964.7
$127.2
$455.2
$638.1
$4,245.7
$880.0
$1,274.3
$180.1
$7,476.9
$871.8
$302.6
$625.0
$25.4
$89.1
$43.9
$655.3
$63,025.8
$322.7
$0.0
$103,118.7
$137.4
$339.6
$0.0
$1,359.7
($241.8)
($11.9)
$105.8
$25.7
$2,200.0
$125.4
$454.7
$445.0
$7,999.1
$1,070.2
$1,362.9
$255.7
$6,828.1
$903.4
$350.0
$715.0
$2.9
$103.5
$53.5
$561.8
$18,690.1
$313.9
$57,780.5
$101,829.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 6
Grants:
• In a study of more than 65,000 women over the age of 50, EPA grantees found that the risk
of having a heart attack or other cardiovascular event—and the risk of dying from that
event—was significantly higher in areas with higher average airborne particulate matter
levels. This study adds to the growing evidence that air pollution, especially fine particulate
matter, has important adverse health consequences. (Supported by Grant Entitled:
"Northwest Research Center for Particulate Air Pollution and Health.")
• EPA-funded researchers in Southern California found that local exposure to traffic on a
freeway has adverse effects on children's lung development, which could result in important
deficits in lung function in later life. (Supported by Grant Entitled: "Southern California
Center for Airborne Particulate Matter.")
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
85
-------
• EPA grantee research findings have revealed new information about the atmospheric
processes that lead to formation of organic particulate matter, helping to explain the
discrepancy between atmospheric measurements and air quality model predictions. These
results will be used to develop effective and efficient emission control strategies to reduce
particulate matter levels. (Supported by the Following Four Grants: 1) "Atmospheric
Processing of Organic Particulate Matter: Formation, Properties, Long Range Transport, and
Removal"; 2) "Fundamental Experimental and Modeling Studies of Secondary Organic
Aerosol"; 3) "Highly Time-Resolved Source Apportionment Techniques for Organic Aerosols
Using the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer"; and 4) "Secondary and Regional
Contributions to Organic PM: A Mechanistic Investigation of Organic PM in the Eastern and
Southern United States.")
Web Links:
The Clean Air Research Program supports EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and
environmental outcomes. Additional information on the program can be found at:
www.epa.gov/pmresearch.
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 86
-------
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.
OBJECTIVE: 1.1: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Through 2011, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-
quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Performance Measures Met
0
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
15
Total Performance Measures
15
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.1: Ozone and PM2.5
By 2015, working with partners, improve air quality for ozone and PM2.5.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties by 14 percent from the 2003
baseline.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(M9) Cumulative percent reduction
in population-weighted ambient
concentration of ozone in
monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2005
Target
3
Actual
6
FY 2006
Target
5
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
6
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
8
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored
counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate the weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are
multiplied by the associated county populations. The units for this measure are therefore "million people parts per billion." j^e 2003
baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
87
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.5 in all monitored counties by six percent from the 2003
baseline
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(M91) Cumulative percent
reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of fine
particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all
monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2005
Target
2
Actual
4
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
3
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
4
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine
particulate matter PM 2.5 pollution across the monitored counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate this
weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are multiplied by the associated county populations. Therefore, the units for
this measure are "million people micrograms per meter cubed: (million people ug/mg3)". The 2003 baseline is 2.581 baseline is 2,581
million people-ug/mg3. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used at the baseline for mobile source emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce emissions of fine particles from mobile sources by 134,700 tons from the 2000 level of 510,550 tons.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(P34) Tons of PM-2.5 Reduced
since 2000 from Mobile Sources
FY 2005
Target
61,217
Actual
61,217
FY 2006
Target
73,460
Actual
73,460
FY 2007
Target
85,704
Actual
85,704
FY 2008
Target
97,947
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 baseline for PM 2.5 from mobile sources is 510,552 tons.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
88
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from mobile sources by 3.7 million tons from the 2000 level of 11.8 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(O34) Millions of Tons of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from Mobile
Sources
FY 2005
Target
1.69
Actual
1.69
FY 2006
Target
2.03
Actual
2.03
FY 2007
Target
2.37
Actual
2.37
FY 2008
Target
2.71
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Millions of
Tons
Baseline- The 1995 baseline was 12. OM tons for mobile source NOx emissions. The 2000 baseline was 11. 8M tons for mobile source
NOx emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, through federal emission standards, reduce annual emissions of volatile organic compounds from mobile sources by 1.9
million tons from the 2000 level of 7.7 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(O33) Millions of Tons of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000 from Mobile
Sources
FY 2005
Target
0.86
Actual
0.86
FY 2006
Target
1.03
Actual
1.03
FY 2007
Target
1.20
Actual
1.20
FY 2008
Target
1.37
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Millions of
Tons
Baseline - The 1995 baseline was 8.1M tons for mobile source VOC emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source
VOC emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
Strategic Target (6)
By 2018, visibility in eastern Class I areas will improve by 15 percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility
on the 20 percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
89
-------
Strategic Target (7)
By 2018, visibility in western Class I areas will improve by five percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to
visibility on the 20 percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.
Strategic Target (8)
By 2011, with EPA support, 30 additional tribes (6 per year) will have completed air quality emission inventories. (FY 2005 baseline:
28 tribal emission inventories.)
Strategic Target (9)
By 2011, 18 additional tribes will possess the expertise and capability to implement the Clean Air Act in Indian country (as
demonstrated by successful completion of an eligibility determination under the Tribal Authority Rule). (FY 2005 baseline: 24 tribes.)
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(M92) Cumulative percent
reduction in the number of days
with Air Quality Index (AQI) values
over 100 since 2003, weighted by
population and AQI value.
FY 2005
Target
17
Actual
28
FY 2006
Target
21
Actual
39
FY 2007
Target
21
Actual
42
FY 2008
Target
25
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - Baseline was zero in 2003.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(M83) Cumulative percent
reduction in the average number
of days during the ozone season
that the ozone standard is
exceeded in baseline non-
attainment areas, weighted by
population
8
27
12
31
16
28
19
Data
Available
2009
Percentage
Baseline - 2003 baseline is zero.
(M94) Percent of major NSR
permits issued within one year of
65
69
70
70
75
83
78
Data
Available
Percentage
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
90
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
receiving a complete permit
application.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
2009
Unit
Baseline - The baseline for NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application is 61 percent in 2004.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(M95) Percent of significant Title V
operating permit revisions issued
within 18 months of receiving a
complete permit application.
88
88
91
91
94
81
100
Data
Available
2009
Percentage
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for significant title V operating revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application
is 85 percent.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(M96) Percent of significant and
new Title V operating permits
issued within 18 months of
receiving a complete permit
application.
79
79
83
83
87
51
95
Data
Available
2009
Percentage
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for new title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 75
percent.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(P33) Tons of PM-10 Reduced
since 2000 from Mobile Sources
62,161
62,161
74,594
74,594
87,026
87,026
99,458
Data
Available
2009
Tons
Baseline - Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 mobile inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for
PM-10 from mobile source is 613,497 tons.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
91
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.2: Air Toxics
By 2011, working with partners, reduce air toxics emissions and implement area-specific approaches to reduce the risk to public
health and the environment from toxic air pollutants.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 19 percent from the 1993 non-
weighted baseline of 7.24 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(001) Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
34
Actual
Data
avail.
2008
FY 2007
Target
35
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2008
Target
35
Actual
Data
Available
2011
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the
Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an
annual basis. The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are
revised every three years to generate inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The intervening years
between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and
project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data are added, the baseline (or total
tons of air toxic) is adjusted.
Explanation - Due to a major modification to the National Emissions Inventory, 2006 and 2007 data will not be available until 2009.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 55 percent from the 1993
non-weighted baseline of 7.24 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(002) Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for noncancer risk)
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
58
Actual
Data
avail.
2008
FY 2007
Target
58
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2008
Target
59
Actual
Data
Available
2011
Unit
Percentage
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
92
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the
Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an
annual basis. The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are
revised every three years to generate inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The intervening years
between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and
project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data are added, the baseline (or total
tons of air toxic) is adjusted.
Explanation - Due to a major modification to the National Emissions Inventory, 2006 and 2007 data will not be available until 2009.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.3: Chronically Acidic Water Bodies
By 2011, reduce the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by two percent from 1984 levels.
Strategic Target (1)
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
(A01) Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric power
generation sources
FY 2005
Target
6,900,000
Actual
7,200,000
FY 2006
Target
7,000,000
Actual
8,000,000
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
Actual
8,450,
000
FY 2008
Target
8,000,000
Actual
Data
Avail-
able
2009
Unit
Tons
Reduced
Baseline - The baseline year is 1980. The 1980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 17.4 million tons for electric utility sources, j^is
inventory was developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program and is used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. These data are also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory SO2
emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level. "Allowable SO2
emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under several provisions of the Act and additional
allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
93
-------
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentration by 30 percent from 1990 monitored
levels of up to 25 kilograms per hectare for total sulfur deposition and 6.4 micrograms per cubic meter for mean ambient sulfate
concentration.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(A21) Percent change in annual
average sulfur deposition
FY 2005
Target
No FY05
Target
Actual
No FY05
Target
FY 2006
Target
No FY06
Target
Actual
No FY06
Target
FY 2007
Target
29
Actual
38
FY 2008
Target
No FY08
Target
Actual
No FY08
Target
Unit
Percentage
Reduced
Baseline - Sulfur deposition contributes to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life.
Reductions in sulfur deposition are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient sulfate and ambient nitrate
("acid rain" "particulate") contribute to unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially children and other sensitive
populations. The baseline is established from monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing three years of
deposition levels produced from the CASTNET sites (http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites.html). This measure sets targets in 5 year
increments.
Explanation - This measure sets targets
in five year increments;
there is no target for FY 2008.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean total ambient nitrate concentration by 15 percent from 1990
monitored levels of up to 11 kilograms per hectare for total nitrogen deposition and 4.0 micrograms per cubic meter for mean total
ambient nitrate concentration.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(A1 1) Percent change in annual
average nitrogen deposition
FY 2005
Target
No FY05
Target
Actual
No FY05
Target
FY 2006
Target
No FY06
Target
Actual
No FY 06
target
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
18
FY 2008
Target
No FY08
Target
Actual
No FY08
Target
Unit
Percentage
Reduced
Baseline - Nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life.
Reductions in nitrogen deposition are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient nitrate ("acid rain"
"particulate") contribute to unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially and other sensitive populations. The baseline is
established from monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing three years of deposition levels produced from
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
94
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
the CASTNET sites (http://www.epa.qov/castnet/sites.html). Th
Explanation - This measure sets targets
in five year increments;
Actual
FY 2007
Target
s measure sets targets
Actual
FY 2008
Target
in 5 year increments.
Actual
Unit
there is no target for FY 2008.
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(N35) Limit the increase of CO
emissions (in tons) from mobile
sources compared to a 2000
baseline.
FY 2005
Target
0.84
Actual
0.84
FY 2006
Target
1.01
Actual
1.01
FY 2007
Target
1.18
Actual
1.18
FY 2008
Target
1.35
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 baseline was 79.2 M tons for CO.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
OBJECTIVE: 1.2: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
Through 2012, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air contaminants through the
promotion of voluntary actions by the public.
Performance Measures Met
0
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
4
Total Performance Measures
4
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.1: Radon
By 2012, the number of future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure will increase to
1,250 from the 1997 baseline of 285 future premature lung cancer deaths prevented.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
95
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R10) Number of additional homes
(new and existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2005
Target
173,000
Actual
194,000.
FY 2006
Target
180,000
Actual
219,000
FY 2007
Target
190,000
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2008
Target
225,000
Actual
Data
Available
2010
Unit
Number of
Homes
Baseline - The baseline for the performance measure was 1996 (107,000 homes).
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2010
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.2: Asthma
By 2012, the number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers will increase
to 6.5 million from the 2003 baseline of 3 million. EPA will place special emphasis on children and other disproportionately impacted
populations.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R15) Number of people taking all
essential actions to reduce
exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers.
FY 2005
Target
No FY05
Target
Actual
No FY05
Target
FY 2006
Target
4,100,00
0
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2007
Target
No FY07
Target
Actual
No FY07
Target
FY 2008
Target
No
FY08
Target
Actual
No FY08
Target
Unit
Number of
People
Baseline - 2003 baseline is 3,000,000. This measure sets targets in 3 year increments.
Explanation - This measure sets targets in three year increments; there is no target for FY 2008.
(R16) Percent of public that is
aware of the asthma program's
media campaign.
>20%
31
>20%
33
>20
Data
Availible
Late
2008
>20
Data
Available
2009
Percentage
Baseline - 2003 baseline is >20 percent.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
96
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R17) Additional health care
professionals trained annually by
EPA and its partner on the
environmental management of
asthma triggers.
FY 2005
Target
2000
Actual
3,380
FY 2006
Target
2000
Actual
3,582
FY 2007
Target
2000
Actual
4,582
FY 2008
Target
2000
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Number of
healthcare
professionals
Baseline - 2003 baseline is 2,360.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.3: Schools
By 2012, the number of schools implementing an effective indoor air quality management plan will increase to 40,000 from the 2002
baseline of 25,000.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R22) Estimated annual number of
schools establishing indoor air
quality programs based on EPA's
Tools for Schools guidance.
FY 2005
Target
2500
Actual
3,000
FY 2006
Target
1,200
Actual
1,200
FY 2007
Target
1,100
Actual
1,346
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Number of
schools
Baseline - The nation has approximately 1 18,000 (updated to include new construction) schools. Each school has an average of 525
students, faculty, and staff for a total estimated population of 62,000,000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance implementation began
in 1997. Results from a 2002 IAQ practices in schools survey suggest that approximately 20-22 percent of U.S. schools report an
adequate effective IAQ management plan that is in accordance with EPA guidelines.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
97
-------
OBJECTIVE: 1.3: PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
By 2030, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the
process of recovery, and overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will
be reduced.
Performance Measures Met
0
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November17,
2008
1
Total Performance Measures
1
Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances to less than 1,520 tons per year of ozone-depleting
potential from the 2003 baseline of 9,900 tons per year.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(S01) Remaining U.S.
consumption of HCFCs, in tons of
Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
FY 2005
Target
<9,900
Actual
6,770
FY 2006
Target
<9,900
Actual
6,205
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data
avail.
2009
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data
Available
2010
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The base of comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II
HCFCs as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it
does to the stratospheric ozone - this is the ozone-depletion potential (OOP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum
of 2.8 percent of the domestic OOP weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.
Consumption equal production plus import minus export.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2010
OBJECTIVE: 1.4: RADIATION
Performance Measures Met
0
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2007
5
Total Performance Measures
5
Through 2011, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human
health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
98
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, the radiation program will maintain a 90 percent level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support
federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations. (2005 baseline is a 50 percent level of readiness.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R35) Level of readiness of
radiation program personnel and
assets to support Federal
radiological emergency response
and recovery operations
(measured as percentage of
radiation response team members
and assets that meet scenario-
based response criteria).
FY 2005
Target
Baseline
Actual
50
FY 2006
Target
75
Actual
78
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
83
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - 2005 baseline is 50 percent.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, 77 percent of the U.S. land area will be covered by the RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system. (2001 baseline is
35 percent of the U.S. land area.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(R34) percentage of most
populous U.S. cities with a
RadNet ambient radiation air
monitoring system, which will
provide data to assist in protective
action determinations.
FY 2005
Target
Baseline
Actual
55
FY 2006
Target
65
Actual
67
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
87
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - 2005 baseline is 55 percent.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(R39) Level of readiness of
Baseline
0
7
7
20
21
35
Data
Percentage
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
99
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
national environmental
radiological laboratory capacity
(measured as percentage of
laboratories adhering to EPA
quality criteria for emergency
response and recovery decisions).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Available
2009
Unit
Baseline - 2005 baseline is zero.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(R36) Average time of availability
of quality assured ambient
radiation air monitoring data
during an emergency
Baseline
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.0
Data
Available
2009
Number of
Days
Baseline - 2005 baseline is 2.5.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
(R37) Time to approve site
changes affecting waste
characterization at DOE waste
generator sites to ensure safe
disposal of transuranic radioactive
waste at WIPP (measured as
percentage reduction from a 2004
baseline).
20
24
30
33
40
43
46
Data
Available
2009
Percentage
Baseline - 2004 baseline is zero.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
OBJECTIVE: 1.5: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
By 2012, 160 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of emissions will be reduced through EPA^s voluntary climate
protection programs.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
100
-------
Performance Measures Met
1
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
2
Total Performance Measures
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.1: Buildings Sector
Buildings Sector. By 2012, 46 MMTCE will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(G02) Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2005
Target
23.8
Actual
28.2
FY 2006
Target
26.5
Actual
30.1
FY 2007
Target
29.4
Actual
36.1
FY 2008
Target
32.4
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S.
climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in
2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is
based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector.
Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by
EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the
estimates.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.2: Industrial Sector
Industry Sector. By 2012, 99 MMTCE will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
101
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(G16) Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2005
Target
53.5
Actual
64.1
FY 2006
Target
57.8
Actual
68.7
FY 2007
Target
62.6
Actual
72.9
FY 2008
Target
67.7
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
MMCTE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S.
climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in
2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is
based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector.
Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by
EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the
estimates.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.3: Transportation Sector
By 2012, 15 MMTCE will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(G06) Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2005
Target
0.3
Actual
0.3
FY 2006
Target
0.6
Actual
0.6
FY 2007
Target
0.9
Actual
1.15
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Actual
1.6
Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S.
climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in
2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is
based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector.
Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by
EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
102
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
estimates.
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - Due to reporting cycle, data are unavailable until 2009
OBJECTIVE: 1.6: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2012, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes.
Performance Measures Met
1
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2007
1
Total Performance Measures
2
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H34) Percent progress toward
completion of a hierarchy of air
pollutant sources based on the
risk they pose to human health.
FY 2005
Target
Baseline
Actual
5
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
10
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
UD
FY 2008
Target
50
Actual
Data
Unavail-
able
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2005, the program began measuring its progress in completing a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on the risk they
pose to human health and completed 5 percent of the hierarchy. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of developing a better
understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes related to clean air.
Explanation - EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors will provide feedback regarding how to most meaningfully
(H35) Percent planned actions
accomplished toward the long-
term goal of reducing uncertainty
in the science that support
standard setting and air quality
management decisions.
100
94
100
94
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions that support the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
103
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
science that supports the standard-setting and air quality management decisions. The program completed 71 percent of its actions in
support of this goal in 2003. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of developing a better understanding and characterization of human
health and environmental outcomes related to clean air.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
104
-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Goal at a Glance
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems
to protect human health; support economic and recreational activities; and provide healthy habitat for fish,
plants, and wildlife.
Goal 2 FY 2008
Performance Measures
Met = 20 Not Met = 7 Data Available After November 17, 2008 = 11
(Total Measures = 38)
Goal 2 Performance Measures
(FY 2008)
I Goal Not Met gData Lag gGoal Met
How Funds Ware Used: Net Program Costs
(Dollar* In Thousands)
Source: FY 200B Statement of Met Cost by Coal
Clan Air and Global dfmatal Change
I Qean and Safe Vfecer
] Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
1 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Goal 2 FY 2008 Performance and Resources
Strategic Objective
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.
Objective 2 - Protect Water Quality
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect
coastal and ocean waters.
Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA 's goal of clean and safe
water by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal
2.
Goal 2 Total
FY2008
Obligations
(in thousands)
$1,339,331.9
$1,664,746.0
$144,891.9
$3,148,969.8
% of Goal
2 Funds
43%
53%
5%
100%
"EPA has made significant progress in protecting the nation's water resources - in FY
2008, over 2,165 waterbodies that were listed as impaired in 2002 are now fully attaining
water quality standards."
- Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Office of Water
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
105
-------
Goal Purpose: Clean and Safe Water
EPA, in coordination with its partners, ensures that drinking water is safe and restores and
maintains the quality of the nation's surface waters.
To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Agency sets limits for drinking water contaminants;
helps to sustain the network of pipes and treatment facilities that constitute the nation's water
infrastructure; and works with water systems to plan for, prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist
or other threats to drinking water supplies. EPA works with state and local partners to implement
source water protection plans for the area surrounding drinking water sources. Also, the
Underground Injection Control program regulates the subsurface injections of hazardous and
nonhazardous substances in wells.
To protect surface waters, EPA works with state and tribal partners to implement core clean
water programs to protect waters nationwide by strengthening water quality standards;
improving water quality monitoring and assessment; implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) and other watershed related plans; strengthening the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, particularly through the issuance of high priority
and stormwater permits; and implementing practices to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources.
Furthermore, EPA's four pillars for sustainability and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) are important tools for supporting sustainable water infrastructure.
While EPA continues to make progress toward clean and safe water, challenges remain. For
example, drinking water systems and improvements in water quality are increasingly stressed
due to aging infrastructure and expanding populations. In this goal section, EPA reports on
accomplishments and challenges in addressing water quality issues—strengthening and
improving drinking water standards, maintaining safe water quality at public beaches, restoring
polluted water bodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 106
-------
Data Trends
Performance Measure
Number of TMDLs that are established by States and
approved by EPA on schedule consistent with
national policy
35000
30000
2006
2007
2008
I Annual Target • End-of-Year Results
Development and implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for an impaired water body is
a critical tool for meeting water restoration goals. Total Maximum Daily Loads focus on clearly
defined environmental goals and establish a pollutant budget, which is then implemented via
permit requirements and through local, state, and federal watershed plans/programs.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
107
-------
Data Quality
EPA uses data from its performance measurements to manage, and to ensure that the data are
complete and reliable; information is subject to the Agency's Quality System policies and
procedures. Every performance measure in this report has corresponding in-depth information
to explain the data's source, limitations, and other factors. This report includes examples in
each goal to better inform EPA's stakeholders. For a complete list of this information, visit:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf.
Performance Measure
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards
from states and territories that are approved by EPA
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
I
2005
2006
2007
2008
What This Shows: EPA has gotten better at working with states and territories early in their
standards development process to help them submit standards that EPA can approve. EPA also
improved its ability to estimate the number and approvability of standards revisions that states
and territories submit, making broader use of partial approvals so that the great majority of
standards revisions can be immediately effective while unresolved issues are being elevated. In
2008 the results are particularly welcome, but might not be sustainable year after year. There is
a trend toward states tackling more difficult environmental problems, which can increase the
number of standards provisions that raise complex technical and policy issues.
Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states and
territories of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act and EPA's water
quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. EPA regional office staff members compile
information from each submission and enter it into the WATA system.
Data Limitations: Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity. For example, a
submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use attainability analyses
for specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific types of waters, general
statewide policies, anti-degradation policies or procedures, and variances. Therefore, these
measures—the number of submissions approved, and the number of jurisdictions with updated
scientific information contained in adopted standards—do not provide an indicator of the scope,
geographic coverage, policy importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards.
This information would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by reviewing the content of
adopted and approved standards available at:
www.epa.qov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
108
-------
Contributing Programs
Water Monitoring, Analytical Methods, Beach Program, Coastal and Ocean Programs, Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, Cooling Water Intakes Program, Drinking Water and Ground
Water Protection Programs, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Drinking Water Research,
Effluent Guidelines, Fish Consumption Advisories, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Pollutant Load Allocation, Surface Water Protection
Program, Sustainable Infrastructure Program, Total Daily Maximum Loads, Underground
Injection Control Program, Wastewater Management, Water Efficiency, Water Quality Standards
and Criteria, Watershed Management, Water Quality Research.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 109
-------
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 2, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$144,891.9—
5%
Objective 2
$1,664,746.0-/
52%
Objective 1
$1,339,331.9
43%
Objective 1: Protect Human
Health, Performance
Measures
In collaboration with states and tribes, EPA is working to protect human health by reducing
contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters.
EPA Exceeds Drinking Water Goal: EPA and its partners continue to make progress in
providing the public with drinking water that meets health-based standards. Water systems
across the country are working to meet standards for more than 90 contaminants to keep
drinking water safe and secure. In FY 2008, 92 percent of Americans were served by
community water systems that met applicable health-based drinking water standards. This
percentage exceeded the National Drinking Water Program's commitment of 90 percent,
despite the fact that water systems throughout the country are challenged daily with protecting
public health by applying existing regulations and implementing new standards.
New Underground Injection Control Regulation Helps Address Climate Change: The EPA
Underground Injection Control program for addressing significant violations for Class I, II, and III
wells continued to make progress in identifying and closing or permitting high-priority wells,
including motor vehicle waste disposal wells, in community water system source water
protection areas. In FY 2008, EPA proposed regulations for the sequestration of carbon dioxide
in a manner that protects underground sources of drinking water. Geologic sequestration is the
process of injecting carbon dioxide from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power
plant, through a well into the deep subsurface of the earth. Wth proper site selection and
management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide. Future management challenges will include developing final regulations and cultivating
underground injection control primacy program capacity, such as providing permit assistance,
supporting analysis of risks associated with carbon sequestration, and developing technical
assistance information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
110
-------
EPA Expands Contaminant Warning Systems: In FY 2008, EPA expanded the contamination
warning system pilot program by selecting four additional drinking water utilities to award
cooperative agreements for establishing contamination water system pilots. Two of these pilots
began in FY 2008. The pilot program is meant to demonstrate the concept of an early warning
system to quickly detect and respond to contamination threats and incidents in drinking water
distribution systems. EPA also developed and published two guidance documents to transfer
knowledge gained from the pilot projects to water utilities and other stakeholders.
Agency Works Toward Development of a
Water Laboratory Alliance: In FY2008, EPA
conducted 11 functional exercises to test the
Regional Laboratory Response Plans using
blind samples in all 10 EPA regions, including
Hawaii. Regional Laboratory Response Plans
provide regions with a structure for joint
response by laboratories (e.g., EPA regional
and state public health/environmental
laboratories, larger drinking water utility
laboratories) within each region.
EPA Works to Improve Water Quality to
Protect Fish and Shellfish: Throughout FY
2008, EPA worked with states and other
federal agencies to address poor water
quality, including waters used for shellfish-
growing areas. Through its surface water
protection program, EPA addresses human-
related activities that cause these closures,
such as discharges from sewage treatment
plants. States continue to monitor shellfishing
waters and restrict harvesting if shellfish are
deemed unsafe for consumption.
EPA Increases Public Access to Fish
Advisory Information: EPA works to reduce
the release of contaminants into the nation's
waters and conducts activities to expand
information access about safe fish consumption. In FY 2008, EPA continued work with states
and tribes in monitoring fish contaminants and issuing fish consumption advice. EPA also
encouraged states to revisit existing advisories to evaluate whether contaminants levels in fish
tissue have improved sufficiently to revise those advisories.
EPA Promotes Safe Swimming: EPA, through its Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health Program, is working with state, tribal, and local governmental partners to
make beach advisory information available to the public. EPA established this program to
provide a framework for local governments to develop equally protective and consistent
programs across the country for monitoring the quality of water at beaches and posting
warnings or beach closings when pollutant levels are too high.
EPA Meets Goal on Limiting Beach Closures: Stormwater running off streets, fields, and
forests, as well as other sources of contamination, including wastewater from sanitary sewer
overflows, feed into coastal waters and can contaminate beaches. Under EPA's Beach
Promoting Water Conservation Through
Partnerships
In partnership with EPA's Region 6 Office and
the Texas AgriLife Extension, Tarrant County
launched a successful water conservation
campaign involving 1.7 million people, 33 cities,
and 4,000 employees.
This campaign was the first county-wide water
conservation initiative, and featured Water
Summits for elected officials, city facility
managers, public works directors, independent
school districts, and other large water users.
A public education program coined, "Every Drop
Counts" resulted in 900 county employees
pledging to reduce water use at work and home,
and prompted several newspaper articles
promoting water conservation tips.
At the conclusion of the campaign, 23 Tarrant
County buildings installed automatic flush low-
flow toilets, 18 buildings installed automatic
"hands free" water faucets; an out-of-date cooling
tower was replaced, which netted a water
savings of 40 percent; and the largest water
user, the Tarrant County Corrections Center
recorded a 50 percent reduction in water use by
installing 3-minute timers on shower facilities.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
111
-------
Program, more than 3,600 beaches were monitored by 35 states and territories to ensure that
beaches were safe for swimming. During calendar year 2007, coastal and Great Lakes beaches
were open 95 percent of beach season days, meeting EPA's FY 2008 goal. Of the more than
663,164 beach season days during the year, fewer than 5 percent were restricted because of
contamination-related closings. Most (94 percent) of beach notification actions reported during
the 2007 swimming season lasted a week or less.
New Tools Help in Beach Management: In FY 2008, EPA worked to control pollution at
beaches. The Office of Water and the Office of Research and Development combined efforts to
create new software that predicts recreational water quality and allows for timelier decision-
making on beach management and closure. The number of beaches in EPA's Beach Program
continues its downward trend, due to consolidations and corrected state survey data. EPA and
its state partners are improving data collection and reporting to provide a more complete picture
of the nation's beaches.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 1 - Protect Human Health
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Beach / Fish Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Drinking Water Programs
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water
SRF
International Capacity Building
Pesticides: Field Programs
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
FY 2006
Obligations
$104,130.7
$11,338.0
($223.8)
$10,077.0
$3,974.1
$3,509.9
$126,261.1
$94,884.5
$280.3
$14,188.7
$838.2
$793,628.2
$2,518.8
$129.0
$200.4
$56.5
$3,778.9
($52.3)
FY 2007
Obligations
$96,073.7
$10,073.0
($45.4)
$10,023.4
$3,705.7
$2,774.9
$73,346.0
$105,061.2
$436.9
$14,578.9
$680.0
$789,624.4
$2,476.7
$0.0
$233.2
$56.8
$3,924.8
($13.2)
FY 2008
Obligations
$105,801.3
$12,376.1
$0.1
$10,881.6
$5,528.5
$2,239.7
$42,670.4
$112,121.7
$346.2
$34,416.8
$591.0
$942,982.2
$2,174.5
($0.9)
$266.6
$64.7
$5,409.7
($4.8)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
112
-------
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$506.5
$2,329.3
$1,481.9
$24,269.6
$1,074.9
$2,149.4
$182.9
$13,222.6
$2,052.0
$727.4
$9,190.3
$196.5
$208.5
$87.8
$1,962.5
$762.0
$1,229,922.3
$513.3
$2,332.9
$1,621.5
$24,220.8
$1,123.5
$1,911.2
$197.3
$13,971.0
$2,209.0
$692.2
$8,463.5
$170.8
$225.9
$111.2
$1,734.9
$817.7
$1,173,327.7
$502.3
$2,307.1
$1,121.4
$22,691.3
$1,359.2
$1,941.9
$300.5
$12,811.3
$2,254.2
$741.7
$11,779.1
$172.4
$260.7
$134.7
$2,298.0
$790.9
$1,339,332.1
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
Base program support grants include: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Public Water
System Supervision Grant Program, Underground Injection Control Grant Program. In addition,
over the past six years, EPA has provided a total of over $59 million in grants to 35 coastal and
Great Lakes states and territories that support state and local government beach monitoring and
notification programs that provide the public with information on the safety of water for
swimming.
Web Links:
Ground Water and Drinking Water Program: www.epa.gov/safewater/
Shellfish Protection: www.epa.gov/waterscience/shellfish/
Water Science: www.epa.gov/waterscience/
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
113
-------
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 2, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$144,891.9
5%
Objective 2
$1,664,746.0^
52%
Objective 1
^$1,339,331.9
43%
Objective 2: Protect Water
Quality, Performance
Measures
With its federal, state, and tribal partners, EPA is working to protect the quality of rivers, lakes,
and streams on a watershed basis and to protect coastal and ocean waters.
Water Permits Prevented Discharge of 188 Billion Pounds of Pollution: Under the EPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permits that implemented standards for
industrial sources, municipal treatment plants, and stormwater prevented the discharge of 188
billion pounds of pollutants into waterways in FY 2008. The original target of 40 billion pounds of
pollutants removed was achieved. EPA and states exceeded their goal of issuing 95 percent of
designated priority National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Also, in FY 2008,
EPA approved 92 percent of the new or revised water quality standards that states submitted for
the year, exceeding the performance goal of 87 percent. This accomplishment reflects EPA's
and states' continuing efforts to work together more closely during states' formulation of new
and revised standards.
EPA Collects Data for National Report on the Condition of Rivers and Streams: EPA is
working with partners in the states and tribes on a series of statistically representative surveys
of the aquatic resources of the U.S.—its streams, rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands
(www.epa.qov/owow/monitorinq/reportinq.html). The surveys are designed to yield unbiased
estimates of the condition of each resource, based on a representative sample of waters. During
summer 2008, EPA and its partners began to conduct sampling of U.S. flowing waters for
indicators of ecological, recreational, and physical habitat condition. Data collected will be used
for a baseline assessment of U.S. rivers and a second assessment of wadeable streams to be
included in a combined national report in 2012. A national assessment of the baseline condition
of the nation's lakes will be completed in 2009; a report will be issued in 2010. An updated
survey of the nation's coastal waters will begin in 2010, followed by a wetlands survey in 2011.
These statistically representative surveys have begun providing EPA and the states with
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
114
-------
information to help identify national priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control
and prevention actions.
New Data Tool Supports Water Quality Management: In 2008, EPA continued to improve the
quality, quantity, and accessibility of water quality data to provide decision-makers with better
information they need to protect and restore the waters of the United States. The newly
released ATTAINS database presents state-reported information on support of designated uses
in assessed waters; identified causes and sources of impairment; identified impaired waters;
and status of Total Maximum Daily Loads, or the permissible contaminant level, to restore
impaired waters. These data are dynamic and continuously updated and can be sorted by state,
EPA region, or the nation as a whole.
State Use of EPA Clean Water Revolving Fund Is Stable and Strong: In 2008, the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund program showed strong performance in committing funds to
protect, improve, and restore water quality in the nation's streams, river, and lakes. The Clean
Water State Revolving Fund performance, as measured by the fund utilization rate, continues to
be stable and strong at over 90 percent nationally. In partnership with EPA, over the last 20
years, the states have provided $65 billion for low-cost loans for a variety of wastewater projects
that help communities meet environmental standards and ensure public health.
Guide for Utility Companies Helps Keep Water Safe: One of the Agency's most important
challenges is ensuring that the nation's vital water infrastructure is sustainable and that water
remains clean and safe. In 2008, EPA and six of the major trade associations jointly released a
guide for effective utility management. This guide included sample measures utilities can use to
track their progress in achieving the 10 attributes of effectively managed utilities. Release of an
Energy Management Guidebook, and subsequent training, is helping hundreds of utilities cut
costs.
EPA Releases New Method to Test for Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in
Water: In FY 2008, the Agency developed two new state-of-the-art analytical methods to
identify and measure Pharmaceuticals, steroids, and hormones in water. These methods cover
more than 100 chemicals (74 Pharmaceuticals and personal care products and 27
steroids/hormones), as well as raw and treated sewage water and sludge.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 2 - Protect Water Quality
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source
(Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
FY 2006
Obligations
$217,344.3
$11,227.6
$224,582.7
FY 2007
Obligations
$204,706.7
$303.8
$205,320.3
FY 2008
Obligations
$211,415.7
($21.6)
$252,150.7
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
115
-------
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator
Training
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water
SRF
International Capacity Building
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$1,491.0
$263,416.5
$517.8
$1,141.7
$33,791.4
$897,523.3
$474.3
$11,233.5
$193,591.6
$370.2
$104.4
$7,262.3
$1,013.6
$4,752.8
$2,737.2
$45,445.6
$1,585.1
$3,417.2
$239.6
$20,424.6
$3,651.0
$1,247.9
$14,487.4
$417.8
$385.2
$162.2
$2,199.3
$1,407.4
$1,967,646.5
$786.3
$146,254.7
$806.0
$921.5
$47,745.0
$1,033,490.9
$480.0
$13,703.4
$194,720.9
$430.2
$104.8
$7,155.5
$1,036.8
$4,869.8
$2,992.5
$44,877.9
$1,595.4
$2,957.6
$251.0
$21,520.3
$3,910.5
$1,228.0
$13,929.2
$362.0
$416.8
$205.2
$2,730.3
$1,508.7
$1,961,322.0
$678.9
$38,079.8
$636.4
$821.8
$21,193.7
$818,164.1
$347.7
$13,557.4
$199,809.3
$490.1
$118.9
$7,908.5
$1,003.2
$4,779.5
$2,061.4
$40,726.4
$1,902.3
$2,990.9
$470.4
$19,835.7
$3,983.5
$1,277.2
$14,475.5
$378.7
$479.3
$247.7
$3,329.1
$1,453.8
$1,664,746.0
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
Clean Water Act Section 106 grants fund state water quality programs. Clean Water Act Section
319 nonpoint source grants also support this objective with grants for developing and
implementing comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore impaired waters and
protect healthy waters on a watershed basis. Additionally, the Targeted Watershed Grants
(TWG) Program encourages collaborative, community-driven approaches to meet clean water
goals. The National Estuary Grant Program (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 66.456)
also supports this objective.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
116
-------
Web Links:
Monitoring and Assessing Quality: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
National Stream Report: www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/
National Coastal Condition Reports: www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/
Survey of the Nation's Lakes: www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvey/
Watershed Monitoring: www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
Oceans, Coasts, and Estuaries Program: www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/
National Estuary Program: www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/
Coastal Watershed Factsheets: www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/factsheets/index.html
Wetlands Program: www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan: www.mitigationactionplan.gov/
Coastal America: www.coastalamerica.gov/
Total Maximum Daily Load Program: www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 117
-------
Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 2, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$144,891.9—
5%
Objective 2
$1,664,746.0^
52%
Objective 1
^$1,339,331.9
43%
Objective 3: Enhance
Science and Research,
Performance Measures
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect and
improve drinking water and surface water quality.
EPA Develops Tools That Improve Safe Drinking Water: EPA's Drinking Water Research
Program completed 100 percent of its planned research outputs, including several important
milestones in support of regulatory decisions and their implementation. Three noteworthy
milestones achieved in FY 2008 follow:
• In FY 2008, the Agency completed research on health risks associated with drinking water
exposures to disinfection byproducts. This research provides scientific support for more
robust health risk assessments of both regulated and unregulated disinfection byproducts,
enabling water suppliers to make more informed treatment decisions that control exposure
to disinfection byproducts while meeting disinfection requirements.
• EPA released an online Drinking Water Treatability Database, which provides decision
support for determining appropriate drinking water treatment technologies to address
regulated and emerging contaminants.
• The research program provided scientific support to help meet the challenges associated
with simultaneous compliance of the Disinfection Byproduct Rule, the Lead and Copper
Rule, and other components of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Water
treatment systems must be designed and operated to consistently achieve compliance with
all components of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Water Quality Gets a Boost From New Studies and Models: In support of Clean Water Act
regulatory and nonregulatory activities, EPA's Water Quality Research Program completed 100
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
118
-------
percent of its planned research outputs. Three major accomplishments of the Water Quality
Research Program, which supported Clean Water Act regulatory and nonregulatory activities,
follow:
• EPA conducted a study on how wet weather impacts the disinfection processes in
wastewater treatment plants. During extreme rain events, wastewater flows that are much
larger than typical flows can alter the effectiveness of treatment processes. This study
investigated the impact of a wet weather practice called "blending." This practice, common
at large wastewater treatment plants, involves blending partially treated effluent with fully
treated effluent then disinfecting the combined flow prior to discharge. The primary
objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of blending on the concentration of several
microbiological indicators as well as total residual chlorine in final blended effluent. The
results from this research will support policies for treating wastewater during severe wet
weather to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment.
• Agency researchers developed "Virtual Beach" and "Beach Advisor" modeling software
programs, which utilize site-specific weather and other factors to predict the likelihood that
recreational water criteria will be exceeded at a given beach location. Local beach
managers can use "Virtual Beach," and the more user friendly "Beach Advisor," to make
timelier, same-day beach closure or advisory decisions. These abilities are an improvement
over the current approach of using fecal indicator analyses that require over 24 hours for
results.
• Researchers updated the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment, a geographic
information system (GIS) interface jointly developed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the University of Arizona. This landscape assessment software tool can save enormous
monitoring resources by allowing environmental managers to quickly identify potential
problem areas where additional monitoring or mitigation activities are needed. The software
can also help identify relatively pristine areas where protection programs can be applied.
Agencies Work With States to Research Water Quality Factors
EPA scientists have made significant contributions in advancing the technical basis for setting
water quality criteria and for providing accessible information to states and tribes. The Office of
Water and the Office of Research and Development initiated a collaboration to produce case
studies documenting the application of methods to obtain numeric nutrient criteria for U.S.
estuaries. Case studies for Pensacola Bay, Florida, and Yaquina Bay, Oregon, derived
hypothetical values for numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water
clarity, and dissolved oxygen, providing states and tribes with major new insights for assessing
water quality.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 119
-------
Pensacola
Bay
Legend
V
Low-amplitude (<0.5 m)
diurnal tide
River inputs of freshwater,
dissolved organic carbon and
nutrients
Atmospheric nitrogen deposition
Nutrient inputs from municipal
wastewater
Industrial point sources mostly
eliminated. Coal-fired power
generation emits to
atmosphere.
Cross-pycnocline diffusive
mixing is low
^_ 2-layerestuarine circulation,
sometimes very weak
n ** Moderate light attenuation (upper
- ',, estuary), high light transmittance
" (lower estuary)
_; Macrobenthos degraded,
most likely by hypoxia.
•~£pi High and low dissolved oxygen
-—s,
!!;£., Medium and low dissolved
nutrients
Particulate C and N sinking
De nitrification
Recreational uses, including
contact and non-contact uses
Commercial fishing, principally shrimp
Ira wi ing
Large fraction of watershed is forested (but
managed for timber production)
Development along estuarine shorelines
Seagrasses present in lower Bay, but
largely lost elsewhere.
s>
Yaquina
Bay
Ocean input of nutrients, phyto plankton, and
hypoxic water associated with coastal up we Mi no.
Riverine input of freshwater (blue) & nutrients (red)
Watershed primarily forested,
nutrient inputs associated with Red Alder.
Logging occurs in watershed
Nutrient input from municipal wastewater
Benthk input of nutrients & grazing control
Intermittent high nutrients
(mermtttent phytoplankton blooms
intermittent low dissolved oxygen water
Pulp mill adjacent to estuary; discharge offshore
Shellfish a qua culture
Recreational uses, inctudirwj fishing,
clamrnir*g,crabbing and boating.
Development along esluary shoreline
Seagrass primarily in tower estuary;
occur at shallower depth in upper estuary.
,-..,._;. I , I blooms primarily in lower estuary;
fueled by oceanic nutrients.
Wa te r c I ea re r i n to we rest uary; atte nuat ion
of Iight greater in upper estuary.
Strong tidal foroncj
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
120
-------
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
FY 2006
Obligations
$8,128.6
$200.5
$1,120.5
$52,087.4
$48,496.3
$866.9
$143.4
$40.4
$2,514.6
$239.0
$806.5
$1,059.9
$3,706.7
$1,411.8
$2,392.2
$299.3
$13,017.4
$1,407.4
$630.5
$857.0
$37.6
$149.0
$62.8
$318.5
$545.0
$140,539.2
FY 2007
Obligations
$2,924.7
$321.8
$856.1
$44,628.3
$55,089.4
($6.0)
$171.7
$41.8
$2,454.5
$237.4
$849.7
$1,191.0
$7,924.5
$1,642.5
$2,378.4
$336.1
$13,955.4
$1,627.1
$564.9
$780.9
$47.4
$166.4
$81.9
$895.5
$602.3
$139,763.7
FY 2008
Obligations
($16.3)
$250.4
$618.9
$48,421.8
$53,777.1
$0.0
$192.8
$46.8
$2,896.9
$228.5
$828.6
$810.8
$14,575.9
$1,950.1
$2,483.5
$465.9
$12,442.1
$1,646.2
$637.8
$941.5
$5.3
$188.6
$97.4
$829.4
$571.9
$144,891.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Grants:
• EPA STAR grantees developed methods to: 1) assess the extent to which current water and
wastewater treatment practices are successful at removing pharmaceutical and personal
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
121
-------
care products from water bodies, 2) fill important data gaps on the occurrence, fate,
transport and ecological impacts of pharmaceutical and personal care products; and 3)
inform risk assessments of Pharmaceuticals and provide a model for the pharmaceutical
monitoring commercialization process. (Supported by the following five grants: 1) "Impact of
Residual Pharmaceutical Agents and their Metabolites in Wastewater Effluents on
Downstream Drinking Water Treatment Facilities"; 2) "Pharmaceuticals and Antiseptics:
Occurrence and Fate in Drinking Water, Sewage Treatment Facilities, and Coastal Waters";
3) "Effectiveness of Ultraviolet Irradiation for Pathogen Inactivation in Surface Waters"; 4)
"The Environmental Occurrence, Fate, and Ecotoxicity of Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitors in Aquatic Environments"; and 5) "Environmental Toxicology Chemistry and The
Environmental Occurrence, Fate, and Ecotoxicity of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
in Aquatic Environments.")
• EPA-funded research linked sewage disposal to the overgrowth destruction of some coral
reefs in Southeast Florida. Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida
Wldlife Research Institute, and EPA are using these research results to assess alternatives
for wastewater treatment and disposal in Southeast Florida. Additionally, scientists and
resource managers in the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative are using these results to
improve knowledge of land-based sources of pollution in the region. (Supported by a grant
entitled: Physiology and Ecology of Macroalgal Blooms on Coral Reefs off Southeast
Florida.)
Web Links:
The Drinking Water Research and Water Quality Research Programs conduct leading-edge
research in support of EPA's goal of clean water. Additional information on the Drinking Water
program can be found at www.epa.gov/ord/npd/dwresearch-intro.htm.
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 122
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health,
support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
OBJECTIVE: 2.1: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and
shellfish, and in recreational waters.
Performance Measures Met
7
Performance Measures Not Met
4
Data Available After November 17,
2008
4
Total Performance Measures
15
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.1: Water Safe To Drink
By 2011, 91 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water protection. (2005 Baseline: 89 percent).
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards throughout the year. (2005 baseline: 89 percent).
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(aph) Percent of community water
systems (CWSs) that have
undergone a sanitary survey
within the past three years (five
years for outstanding
performance.)
FY 2005
Target
94
Actual
94
FY 2006
Target
95
Actual
94
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
92
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
87
Unit
Percent
CWSs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 80 percent of community water systems in 2004.
Explanation - Sanitary surveys are resource-intensive efforts, as state staff or contractors must physically visit the system. The costs of
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
123
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
individual sanitary surveys have increased due to higher labor costs and higher gas prices. In addition, requirements on the states have
increased with the promulgation of LT2/Stage2 and the Ground Water Rule.
(apm) Percent of community water
systems that meet all applicable
health-based standards through
approaches that include effective
treatment and source water
protection.
93.5
89.3
94
89
89.5
89
Percent
CWSs
Baseline - In 2002, 91 .8 percent of community water systems met all applicable health-based standards through approaches that
included effective treatment and source water protection.
Explanation - New rules, such as arsenic and the ground water rule, pose greater challenges for small systems than for larger ones,
which in turn affects this measure more than the population measure.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards during
96 percent person months (i.e., all persons served by community water systems times 12 months). (2005 baseline: 95.2 percent)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B) (SP-2) Percent of person-
months during which community
water systems provide drinking
water that meets all applicable
health-based standards.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
97
Unit
Percent
Person-
months
Baseline - In 2005, 95.2 percent of goal achieved.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
124
-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, 86 percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards. (2005 baseline: 86 percent).
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(E) Percent of the population in
Indian country served by
community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets
all applicable health-based
drinking water standards
FY 2005
Target
86.3
Actual
86.3
FY 2006
Target
90
Actual
86.60
FY 2007
Target
93
Actual
87
FY 2008
Target
87
Actual
83
Unit
Percent
Population
Baseline - 91 .1 percent of the population in Indian country was served by community water systems that received drinking water that met
all applicable health-based standards in 2002.
Explanation - When it comes to implementation of rules and new rules, smaller systems have a great challenge compared to larger
systems. 93 percent of the population in Indian Country is served by a small system or very small system - population under 3,300.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, minimize risk to public health through source water protection for 50 percent of community water systems and for the
associated 62 percent of the population served by community water systems (i.e., "minimized risk" achieved by substantial
implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy). (2005 baseline: 20 percent of
community water systems; 28 percent of population).
Strategic Target (5)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to
safe drinking water.(2003 baseline: Indian Health Service data indicate that 12 percent of homes on tribal lands lack access to safe
drinking water [i.e., 38,637 homes lack access].
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
125
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(F1) (SDW-8a) Percentage of
identified Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells closed or
permitted.
(G) (SDW-7) Percentage of Class
I, II, and III wells that maintain
mechanical integrity without a
failure that releases contaminants
to underground sources of
drinking water.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
90
98
Actual
Data
Available
December
2008
Data
Available
December
2008
Unit
Percent
Class V
Wells
Percent
Class I, II, III
Wells
(A) (SDW-8) Percentage of
prohibited Class IV and high-
priority, identified, potentially
endangering Class V wells closed
or permitted in ground-water
based source water areas.
(aa) Percent of population served
by community water systems that
will receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through
approaches including effective
treatment and source water
protection.
88.5
88.5
93
89.4
94
92
96
90
Data
Available
December
2008
92
Percent
Class IV
Wells
Percent
Population
Baseline - In 2002, 93.6 percent of the population that was served by community water systems and 96 percent of the population served
by non-community, non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of Federally enforceable health
standards had occurred during the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered
standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products, interim enhanced surface water treatment rule, long-term enhanced surface water
treatment rule, arsenic.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
126
-------
(ape) Fund utilization rate for the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF).
81.9
84.7
83.3
86.9
85
88
86
90
Rate
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is a 79.2 percent fund utilization rate in 2003.
(apd) Number of additional
projects initiating operations.
415
439
425
431
433
438
440
556
Projects
Baseline - In 2002, 1,538 projects were initiating operations.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
By 2011, reduce public health risk and allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish, as measured by the strategic targets
described.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce the percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern to 4.6
percent. (2002 baseline: 5.7 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury blood levels above levels of concern identified by
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES].)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H) (SP-6) Percent of women of
childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of
concern.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
5.5
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percent of
Women
Baseline - 2002 baseline: 5.7 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury blood levels above levels of concern identified by the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Explanation - The 4th National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals will be the Agency's source of data but no firm
date has been given for when the report will be released. The current expectation is that it will be published by the end of 2008.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
127
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, maintain or improve the percentage of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources that are
approved or conditionally approved for use. (2003 baseline: 65 to 85 percent of 16.3 million acres of state-monitored shellfish-
growing acres estimated to be impacted by anthropogenic sources are approved or conditionally approved for use.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(fs2) Percent of state-monitored
shellfish-growing acres impacted
by anthropogenic sources that are
approved or conditionally
approved for use.
FY 2005
Target
80
Actual
81.2
FY 2006
Target
91
Actual
Data no
longer
available
FY 2007
Target
81
Actual
Data no
longer
available
FY 2008
Target
65-85
Actual
Measure
no longer
tracked
Unit
Percent
Areas
Baseline - 2003 baseline: 65 to 85 percent of 16.3 million acres of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres estimated to be impacted by
anthropogenic sources are approved or conditionally approved for use.
Explanation - The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) typically requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish
producing states on a two-year cycle and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary. New data are not available for this
measure and the ISSC has not yet issued a date for the next Report.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming
By 2011, improve the quality of recreational waters as measured by the strategic targets.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, the number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and
Great Lakes waters will be maintained at two, measured as a 5-year average. (2005 baseline: an annual average of two recreational
contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for Disease Control over the years 1998 to 2002; adjusted to
remove outbreaks associated with waters other than coastal and Great Lakes waters and other than natural surface waters [i.e.,
pools and water parks].
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(J1) (ss1) Number of waterborne
disease outbreaks attributable to
swimming in or other recreational
contact with coastal and Great
Lakes waters measured as a 5-
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
2
Actual
0
Unit
Number of
Outbreaks
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
128
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
year average.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - 2005 baseline: an annual average of two recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers
for Disease Control over the years 1998 to 2002; adjusted to remove outbreaks associated with waters other than coastal and Great
Lakes waters and other than natural surface waters [i.e., pools and water parks].
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, maintain the percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach
safety programs are open and safe for swimming at 96 percent. (2005 baseline: Beaches open 96 percent of the 743,036 days of the
beach season [i.e., beach season days are equal to 4,025 beaches multiplied by variable number of days of beach season at each
beach).
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(ss2) Percent of days of beach
season that coastal and Great
Lakes beaches monitored by state
beach safety programs are open
and safe for swimming.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
94
Actual
97
FY 2007
Target
92.6
Actual
95.2
FY 2008
Target
92.6
Actual
95
Unit
Percent
Days/Season
Baseline - 2005 baseline: Beaches open 96 percent of the 743,036 days of the beach season [i.e., beach season days are equal to
4,025 beaches multiplied by variable number of days of beach season at each beach
OBJECTIVE: 2.2: PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
Performance Measures Met
9
Performance Measures Not Met
1
Data Available After November 17,
2008
6
Total Performance Measures
16
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
By 2012, use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed
basis.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
129
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in more than 2,250 water bodies identified in 2002 as not
attaining standards (cumulative). (2002 Baseline: 37,978 water bodies identified by states and tribes as not meeting water quality
standards. Water bodies where mercury is among multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this target when all
pollutants but mercury attain standards, but must be identified as still needing restoration for mercury; [1,703 impaired water bodies
are impaired by multiple pollutants including mercury, and 6,501 are impaired by mercury alone].)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(L1) (L) Number of waterbody
segments identified by states in
2002 as not attaining standards,
where water quality standards are
now fully attained (cumulative.)
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
1,166
Actual
1,409
FY 2008
Target
1,550
Actual
2,165
Unit
Number of
Segments
Baseline - In 2002, 0 percent of the 255,408 miles/and 6,803,419 acres of waters identified on 1998/2000 lists of impaired waters
developed by states and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Explanation - Reasons for significantly exceeding the target include heightened efforts by states and EPA to document water quality
successes; reducing backlogs of pending lists of impaired waters from 2004 and 2006 reporting cycles; increasing use of watershed
approaches.
(bpb) Fund utilization rate for the
CWSRF.
90
95.4
93.3
94.7
93.4
96.7
93.5
98
Percent Rate
Baseline - In 2005, fund utilization rate for the CWSRF was 94.7 percent.
(bpk) Number of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) that are
established by states and
approved by EPA on schedule
consistent with national policy
(cumulative).
14,462
15,342
16,896
19,373
21,923
23,376
28,527
30,658
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,677 TMDLs in 2000.
Explanation - Reasons for significantly exceeding the target include TMDLs completed ahead of schedule for 2009 and 2011 consent
decree deadlines; state collaboration with EPA to overcome significant technical and regulatory obstacles relating to the complex task of
developing nutrient TMDLs within the Mississippi River Delta region; and additions of segments to an in-place state wide mercury TMDL
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
130
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
effort. Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and
'established' refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(bpl) Percentage of high priority
state NPDES permits that are
scheduled to be reissued.
95
104
95
96.4
95
111
95
120
Percent
Permits
Baseline - 95 percent (measure is annual, Regions required to meet 95 percent of the universe).
Explanation - When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the fiscal year as well as for
two successive years. If a state is able to issue permits designated for a future fiscal year ahead of schedule, they receive credit toward
the current fiscal year target, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
(bpn) Percentage of major
dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance at any time during
the fiscal year.
22.5
19.7
22.5
20.2
22.5
22.5
22.5
Data
Available
January
2009
Percent
Dischargers
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 22.5 percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance in 2004.
(bpo) Percent of states and
territories that, within the
preceding 3-year period,
submitted new or revised water
quality criteria acceptable to EPA
that reflect new science info from
EPA or other sources not
considered in previous standard
62
62
66
66.1
67
66.1
68
62.5
Percent of
States and
Territories
Baseline - Not applicable because number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Explanation - Some states and tribes have insufficient technical expertise to deal with complex science and policy issues, including issues
raised in litigation and in difficult Endangered Species Act consultations. EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to address those
issues.
(bpp) Percentage of submissions
of new or revised water quality
standards from states and
territories that are approved by
89.5
83.5
90.9
89
85
85.6
87
92.5
Percent
Submissions
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
131
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
EPA.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - Not applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
(bps) Number of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA
on a schedule consistent with
national policy (cumulative).
17,767
18,660
20,501
23,185
25,811
27,377
33,801
35,979
Number of
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,843 TMDLs in 2000.
Explanation - Reasons for significantly exceeding the target include TMDLs completed ahead of schedule for 2009 and 201 1 consent
decree deadlines; state collaboration with EPA to overcome significant technical and regulatory obstacles relating to the complex task of
developing nutrient TMDLs within the Mississippi River Delta region; and additions of segments to an in-place state wide mercury TMDL
effort. . Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and
'established' refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(bpt) Percentage of waters
assessed using statistically valid
surveys.
38
38
54
54
54
54
65
65
Percent
Waters
Baseline - 2000 Baseline = 31 percent.
(bpv) Percent of high priority EPA
and state NPDES permits that are
reissued on schedule.
95
100
95
98.5
95
104
95
119
Percent
Permits
Baseline - 95 percent (Measure is annual. Regions are required to meet 95percent of the universe.)
Explanation - When states and regions establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the fiscal year as
well as for two successive years. If a state is unable to issue permits designated for a future fiscal year ahead of schedule, they receive
credit toward the current fiscal year target, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
(O) (bpc) Percentage of all major
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that comply with their
permitted wastewater discharge
standards.
86
Data
Available
January
2009
Percent
POTWs
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
132
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Baseline - In 2005, 3,670 (86.6 percent)
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY
Target
2008
Actual
Unit
publicly owned treatment works complied with their permitted wastewater discharge standards.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2012, remove at least 5,600 of the specific causes of water body impairments identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
baseline: Estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments identified by states).
(2002
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(bpf) Reduction in phosphorus
loadings (millions of pounds).
FY 2005
Target
4.5
Actual
3.2
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
11.8
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
7.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Actual
Data
Available
April 2009
Unit
Pounds
in
Millions
Explanation - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. EPA is estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land
area. Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an
estimation of load reductions.
(bpg) Additional pounds (in
millions) of reduction to total
nitrogen loadings.
8.5
5.9
8.5
14.5
8.5
19.1
8.5
Data
Available
April 2009
Pounds
in
Millions
Explanation - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. We are estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land
area. Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an
estimation of load reductions.
(bph) Additional tons of reduction
to total sediment loadings.
700,000
1,500,000
700,000
1,200,000
700,000
3,900,000
700,000
Data
Available
April 2009
Tons
Explanation - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. We are estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land
area. Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an
estimation of load reductions.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
133
-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2012, improve water quality conditions in 250 impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative). (2002
Baseline: zero watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watersheds with one or more water bodies impaired. The
watershed boundaries for this measure are those established at the "12-digit" scale by the U.S. Geological Survey. Watersheds at
this scale average between 22 square miles in size. "Improved" means that one or more of the impairment causes identified in 2002
are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired water bodies or impaired miles/acres; or there is significant watershed-wide
improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more water quality parameters or related indicators
associated with the impairments.)
Strategic Target (4)
Through 2012, the condition of the nation's wadeable streams does not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in
the percent of streams rated "poor" and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated "good"). (2006 baseline: Wadeable
Stream Survey identifies 28 percent of streams in good condition; 25 percent in fair condition; 42 percent in poor condition.)
Strategic Target (5)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal partners, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to
basic sanitation (cumulative). (2003 baseline: Indian Health Service data indicate that 8.4 percent of homes on tribal lands lack
access to basic sanitation [i.e., 26,777 homes of an estimated 319,070 homes.)
Strategic Target (6)
By 2012, improve water quality in Indian country at not fewer than 50 baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
pathogen indicators, and turbidity). (2006 baseline: 185 monitoring stations on tribal waters located where water quality has been
depressed and activities are underway or planned to improve water quality, out of an estimated 1,661 stations operated by tribes).
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to improve national coastal aquatic ecosystem health by at
least 0.2 points on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report. (2004 Baseline: national rating of "fair/poor,"
or 2.3, where the rating is based on a 4-point system ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 in which 1 is poor and 5 is good using the National
Coastal Condition Report indicators for water and sediment, coastal habitat, benthic index, and fish contamination).
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Northeast Region. (2004 Baseline: Northeast rating of 1.8.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 134
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Southeast Region. (2004 Baseline: Southeast rating of 3.8)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
West Coast Region. (2004 Baseline: West Coast rating of 2.0)
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Puerto Rico Region. (2004 Baseline: Puerto Rico rating of 1.7)
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, 95 percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as
reflected in each site's management plan and measured through onsite monitoring programs). (2005 Baseline: 94 percent)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(P2) (COS) Percent of active
dredged material ocean dumping
sites that will have achieved
environmentally acceptable
conditions (as reflected in each
site's management plan).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
99
Unit
Percent
Sites
Baseline - In 2005, 94 percent active dredged material ocean dumping sites had achieved environmentally acceptable conditions.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(P2) (Opb) Percent of serviceable
rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and
wastewater disposal.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
87
Actual
92
FY 2008
Target
94
Actual
Data
Available
March
2009
Unit
Percent
Homes
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
135
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
OBJECTIVE: 2.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
By 2011, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic
ecosystems-specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.
Performance Measures Met
4
Performance Measures Not Met
2
Data Available After November 17,
2008
1
Total Performance Measures
7
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H37) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of Six
Year Review decisions.
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
90
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
94
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of Six Year Review decisions and completed 100
percent of its actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction
of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
(H38) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
Contaminate Candidate List
Decisions.
100
60
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of the Contaminant Candidate List decisions and
completed 73 percent of its planned actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human
health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
(H66) Percentage of planned
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
136
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
outputs (in support of the Water
Quality Research Program
[WQRP] long-term goal #1)
delivered
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal one and completed 100% of its actions
on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure
to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Explanation - Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to
designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolids long-term goal.
(H68) Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of WQRP long-
term goal #2) delivered
100
67
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal two and completed 100 percent of its
actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Explanation - Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the diagnostics and forecasting techniques for the protection of
human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolids long-term goal.
(H70) Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of WQRP long-
term goal #3) delivered
100
71
100
92
100
100
100
Data
Available
2008
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal three and completed 100 percent of its
actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Explanation - Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 1) restore impaired aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired
systems, 3) provide human health risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of biosolids, and 4) forecast the ecologic,
economic, and human health benefits of alternative approaches to attaining water quality standards long-term goal.
(H96) Percentage of Water Quality
research publications rated as
highly cited publications
Baseline
14.2
biennial
biennial
biennial
biennial
15.7
15.2
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
137
-------
Baseline - In 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development obtained baseline data for the percentage of program publications rated
as highly cited papers, finding that 14.2.percent of papers fit this criteria. In 2008, 15.2 percent of program publications were rated as
highly cited papers.
Explanation - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
the top 10% of their field, as determined by "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the
last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels—such as
the BOSC— in their program evaluations.
(H92) Percentage of Water Quality
publications in "high impact"
journals
Baseline
13.2
biennial
biennial
biennial
biennial
14.7
13.8
Percent
Baseline - In 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development obtained baseline data for the percentage of program publications rated
as high impact papers, finding that 13.2% of papers fit these criteria. In 2008, 13.8 percent of program publications were rated as high
impact papers.
Explanation - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are
published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in
prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten
year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This
"high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is
impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels—such as the
BOSC— in their program evaluations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
138
-------
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Goal at a Glance
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.
Goal 3 FY 2008
Performance Measures
Met = 22 Not Met = 5 Data Available After November 17, 2008 = 2
(Total Measures = 29)
Goal 3 Performance Measures
(FY2008)
Objective 1: Preserve Land Objective 2: Restore Land
Objective 3: Enhance
Science and Research
I Goal Not Met • Data Lag • Goal Met
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
(Dollars In Thousands)
FY 2flOB Statement of Net Cost by Coal
Clan Air and Global Ornate Change
| Clean and Safe Water
I Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
[ Compliance and Bnironmental Stewardship
Goal 3 FY 2008 Performance and Resources
Strategic Objective
Objective 1 - Preserve Land
Reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products at
facilities in ways that prevent releases.
Objective 2 - Restore Land
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.
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 environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
Goal 3 Total
FY2008
Obligations
(in thousands)
$220,845.8
$2,909,314.3
$80,375.3
$3,210,535.4
% of Goal
3 Funds
7%
91%
3%
100%
"EPA increased its ability to assist during national disasters by establishing a network of
response labs this year and through its 1,800 Volunteer Response Support Corps
employees."
- Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
139
-------
Goal Purpose: Land Preservation and Restoration
EPA's land preservation and restoration goal presents its strategic vision for managing waste,
conserving and recovering the value of wastes, preventing releases, responding to
emergencies, and cleaning up contaminated land. Uncontrolled wastes can cause acute illness
or chronic disease and can threaten healthy ecosystems. Cleanup almost always costs more
than prevention, and contaminated land can be a barrier to bringing jobs and revitalization to a
community. Disposed wastes also represent a loss of important material and energy values.
EPA employs a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land, including reducing waste at its
source, recycling waste for materials or energy values, managing waste effectively to prevent
spills and releases of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. It works to
ensure that hazardous and solid wastes are managed safely at industrial facilities. Working with
states, tribes, local governments, and responsible parties, EPA cleans up uncontrolled or
hazardous waste sites and returns land to productive use. Similarly, EPA works to address risks
associated with leaking underground storage tanks and wastes managed at industrial facilities.
EPA is helping develop public-private partnerships to conserve resources in key areas. The
Agency collaborates with partners in innovative, non-regulatory efforts to minimize the amount
of waste generated and promote recycling to recover materials and energy. Through programs
like the Resource Conservation Challenge, EPA promotes opportunities for converting
secondary materials to economically viable products, which conserve resources.
The Agency also works closely with other government agencies to ensure that it is ready to
respond in the event of an emergency that could affect human health or the environment. It
strives to improve its preparedness and response capabilities, particularly in the area of
homeland security.
Finally, EPA conducts and applies scientific research to develop cost-effective methods for
managing wastes, assessing risks, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 140
-------
Data Trends
RCRA Environmental Indicators
Human Exposure
200
= ISO
u
J?
u ioo
so
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Groundwater Migration
250
200
•r: ISO
q ioo
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
In FY 2008, EPA continued to focus on those hazardous waste facilities presenting the greatest
risk to human health and the environment. EPA exceeded all three targets for its list of the 1,968
high-priority hazardous waste facilities requiring cleanup or "corrective action" under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). At these high-priority facilities, human
exposure to contaminants is now under control at more than 96 percent of facilities, compared
to a target of 95 percent. The migration of contaminated ground water is under control at more
than 83 percent of facilities, compared to a target of 81 percent. Final cleanup remedies have
been constructed for more than 34 percent of these facilities, exceeding the target of 27
percent. In FY 2008 alone, EPA achieved human exposure under control at 62 sites, controlled
the mitigation of groundwater at 94 sites, and completed construction at 98 sites.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
141
-------
Data Quality
EPA uses data from its performance measurements to manage and ensure that the data are
complete and reliable; they are subject to the Agency's Quality System policies and procedures.
Every performance measure in this report has corresponding in-depth information to explain the
data's source, limitations, and other factors. This report includes examples in each goal to better
inform EPA's stakeholders. For a complete list of this information, visit
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf. This is particularly helpful for performance
measures with data lags in FY 2008 due to reporting cycles.
Performance Measure
Number of Superfund Sites With Human Exposure Under Control
2006 2007 2008
What This Shows: Sites are assigned to this category when assessments for human
exposures indicate there are no unacceptable human exposure pathways and the region has
determined the site is under control for current conditions sitewide. More sites are moved to this
category every year. For sites that do not have current human exposures under control, either
there are insufficient data to determine if an exposure pathway to contaminants above levels of
concern exist or data indicate that there are complete human exposure pathways that present
unacceptable exposures to humans, and actions have yet to be completed to address these
human exposure pathways for the entire site.
Source: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System is an automated EPA system; EPA Headquarters and regional offices enter
data into the system on a rolling basis. The Integrated Financial Management System is EPA's
financial management system and the official system of record for budget and financial data.
Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified by the Office of Inspector General in an audit in
2002. While EPA did not fully agree with the audit, the Agency is continuously improving its
quality assurance process for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
142
-------
Contributing Programs
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste Management, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Waste Minimization, Superfund Emergency Preparedness, Superfund Remedial, Superfund
Enforcement, Superfund Removal, Federal Facilities, Oil Spills, Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks, Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Land Protection and Restoration Research,
Homeland Security.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov. 143
-------
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 3, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$80,375.3
3%
Objective 2
$2,909,314.3-
90%
Objective 1
$220,845.8
7%
Objective 1: Preserve
Land, Performance
Measures
EPA Works Toward Recycling and Waste Reduction: Although 2008 data and, in some
cases, 2007 data will not be available until 2009, EPA is on track for meeting its recycling and
waste reduction goals through the successes of partnership programs such as the Coal
Combustion Partnership Program, WasteWise, and Plug-In to eCycling. In FY2008, EPA
expects to meet its municipal solid waste reduction goal of diverting almost 20 billion pounds per
year. EPA initiated a number of activities to increase the volume of waste diverted, including
outreach to local governments, organizations, and businesses; creating new recycling and
reuse tool kits; and demonstrating the significant energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction
benefits of recycling municipal solid waste and industrial materials. In addition, during 2008,
EPA greatly increased the number of partners
with whom the Agency is collaborating.
WasteWise, which focuses on partnerships
with businesses and institutions, such as
universities, hospitals, nonprofits, and state,
local, and tribal governments, to set and
achieve waste reduction goals, increased to
over 2,100 members in FY2008.
EPA's Plug-In To eCycling program
collaborated with electronics manufacturers,
retailers, and service providers to improve
consumer awareness and expand
infrastructure for collection and safe recycling
of electronics. In 2007, Plug-In partners
collected more than 47 million pounds of electronics, such as computers, hard copy peripherals,
cell phones, and televisions. Through the Federal Electronics Challenge, federal agencies are
Region 10: Eight Open Dumps Cleaned
Up at the Yakama Nation
This year the Yakama Nation, with
technical assistance from the Region 10
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Tribal Waste Team and funding
from EPA and the Washington State
Department of Ecology, cleaned up and
closed eight illegal open dumps. The
3,625 tons of waste removed for proper
disposal included 360,000 tires. The tire
project at Yakama Nation has paved the
way for other tribes to partner with the
state to remove tires.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
144
-------
becoming leaders in promoting sustainable environmental stewardship of their electronics
assets. As a result of their activities in FY2007, 62 reporting partners saved 303 million pounds
of virgin materials.
EPA Reduces Risks to Hazardous Waste: Reducing the amount of hazardous waste
generated in the first place is a program priority; however, as long as any hazardous waste is
being created, it must be managed under protective controls. In FY 2008, EPA established and
updated waste management controls at treatment, storage and disposal facilities regulated by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
EPA's Government Performance Results Act strategy for preventing releases of hazardous
waste relies on issuing and maintaining facility permits that mandate approved controls for each
hazardous waste facility site. In FY 2008, the permitting program met its annual target of 44
updated controls. In total, 96 percent of facilities in the current universe of 2,457 are now under
approved controls. Once a facility is permitted, the program needs to regularly update and
maintain the permit. EPA expects that there will be a higher demand in the future for permit
renewals. Facilities that were permitted 10 or more years ago will have outdated controls, so the
program must issue permit renewals in order for the waste to continue to be handled properly.
During FY 2008, EPA and state partners issued 74 permit renewals, exceeding the FY 2008
annual target of 50. This progress also allowed the program to exceed the FY 2008 strategic
goal; EPA and its state partners completed 237 permit renewals, which exceeded the final FY
2008 target of 150.
Permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that cease operations could pose threats if
not closed, cleaned up, and monitored properly (that is, in accordance with EPA standards). A
critical component of EPA's hazardous waste program is ensuring future protection to people
living around these facilities and to the environment, including making sure that these facilities
have updated financial assurance to provide funds to close and maintain the sites.
Hazardous waste facilities that do not have approved controls often present complex
management issues. Developing approved controls for large federal facilities, particularly those
with nontraditional treatment units, is difficult and requires detailed evaluation of technical
information and risks as well as methods for handling public concerns.
Many of the 50 hazardous waste facilities that have come under approved controls in FY 2008
presented types of units that were relatively difficult to address. In many cases, the remaining
facilities left to permit have units that are either difficult to permit or have difficulty meeting the
"under control criteria" because of the large number of units at a given facility.
EPA and Partners Reduce Risks From Underground Storage Tanks: Except in Indian
Country, the Underground Storage Tank program is carried out by states. To prevent releases
from underground storage tanks, EPA and its state and tribal partners ensure that underground
storage tank systems are in operational compliance with release detection and release
prevention equipment requirements, ensuring that the equipment is used, functioning, and
properly maintained. For FY 2008, EPA and its partners achieved a significant operational
compliance rate of 66 percent. This rate is lower than the target of 68 percent for FY 2008
(which represents a 1 percent increase over the previous year's target). In accordance with the
2005 Energy Policy Act's inspection requirements, states targeted previously uninspected
facilities, which accounted for the lower compliance rates. For FY 2009, EPA is revising the
operational compliance target to better reflect the Energy Policy Act requirements. For FY 2009,
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 145
-------
the target is 65 percent, and future targets will be 0.5 percent increases from the previous year's
rate of compliance.
EPA and its partners have been increasing efforts to meet the Energy Policy Act's requirement
to inspect all underground storage tank facilities at least once every three years. The program
expects that over time the increased frequency of inspections will result in improved rates of
facility compliance. Through its compliance activities, EPA and its partners have succeeded in
maintaining the number of confirmed releases at underground storage tank facilities at 10,000
or fewer. For 2008, the actual number of confirmed releases was 7,364, and EPA is adopting a
more aggressive confirmed releases annual target in FY 2009.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 1 - Preserve Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage
Tanks
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST/UST
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
FY 2006
Obligations
$80,067.5
($4.6)
$15,040.7
$569.6
$1,747.9
$250.0
$883.2
$9,084.3
$67,298.8
$9,604.6
$178.7
$50.4
$2,558.9
$441.8
$1,960.1
$1,321.3
$24,107.9
$992.2
$1,976.9
$185.6
$13,385.1
$1,769.9
FY 2007
Obligations
$71,530.0
($2.8)
$29,008.8
$843.6
$2,216.9
$389.6
$711.3
$9,827.1
$66,032.9
$9,516.2
$207.9
$50.7
$2,760.3
$447.5
$2,019.4
$1,446.5
$23,781.0
$1,058.3
$1,781.9
$193.7
$13,954.5
$1,913.8
FY 2008
Obligations
$74,022.0
($1.0)
$4,686.5
$1,037.1
($3.5)
$308.9
$621.6
$12,372.4
$66,517.6
$11,079.6
$237.8
$57.7
$3,188.2
$436.9
$2,003.6
$1,000.5
$21,125.2
$1,246.4
$1,797.9
$293.3
$12,563.5
$1,964.3
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
146
-------
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$635.7
$1,383.4
$162.7
$185.9
$78.3
$1,183.2
$679.4
$237,779.4
$603.5
$1,458.0
$143.8
$201.5
$99.2
$1,006.0
$729.3
$243,930.4
$649.9
$1,530.4
$147.2
$232.6
$120.2
$903.3
$705.6
$220,845.7
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
• Through underground storage tank categorical grants, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
were awarded to 49 states; Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; four territories; and 15 tribes to
encourage owners and operators to operate and maintain their underground storage tanks
properly. Tribal grants funded projects that included developing underground storage tank
compliance assistance and certification programs; conducting compliance assistance visits
and providing technical support for tribes; developing tribal underground storage tank
owner/operator training workshops and outreach materials; conducting underground storage
tank compliance inspections and tracking significant operational compliance in Indian
Country; building underground storage tank program capacity; and overseeing underground
storage tank program implementation.
• State and Tribal Assistance Grants also provided funding to states implementing the
underground storage tank provisions of the Energy Policy Act. These grants included
funding for conducting inspections at previously uninspected facilities; developing third-party
inspection programs to enable states to increase their inspection presence; and
implementing delivery prohibition, secondary containment, and other Energy Policy Act
requirements. At the end of FY 2008, there was a reduction over the previous year's target
of Underground Storage Tank facilities that were in significant operational compliance.
Additionally, between FY 1999 and FY 2008, confirmed Underground Storage Tank
releases averaged 8,208, and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2008 was
7,364.
• State and Tribal Assistance Grants were used to make competitive awards of five
cooperative agreements, up to a total of $288,000, to Indian tribal governments and
intertribal consortia in support of programs that address hazardous waste mismanagement
in Indian Country. This grant program is designed to support comprehensive hazardous
waste management activities that will ensure that hazardous waste is managed safely from
"cradle-to-grave." The grant projects will improve the tribe's knowledge about the location of
hazardous waste handlers/facilities, and the types of hazardous waste they manage as
reflected by inventories of facilities. The projects will also help tribes develop codes,
regulations, ordinances, policies, and/or guidance for regulating hazardous waste, and
promote their ability to properly identify, manage, or dispose of hazardous waste, as
demonstrated by a reduction in the number of citations under tribal codes, regulations, and
ordinances, and fewer reports of illegal hazardous waste disposal. In addition, the projects
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo @epa. gov.
147
-------
will also: increase the use of hazardous waste reduction and reuse activities as
demonstrated by increased use of household hazardous waste collection stations and reuse
centers; train tribal leaders and environmental staff and improve community awareness of
proper hazardous waste and used oil management practices, as demonstrated by level of
participation in household hazardous waste collection events and used oil collection
programs; and increase the purchasing of alternative, less hazardous products.
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act statute authorizes EPA to assist state
governments through the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants program. The
states propose legislation and upgrade regulations to achieve equivalence with the Federal
Hazardous Waste Management Program, and apply to EPA for authorization to administer
the program. The state grants provide for the development and implementation of an
authorized hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes, including
controlling and cleaning up past and continuing releases from hazardous waste
management facilities through corrective action.
Web Links:
Overview of the Federal Underground Storage Tank Program:
www.epa.gov/OUST/overview.htm
Underground Storage Tank Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005:
www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact Q5.htm#Final
EPA Waste Programs: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/epeat.htm
Oil Spill Program: www.epa.gov/oilspill
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 148
-------
Objective 3.2: Restore Land
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 3, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$80,375.3 —
3%
Objective 2
$2,909,314.3
90%
Objective 1
$220,845.8
7%
Objective 2: Restore Land,
Performance Measures
EPA's cleanup programs (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act [CERCLA] program, commonly known as Superfund; the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act [RCRA] Corrective Action program; and the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank program) aim to control risks to human health and the environment at contaminated
properties and make land available for reuse through cleanup, stabilization, or other actions.
These programs made significant strides in FY 2008.
EPA Makes Significant Strides in Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: In FY 2008, the Superfund
Remedial and Federal Facility Response programs conducted or oversaw 681 ongoing cleanup
construction projects (by EPA, potentially responsible parties, and federal facilities) at 423 sites.
federal facilities accounted for 230 of these ongoing projects at 84 sites. Through these
activities, the program accomplished the following:
• Determined that 85 Superfund sites were ready for reuse, exceeding the target of 30. The
Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use performance measure tracks sites on the National
Priority List at which: 1) construction of the remedy is completed, 2) all cleanup goals to
reduce unacceptable risk that could affect current and reasonably anticipated future land
uses of the site have been achieved, and 3) all institutional controls have been
implemented.
• Controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current
land and/or ground water use conditions at a net total of 24 additional Superfund human
exposure sites, exceeding the target of 10.
• Controlled ground water migration at a net total of 20 sites exceeding the target of 15.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
149
-------
• Completed construction of remedies at 30 Superfund sites, achieving the target of 30 private
and federal sites.
• Made 415 final site-assessment decisions under Superfund, exceeding the target of 400.
"Enforcement First" Program Helps EPA Meet Targets: The Superfund Enforcement
Program continued to pursue its strategy, emphasizing Enforcement First. Enforcement First
allows EPA to focus appropriated funds on sites where potentially responsible parties either do
not exist or lack the funds or capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup. EPA also continues to
use the most appropriate enforcement or compliance tools to address the most significant
problems and achieve the best outcomes. Pursuant to this strategy, EPA's FY 2008 Superfund
enforcement goals are: to reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of
remedial action at 95 percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties, and
to address cost recovery at all National Priority List and non- National Priority List sites with a
statute of limitations on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In FY 2008, EPA met its goal to reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of
remedial action at 95 percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
EPA also achieved its goal of addressing 100 percent of the pending cost recovery cases with
outstanding unaddressed past costs greater than $200,000 and pending statute of limitations
concerns through enforcement, settlements, or compromise/write-off. Cost recovery was
addressed at 335 National Priority List and Non- National Priority List sites, of which 157 had
total costs greater than or equal to $200,000, of those 65 had potential SOL concerns.
In addition, EPA secured private party commitments for cleanup and cost recovery and billed
private parties for oversight for amounts that exceeded $1.9 billion.
Priority-Setting Helps EPA Meet Corrective Action Goals: For the universe of 1,968
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action facilities, EPA has achieved 96.2
percent of facilities with current human exposures under control, 83.4 percent with migration of
contaminated ground water under control, and 34.6 percent with final remedies constructed.
This has exceeded targets of 95 percent, 81 percent, and 27 percent, respectively.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program owes its success in
2008 largely to the many years EPA regions and state environmental agencies have spent
characterizing high-priority facilities and moving them toward final cleanups. In 2008, these
efforts culminated in the control of human exposures and the containment of contaminated
ground water at many of the Corrective Action Program's most difficult sites. Meanwhile, the
Agency's ambitious goal for 2020—to complete remedy construction at 95 percent of all 3,746
facilities believed to need corrective action—has spurred regions and states to accelerate
remedy construction efforts.
States and Tribes Make Significant Progress in Cleaning Up Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from federally regulated underground storage tanks containing petroleum
by enhancing state, local, and tribal remediation efforts and enforcement and response
capability. EPA continues to focus on increasing the efficiency of leaking underground storage
tank cleanups nationwide. In FY 2008, EPA's state and tribal partners completed12,768 leaking
underground storage tank cleanups (including 40 cleanups in Indian Country).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. -\ 50
-------
EPA Exceeds Targets in Preparedness and Response: In FY 2008, the Emergency
Response and Removal Program exceeded both of its targets by completing 215 Superfund-
lead removals and 157voluntary emergency removals.
EPA Sets New Core Emergency Response Standards: The Core Emergency Response sets
standards to ensure that each EPA region works toward improving and maintaining an excellent
response program that is ready to respond quickly and effectively to chemical, oil, biological,
and radiological incidents. Beginning in FY 2007, the Office of Emergency Management
expanded the Core Emergency Response evaluation to measure progress in carrying out the
Agency's National Approach to Response. The Office of Emergency Management is now
evaluating each EPA region, Headquarters, and EPA emergency response special teams to
measure their progress in preparing for multiple events of national significance.
EPA's Oil Program Sets New Outcome Measures: During FY 2008, the Office of Emergency
Management's Oil Program piloted several new outcome measures in select regions. The
purpose of establishing new measures was in response to the 2005 Program Assessment
Rating Tool improvement plan. In general, the pilot measures focus on bringing facilities into
Spill Control and Countermeasure Plan and Facility Response Plan compliance. Select
measures will be used for the FY 2009-2014 Strategic Plan and the Program Assessment
Rating Tool process.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 2 - Restore Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
RCRA: Corrective Action
Superfund: Emergency Response and
Removal
FY 2006
Obligations
$29,508.2
$8,750.2
$2,548.4
$266.0
$212.1
$627.2
$38,626.3
$2,085.6
$27,764.0
$75,407.1
$27,358.5
$38,754.7
$669,157.1
FY 2007
Obligations
$31,539.2
$7,014.3
$2,298.0
$274.3
$244.3
$998.4
$52,203.5
$1,806.7
$16,784.8
$63,043.5
$30,338.4
$39,593.4
$185,759.1
FY 2008
Obligations
$32,318.6
$20,493.7
$2,594.2
$297.0
$2,943.5
$721.5
$46,622.6
$1,630.5
$16,001.0
$86,742.1
$32,328.8
$40,063.9
$240,559.8
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
151
-------
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Federal Facilities lAGs
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal
Agencies
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$181,647.5
$11,219.0
$33,894.4
($8.6)
$1,971,858.8
$5,462.2
$970.4
$633.9
$37,180.3
$2,848.5
$14,107.0
$4,677.7
$84,022.8
$19,105.6
$6,239.5
$332.8
$32,529.0
$2,048.9
$417.2
$17,922.2
$1,215.7
$1,009.6
$425.2
$3,741.8
$9,939.7
$3,688.7
$3,368,195.2
$211,533.9
$10,154.1
$35,957.5
($36.0)
$1,787,050.0
$4,874.2
$1,130.2
$1,044.3
$29,542.6
$2,926.1
$14,499.7
$5,002.8
$80,805.3
$21,330.4
$6,933.0
$583.3
$32,217.9
$2,109.4
$420.9
$14,620.0
$1,040.1
$1,095.1
$539.1
$3,133.9
$11,150.4
$3,963.8
$2,715,519.9
$223,162.3
$11,156.7
$38,258.4
$0.0
$1,873,550.8
$3,691.9
$1,300.0
$803.5
$31,908.5
$2,873.2
$14,346.9
$3,481.4
$80,797.4
$23,014.3
$7,234.7
$671.6
$30,747.8
$2,071.1
$453.4
$13,368.8
$1,198.2
$1,271.4
$657.0
$3,935.6
$12,185.6
$3,856.6
$2,909,314.3
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
EPA awards Superfund cooperative agreements to states, political subdivisions of states,
federally recognized Indian tribes, and U.S. territories. These intergovernmental partners help
EPA achieve its strategic goals by sharing the responsibilities for cleaning up sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL). EPA awards Core cooperative agreements to states and tribes to
conduct Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
implementation activities that are not directly assignable to specific sites, but are intended to
develop and maintain a state's or Indian tribe's ability to participate in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act response program. Activities funded
include: hiring staff, administrative salaries, clerical help, financial accounting, data
management, program management, medical monitoring, health and safety training for field
employees, computer systems purchases, training, legal assistance, and legislative
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
152
-------
development. Outputs include reports, accounting and tracking systems, hired and trained staff,
cost recovery procedures and techniques, and laws and regulations for hazardous waste
control. EPA also awards site-specific cooperative agreements (pre-remedial, remedial
response, removal, enforcement, and support agency) to assure participation of states and
Indian tribes in assessing and cleaning up Superfund sites. All 10 EPA regional offices awarded
cooperative agreements to EPA intergovernmental partners to lead cleanup actions, or to
support EPA-organized cleanup actions, at hazardous waste sites. Cooperative agreements
were awarded to lead the evaluation of newly discovered sites, to assess and investigate sites
that have been identified as needing further action, to select, in partnership with EPA, the
appropriate technologies and cleanup actions for these sites, to design the selected
technologies and cleanup actions, and to construct the designed remedy. Funding was used to
start or continue long-term remedial actions to treat ground water where remediation goals have
not yet been reached. Finally, funding was provided to states and tribes to meaningfully and
substantially participate in cleanup actions where EPA led the cleanup.
• In FY 2008, leaking underground storage tank cooperative agreements were awarded to
states, territories, and tribes. Tribal cooperative agreements funded projects that included
site assessments and cleanups, sampling equipment for tribal site managers, leaking
underground storage tank program capacity building, and oversight of leaking underground
storage tank program implementation. In FY 2008, EPA's state and tribal partners
completed 12,768 leaking underground storage tank cleanups (which includes 40 in Indian
Country). In FY 2008, leaking underground storage tank cooperative agreements provided
funding to states for emergency responses, responsible-party-led cleanups with state
oversight, state-led cleanups, and state leaking underground storage tank capacity building.
• Technical Assistance Grants are an important tool for involving the local community
meaningfully in the cleanup process. By providing independent technical expertise to local
communities, Technical Assistance Grants 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.
Web Links:
Superfund Program: www.epa.gov/superfund
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office: www.epa.gov/fedfac
Corrective Action: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/index.htm
Overview of the Federal Underground Storage Tank Program:
www.epa.gov/OUST/overview.htm
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 153
-------
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 3, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$80,375.3 —_______
3%
Objective 2
$2,909,314.3—-
90%
Objective 1
^—$220,845.8
7%
Objective 3: Enhance
Science and Research,
Performance Measures
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to preserve and
restore the land.
EPA Creates a New Method for Minimizing Pollution from Aluminum Recycling: In 2008,
EPA developed a method for characterizing the water-reactive waste generated when aluminum
is recycled. Currently, this recycling byproduct, known as aluminum dross, is dumped in
numerous landfills throughout the country and may create a risk to communities and
ecosystems. When in contact with water, aluminum dross is prone to release hazardous gases
as well as emit flammable gases, which can cause explosions. EPA scientists, along with landfill
representatives and waste generators, are evaluating how to pretreat the water-reactive waste
and determine what actions should be taken to reduce risks after disposal, thus ultimately
reducing the impact aluminum dross has on the public and ecology in the areas surrounding
landfills.
New Technology Leads to Cost Savings of$1 Million: EPA developed and tested a new
technology to treat hexavalent chromium, a chemical used as a pigment in dyes, paints, inks,
and plastics; as an anticorrosive agent in paints and primers; and as a protective or decorative
coating on metals. It is known to cause ulcers, rashes, respiratory problems, and cancer.
Agency researchers discovered that injecting ground water with ferrous sulfate—commonly used
to fortify foods—in combination with sodium dithionite resulted in a reduction of hexavalent
chromium.
EPA successfully implemented a full-scale version of the new technology at the former Macalloy
Corporation Superfund site in Charleston, South Carolina. From monitoring the full-scale system
for more than three years, EPA has tracked a continual reduction of hexavalent chromium in
treated ground water from concentrations initially exceeding 10 milligrams per liter to
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfb@epa. gov.
154
-------
concentrations of less than 0.1 milligrams per liter. This reduction cuts risk significantly and will
save taxpayers more than $1 million.
New Method Detects Environmental Damage From Underground Storage Tanks: The
Land Restoration Research Program conducted modeling and field investigations to evaluate
the fate and transport of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), ethanol, and other fuel
oxygenates—chemicals added to gasoline to increase burning efficiency. The new EPA method
is now publicly available (www.epa.gov/athens/onsite) and routinely applied to many methyl
tertiary butyl ether spills from underground storage tanks. Regulators in California, Michigan,
New York, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are using EPA tools to predict the fate
and transport of methyl tertiary butyl ether in ground water from leaking gasoline tanks and to
examine effects on water aquifers. In addition, knowledge gained from the research on fuel
oxygenates, including ethanol, was applied to potential ground water contamination issues
associated with biofuels.
EPA Conducts Asbestos Health Effects Research: EPA has been working in Libby,
Montana, since 1999, when an emergency response team was sent to investigate concerns
about asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. Since then, EPA has been working closely with the
community to clean up contamination and reduce risks to human health. To support the Libby
risk assessment, EPA developed the Libby Action Plan and continues to assess the health
effects of asbestos fibers. Development and implementation of the Libby Action Plan is an
interagency effort involving EPA Headquarters, EPA Region 8, and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. EPA's ongoing cleanup and research efforts continue to
make Libby a safer place to work and live.
EPA Evaluates Cutting-Edge Science on Nanotechnology: in support of the Nanomaterial
Research Strategy, EPA's research office began in-house research to understand which
nanomaterials are most likely to enter the environment and how they move and transform within
environmental media. This information will help the Agency focus its human health and
ecological effects research on those nanomaterials and pathways with the most potential for
harmful human exposure. In 2008 EPA scientists demonstrated that making changes to specific
nanoparticles, such as coating the particles with a layer of particular types of molecules, could
change their toxicity.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measurements and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that
support this objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Land Protection and
FY 2006
Obligations
$3,507.5
$66.0
$371.0
$66,353.0
FY 2007
Obligations
$20.1
$95.6
$256.3
$66,102.9
FY 2008
Obligations
($59.4)
$44.6
$287.7
$58,618.0
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
155
-------
Restoration
Research: SITE Program
Superfund: Remedial
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$4,569.5
$6,554.2
$47.2
$13.3
$1,087.7
$78.7
$265.6
$349.1
$1,218.6
$509.6
$788.2
$98.7
$4,280.3
$463.6
$207.7
$402.5
$12.4
$49.1
$20.7
$376.4
$179.5
$91,870.1
$97.5
$3,691.8
$51.0
$12.4
$1,128.1
$70.5
$252.4
$353.7
$2,358.9
$504.5
$706.6
$99.9
$4,144.3
$483.3
$167.8
$467.1
$14.1
$49.4
$24.3
$464.1
$178.9
$81,795.5
($14.4)
$4,115.6
$58.4
$30.0
$671.7
$69.3
$250.9
$181.4
$4,941.3
$3,773.9
$1,165.3
$72.5
$4,481.0
$330.0
$73.7
$298.5
$1.6
$57.1
$29.5
$723.7
$173.3
$80,375.2
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Web Links:
Final Report: Absorption and Release of Contaminants On to Engineered Nanoparticles:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/7392/re
port/F
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
156
-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce
greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
OBJECTIVE: 3.1: PRESERVE LAND
By 2011, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of
waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
Performance Measures Met
4
Performance Measures Not Met
1
Data Available After November 17,
2008
2
Total Performance Measures
7
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
By 2011, reduce materials use through product and process redesign, and increase materials and energy recovery from wastes
otherwise requiring disposal.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the use of coal combustion ash to 50 percent from 32 percent in 2001.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(MW2) Percentage increase of
coal combustion ash that is used
instead of disposed.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
1.8
Increase
over prior
year
Actual
-0.7
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Increase
over prior
year
Actual
Data
Available
September
2009
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2007, 42.7 percent of coal combustion ash was used rather than landfilled. This is ahead of our cumulative target of 42.6
percent.
Explanation - The amount of coal ash used instead of disposed in 2007 was 42.7 percent, a decrease of 0.7 percentage points from the
2006 level.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
157
-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase by 118 the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan compared by FY 2006.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(MW8) Number of tribes covered
by an integrated solid waste
management plan.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
27
Actual
28
FY 2008
Target
26
Actual
35
Unit
Tribes
Baseline - This is a new measure for FY 2007. The baseline is established as zero since any waste management plans developed
before 2007 were reassessed based on guidelines issued that year. No tribes were covered by an integrated solid waste management
plan in 2006
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian country and on other tribal lands compared to FY 2006.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(MW5) Number of closed, cleaned
up, or upgraded open dumps in
Indian Country or on other tribal
lands.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
107
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
166
Unit
Open
Dumps
Baseline - This is a new measure for FY 2007. The baseline is established as zero, as this measure concerns open dumps which are
addressed starting in FY 2007. No tribes were covered by an integrated solid waste management plan in 2006.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(MW3) Daily per capita generation
of municipal solid waste (MSW).
FY 2005
Target
4.5
Actual
4.5
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
4.6
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4.62
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Actual
Data
Available
October
2009
Unit
Pounds
MSW
Baseline - An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 4.5 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
158
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - New incoming data reports that the FY 2007 target of 4.5 Ibs MSW was met.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
By 2011, reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, prevent releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by implementing initial approved controls or
updated controls. (The universe of facilities will be reassessed in FY 2009. However, we currently estimate that there will be about
820 facilities that will require these controls. The goal of 500 represents about 60 percent of the universe of 820 facilities.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(HW3) Annual increase in the
percentage of RCRA hazardous
waste management facilities with
permits or other approved
controls.
FY 2005
Target
2.8
Actual
3.1
FY 2006
Target
2.5
Actual
4.3
FY 2007
Target
2.4
Actual
2.9
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Actual
2.0
Unit
Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2006, the percentage of hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls
nationwide was 91.4 percent.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and
release prevention requirements to 71 percent from 66 percent in 2006 (an increase of 5 percent) out of a total estimated universe of
approximately 245,000 facilities.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(ST6) Increase the rate of
significant operational compliance
by 1 % over the previous year's
rate (target).
FY 2005
Target
+1
Actual
2
FY 2006
Target
66
Actual
62
FY 2007
Target
67
Actual
63
FY 2008
Target
68
Actual
66
Unit
Percent
Baseline - Annual targets increase each year by one percent from the FY04 baseline of 64 percent.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
159
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - One of EPA's challenges has been maintaining and even increasing the LIST compliance rates. Prior to the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, many LIST facilities were only infrequently inspected, and because of that, had low compliance rates. EPA and states are
now inspecting those infrequently inspected facilities and finding many out of compliance, which explains the lower compliance rates we
have been measuring. However, EPA believes that by maintaining more frequent inspections in the future, we will ensure better
compliance and fewer releases.
Strategic Target (3)
Each year through 2011, minimize the number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities to 10,000 or fewer from a universe of
approximately 650,000 LIST tanks.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(ST1) No more than 10,000
confirmed releases per year.
FY 2005
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,421.00
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
Actual
8,361.00
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,570.00
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,364
Unit
UST
Releases
Baseline - Between FY 1999 and FY 2008, confirmed LIST releases averaged 8,208.
Explanation - In FY 2008 there were significantly fewer releases from underground storage tanks than the goal of no more than 10,000
releases. To account for this success, the program has made its FY2009 and future goals more challenging by lowering the goal to no
more than 9,000 releases.
OBJECTIVE: 3.2: RESTORE LAND
By 2011, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by
cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
Performance Measures Met
15
Performance Measures Not Met
3
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total Performance Measures
18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
By 2011, reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our Nation's
capability to prevent, prepare for, and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
160
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve and maintain at least 95 percent of maximum score on readiness evaluation criteria in each region.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(C8) Score in annual Core
Emergency Response
assessment.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
55
Actual
96
FY 2008
Target
65
Actual
97.9
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 96 was the average score of the ten EPA regions based on the core emergency response readiness criteria.
Strategic Target (2)
Between 2006 and 2011, complete 975 Superfund-lead hazardous substance removal actions. In FY2005, 175 of these actions were
completed.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(132) Superfund-lead removal
actions completed annually.
FY 2005
Target
195
Actual
172.00
FY 2006
Target
195
Actual
157.00
FY 2007
Target
195
Actual
200.00
FY 2008
Target
195
Actual
215
Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 157 Superfund-lead removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 5,300 completions since
1980.
Strategic Target (3)
Between 2006 and 2011, oversee and complete 650 voluntary removal actions. In FY2005, 137 of these actions were completed.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(135) Voluntary removal actions,
overseen by EPA, completed.
FY 2005
Target
105
Actual
137.00
FY 2006
Target
115
Actual
93.00
FY 2007
Target
120
Actual
151.00
FY 2008
Target
125
Actual
157
Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 97 voluntary removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 1,200 completions since 1980
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
161
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reduce by 25 percent the gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to Facility Response Plan regulations relative to the
601,000 gallons of oil spilled in 2003.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, inspect (and ensure compliance at) 90 percent of the estimated 4,200 facilities subject to Facility Response Plan
regulations, up from 50 percent in 2004.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(329) Percentage of inspected
facilities subject to Facility
Response Plan (FRP) regulations
found to be in compliance.
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
77
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
71
FY 2007
Target
75
Actual
67
FY 2008
Target
78
Actual
66
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 71 percent of inspected facilities subject to Facility Response Plan regulations were found to be in compliance.
Explanation - The lower than expected result is due to inspection of facilities anticipated to be out of compliance with SPCC and/or
Facility Response Plan regulations as a results of state referrals, citizen complaints, and/or recent reports of oil discharge at these
facilities. EPA focuses its limited resources on inspecting facilities about which we have received complaints and/or referrals.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(324) Number of inspections and
exercises conducted at oil storage
facilities that are required to have
Facility Response Plans.
FY 2005
Target
360
Actual
335
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
345
FY 2007
Target
200
Actual
335
FY 2008
Target
250
Actual
334
Unit
Inspections/
Exercises
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 345 inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities that are required to have Facility
Response Plans.
(328) Percentage of inspected
facilities subject to Spill
Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC)
regulations found to be in
100
100
100
50
53
40
55
35
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
162
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
compliance.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2006, 50 percent of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations were found to be in compliance.
Explanation - The lower than expected result is due to inspection of facilities anticipated to be out of compliance with SPCC and/or
Facility Response Plan regulations as a results of state referrals, citizen complaints, and/or recent reports of oil discharge at these
facilities. EPA focuses its limited resources on inspecting facilities about which we have received complaints and/or referrals.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
By 2011, control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or
other action, and make land available for reuse.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, make final assessment decisions at 40,491 of 44,700 potentially hazardous waste sites evaluated by EPA to help resolve
community concerns on whether these sites require long-term cleanup to protect public health and the environment and to help
determine if they can be cleared for possible redevelopment.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(121) Superfund final site
assessment decisions completed.
FY 2005
Target
500
Actual
551.00
FY 2006
Target
419
Actual
518.00
FY 2007
Target
350
Actual
395.00
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
415
Unit
Assessments
Baseline - By the end of FY 2005, a cumulative total of 39,288 final site assessment decisions had been made since the program's
inception.
Explanation - By the end of FY 2008, a cumulative total of 40,187 final site assessment decisions had been made since the program's
inception.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current land and/or groundwater use
conditions at approximately 85 percent (1,316) of 1,544 Superfund final and deleted NPL sites in the environmental indicator
reporting universe .BY 2011, increase to 95 percent the high National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)-ranked RCRA
facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled. (The universe of all facilities that need RCRA corrective action will be final by the
end of FY 2007 and will include all high, medium and low ranked facilities.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
163
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(151) Number of Superfund sites
with human exposures under
control.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
34.00
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
13.00
FY 2008
Target
10
Actual
24
Unit
Sites
Baseline - By the end of FY 2005, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 80 percent (1,235) of 1544 final and deleted NPL sites
in the environmental indicator reporting universe in that year.
Explanation - By the end of FY 2008, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 1306 final and deleted NPL sites in the
environmental indicator reporting universe.
(CA6) Percentage of RCRA
Corrective Action (CA) facilities
with current human exposures
under control (using 2008
baseline).
82
89
92
93
95
96.2
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 88 percent of facilities have human exposures controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this
program.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies, natural processes, or other appropriate
actions at 74 percent (1,017) of 1,381 Superfund groundwater sites. (The universe of 1,381 sites is the number of NPL sites with
groundwater contamination as of FY 2005 and includes 166 Superfund federal facility sites) By 2011, increase to 80 percent the high
NCAPS-ranked RCRA facilities with migration of groundwater under control. (The universe of all facilities that need RCRA corrective
action will be final by the end of FY 2007 and will include all high, medium and low ranked facilities.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(152) Superfund sites with
contaminated groundwater
migration under control.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
21
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
19
FY 2008
Target
15
Actual
20
Unit
Sites
Baseline - By the end of FY 2005, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 68 percent (937) of 1381 groundwater sites in that
year.
Explanation - By the end of FY 2008, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 997 groundwater sites.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
164
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(CA7) Percentage of RCRA CA
facilities with migration of
contaminated groundwater under
control (using 2008 baseline).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
68
Actual
74
FY 2007
Target
77
Actual
78
FY 2008
Target
81
Actual
83.4
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 73 percent of facilities have groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this
program.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reduce the backlog of LUST cleanups (confirmed releases that have yet to be cleaned up) that do not meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration from 26 percent down to 21 percent. By 2011, increase to 22 percent the
RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed. (The universe of all facilities that need RCRA corrective action will be final by the end
of FY 2007 and will include all high, medium and low ranked facilities.) By 2011, complete construction of remedies at 76 percent
(1,171) of 1,547 Superfund sites. (The universe of 1,547 sites is the total number of sites on the NPL as of FY 2005 and includes 72
Superfund federal facilities.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(112) Number of cleanups that
meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and
groundwater migration (tracked as
the number LUST cleanups
completed).
FY 2005
Target
14,500
Actual
14,583
FY 2006
Target
13,600
Actual
14,493
FY 2007
Target
13,000
Actual
13,862
FY 2008
Target
13,000
Actual
12,768
Unit
Cleanups
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 14,493 leaking underground storage tank cleanups (LUST), for a cumulative total of 350, 813
cleanups completed since the inception of the program. LUST cleanups completed in Indian Country are included in this number.
Explanation - The goal of completing 13,000 cleanups per year from leaking underground storage tanks has become increasingly
challenging to EPA and our state and tribal partners. There are a number of factors affecting this challenge, such as the increasing costs
and complexity of cleanups, decreasing state budgets and increasing state workloads, and other factors.
(113) Number of cleanups that
meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater
30
53
30
43
30
54
30
40
Cleanups
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
165
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
migration in Indian Country.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 43 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups in Indian Country
738 LUST cleanups completed in Indian Country since the inception of the program.
Actual
Unit
, for a cumulative total of
Explanation - In FY 2008, EPA met and exceeded its goal.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(141) Annual number of
Superfund sites with remedy
construction completed.
FY 2005
Target
40
Actual
40
FY 2006
Target
40
Actual
40
FY 2007
Target
24
Actual
24
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
30
Unit
Completions
Baseline - By the end of FY 2005, Superfund had completed construction at 62 percent (966) of 1547 final and deleted NPL sites in that
year.
Explanation - By the end of FY 2008. Superfund had completed construction at 1060 final and deleted NPL sites.
(CAS) Percent of RCRA
construction completions using
2008 baseline.
13
22
25
28
27
34.6
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, RCRA achieved 22 percent construction completions.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, ensure that 36 percent (345) of 966 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites are ready for anticipated use site-
wide.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(S10) Number of Superfund sites
ready for anticipated use site-
wide.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
64
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
85
Unit
Sites
Baseline - As of July 2006, 20 percent (194) of the 966 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites in that year met EPA's
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
166
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
definition for ready for anticipated use site-wide.
Explanation - By the end of FY 2008, 343 final and deleted NPL
site-wide.
construction NPL sites met EPA's definition for
ready for anticipated use
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.3: Maximize Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites
Through 2011, conserve federal resources by ensuring that potentially responsible parties conduct or pay for Superfund cleanups
whenever possible.
Strategic Target (1)
Each year through 2011, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 95 percent of
Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(285) Percentage of Superfund
sites at which settlement or
enforcement action taken before
the start of remedial action (RA).
FY 2005
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
98
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
95
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 1998 approximately 70 percent of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding federal facilities) was initiated by private
parties. In FY 2003, a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-federal PRPs before the start of the
remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
Strategic Target (2)
Each year through 2011, address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total
past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(078) Refer to Department of
Justice, settle, or write off 100% of
Statute of Limitations (SOLs)
cases for Superfund sites with
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
99
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
98
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
167
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
total unaddressed past costs
equal to or greater than $200,000
and report value of costs
recovered.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In FY 1998 the Agency will have addressed 100 percent of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs
equal or greater than $200,000.
OBJECTIVE: 3.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2011, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which
through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes
Performance Measures Met
3
Performance Measures Not Met
1
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total Performance Measures
4
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H89) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
managed material streams,
conserve resources and
appropriately manage waste long-
term goal.
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100.00
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the materials management, resources
conservation and waste management long-term goal; 67 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to
EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
(H90) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
mitigation, management and long-
100
70
100
96
100
100.00
100
100
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
168
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
term stewardship of contaminated
sites long-term goal.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal; 87 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's
goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
(H88) Percentage of Land
research publications rated as
highly cited publications.
Baseline
25.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.8
18
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, 25.3 percent of research publications were rates as highly cited publications.
Explanation - In 2005, the citation analysis required publications to be categorized using data from Thomson's Journal Citation Reports.
In 2006, Thomson Scientific's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) released journal categories for the first time, which provide more
accurate overall citation rates. A revised analysis of the 2005 data indicated that only 19.9 percent of Land Research Program
publications were "highly cited" in 2005; the 2008 data reflect a slight decrease from that citation percentage. Additional benchmarking
and trend data are necessary before more meaningful future targets can be established.
(H87) 'Percentage of Land
publications in "high impact"
journals.
Baseline
24.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25.7
26.2
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, 24.2 percentage of Land publications were in "high impact" journals.
Explanation - The 2008 data exceed the original targets established from the baseline but additional benchmarking and trend data are
necessary before more meaningful future targets can be established.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
169
-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Goal at a Glance
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and
comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
Goal 4 FY 2008
Performance Measures
Met = 50 Not Met = 20 Data Available After November 17, 2008 = 22
(Total Measures = 92)
Goal 4 Performance Measures
(FY2008)
Objective 1: Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
Objective 4: Enhance
Science and
Research
| Goal Not Met • Data Lag • Goal Met
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
(Dollars fn Thousands)
FY 2008 Statement of Met Cost by Coal
Clan Air md Global Oman Change
| Clean and Safe Vfecer
[ Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
[ Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Goal 4 FY 2008 Performance and Resources
Strategic Objective
Objective 1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological
organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Objective 2 - Communities
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them.
Objective 3 - Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA 's goal of protecting, sustaining,
and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and
characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
Goal 4 Total
FY2008
Obligations
(in thousands)
$475,850.1
$298,998.4
$272,638.5
$405,819.9
$1,453,306.9
% of Goal
4 Funds
33%
21%
19%
28%
100%
"EPA has now completed the reassessment of all pesticides, including those in food and
around homes, resulting in the most health-protective standards in the world for
pesticide safety."
- Jim Gulliford, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
170
-------
Goal Purpose: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
To protect, sustain, and restore the nation's communities and ecosystems, EPA uses a mix of
regulatory programs, partnership efforts, and incentive-based approaches. EPA programs
ensure that pesticides and other chemicals entering the market meet health and safety
standards, that pesticides and chemicals already in commerce do not harm U.S. health or
environment, and that action is taken to reduce risks from pesticides and chemicals of greatest
concern.
Many EPA programs to achieve and sustain healthy communities are designed to bring tools,
resources, and approaches to bear at the local level. The Agency encourages community
redevelopment by providing funds to identify, assess, and clean up the estimated hundreds of
thousands of properties that lie abandoned or unused due to previous pollution. EPA helps
promote public involvement and establishes a sense of environmental stewardship to sustain
environmental improvements by forging partnerships with communities to address local pollution
problems.
EPA also collaborates with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and many
nongovernmental organizations on geographically based efforts to protect America's wetlands
and major estuaries. Working with partners and stakeholders, EPA has established special
programs to protect and restore natural resources.
Some threats to Americans' health and environment originate outside U.S. borders. Many
pollutants can easily travel across borders via rivers, air and ocean currents, and migrating
wildlife. EPA employs a range of strategies to help mitigate some of these risks, including
participating in bilateral programs, cooperating with multinational organizations, and contributing
to a set of measurable environmental and health end points.
Sound science guides the Agency in identifying and addressing emerging issues and advances
its understanding of long-standing human health and environmental challenges. EPA's cutting
edge research helps it better characterize risks and benefits, furthers its ability to measure and
describe environmental conditions, and encourages stewardship and sustainable solutions to
environmental problems.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 171
-------
Data Trends
HPV RSEI—Adjusted Score
9,000,000
3,000,000
7.654j340
7,000,0001 7.506.616
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0,000,000
7,155,036 _7.295.091
6,942,314
6,466,1 32
5,631,390
5,118,712
•
4.97677 \
I99& 1999 2000 2001
2003
2004
2006
Fiscal Year
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model (RSEI) incorporates data from EPA's
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) that is combined with release location, toxicity of the chemical,
chemical fate and transport, extent of human exposure, and census population data. This
information is used to create a numerical Risk Screening Environmental Indicators score that is
unit-less and comparable across years. There are close to 650 chemicals included in the
inventory and 222 of these are high-production volume (HPV) chemicals. The Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) first began targeting high-production volume chemicals through
the High-Production Volume Challenge Program in 1998. From 1998 to 2006, the Risk
Screening Environmental Indicators model scores for high-production volume chemicals have
decreased 30.3 percent.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
172
-------
Data Quality
EPA uses data from its performance measurements to manage and ensure that the data are
complete and reliable; they are subject to the Agency's Quality System policies and procedures.
Every performance measure in this report has corresponding in-depth information to explain the
data's source, limitations, and other factors. This report includes examples in each goal to better
inform EPA's stakeholders. For a complete list of this information, visit
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf. This is particularly helpful for performance
measures with data lags in FY 2008 due to reporting cycles.
Performance Measure
Annual Reduction in the Production-Adjusted Risk Based Score of Releases and
Transfers of High Production Volume Chemicals From Manufacturing Facilities
19 -
m -
8.
6.
4.
2.
0.
o .
A .
— 1
|—
—
•
r 1
•' ' I)' 1 1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
What This Shows: This trend is decreasing over time. From 1998 to 2005, Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators scores for high-production volume chemicals have decreased 30.3
percent. This trend decreased at an accelerating rate starting in 2002 after the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics started making significant resource investments to implement
the High-Production Volume Challenge Program.
Source: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators 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 Aerometric
Information Retrieval System/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 the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife; exposure factors from EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook; and population data from the
U.S. Census Bureau.
Data Limitations: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model relies on data from a
variety of EPA and other sources. Toxics Release Inventory data may have errors that are not
corrected in the standard inventory quality control process. In the past, the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model 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 these water releases.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
173
-------
Contributing Programs
Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Chemical Risk Review and Reduction, Chemical Risk
Management, Chesapeake Bay, Children's Health Protection, Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE), Computational
Toxicology Research, Endocrine Disrupters Research and Program Efforts, Environment and
Trade, Environmental Justice, Global Change Research, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico,
Homeland Security Research, Human Health and Ecosystem Protection Research, Human
Health Risk Assessment, International Capacity Building, Lead and Lead Categorical Grant
Programs, Long Island Sound, Mercury Research, National Environmental Monitoring Initiative,
National Estuary Program, Other Geographic Programs (including Lake Pontchartrain, Puget
Sound, and South Florida), Persistent Organic Pollutants, Pesticides and Toxics Research,
Pesticides Licensing and Implementation, Smart Growth, Research Fellowships, State and
Local Prevention and Preparedness, Targeted Watersheds, U.S.-Mexico Border, Wetlands.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 174
-------
Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 4, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Objective 4
$405,819.9
28%
Objective 3
$272,638.5-
19%
Objective 1
$475,850.1
32%
Objective 2
$298,998.4
21%
Objective 1: Chemical,
Organism, and Pesticide
Risks, Performance
Measures
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is charged with identifying and managing
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment associated with chemicals in U.S.
commerce. EPA conducts two major activities to fulfill this commitment:
6. Managing risks from new chemicals before they enter commerce.
7. Managing risks from existing chemicals already in commerce that appear on the Toxic
Substances Control Act Inventory.
EPA Successfully Reviews 1,200 New Chemicals: Through the new chemicals program, EPA
serves as America's gatekeeper, ensuring that new chemicals introduced into U.S. commerce
do not pose unreasonable risks to humans or the environment. To mark progress, the program
compares incoming Toxic Substances Control Act notices of substantial risk with previously
assessed new chemical submissions, to determine whether initial EPA review properly identified
those risks. This comparison did not identify any new unreasonable risks 109 out of 110 times
from FY 2004 to FY 2007, providing strong testimony to the high-caliber analyses performed for
approximately 1,200 new chemicals annually.
Risk Reduction Practices Lower Risk by 39.5 Percent for Major Chemicals: EPA is also
charged with assessing and acting on the thousands of chemicals already in commerce. The
Agency uses several performance measures to judge its progress, including two that are
measured through the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model, which combines
manufacturing chemical data with chemical hazard and U.S. Census data to generate
production-adjusted relative risk indices. The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators measure
focuses on risk reductions for high-production volume chemicals, including many of the most
commonly produced, and might best exemplify EPA's overall progress on existing chemicals
over the past decade. Although 2008 results will not be available until FY 2010, due to reporting
schedules, newly available data for 2006 show significant progress, bringing a cumulative risk
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
175
-------
reduction to 39.5 percent for all chemicals since 2001. For High-production volume chemicals,
an additional 1.8 percent reduction was realized for 2006.
New Program Helps Fill Gaps for Chemical Hazard Data: In March 2008, EPA introduced the
Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) to accelerate the assessment of
thousands of unevaluated chemicals. The Chemical Assessment and Management Program
formalizes a U.S. international commitment to assess and take action on 6,750 high- and
moderate-production volume chemicals (HPVs and MPVs) by 2012, as well as additional
initiatives to obtain hazard data for nearly 1,000 inorganic chemicals and to "reset" the Toxic
Substances Control Act Inventory.
The Chemical Assessment and Management Program grew out of EPA's High-Production
Volume Challenge Program. As of August 2008, chemical companies and industry consortia
have voluntarily provided data for 1,386 U.S. high-production volume chemicals and 857
international chemicals under the Chemical Assessment and Management Program. These
data are combined with newly available exposure and use information from the updated 2006
the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Update Reporting to develop screening level risk-
based prioritizations. When exposure or use information is not available, as is the case for most
moderate-production volume chemicals, screening-level hazard-based prioritizations are
created. In FY 2008, 150 risk-based prioritizations and 14 hazard-based prioritizations were
completed. Fifty-five hazard based prioritizations are on track to be completed in early FY 2009.
Risk management action will be initiated immediately for chemicals identified under the
Chemical Assessment and Management Program as high-priority special concerns.
More Companies Partner With EPA to Assess Risks of Nanotechnology: In January 2008,
EPA launched the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. This initiative seeks voluntary
information on the hazards and risks of nanoscale materials from manufacturers, processors,
users, or importers. Nanotechnology, the study and use of matter on an atomic or molecular
scale, offers enormous promise as well as potential liability to impact human health and the
environment. EPA is gathering information to support research for these substances while
evaluating its regulatory responsibility to protect the environment and human health.
As of August 7, 2008, 20 companies and trade organizations have submitted information under
the basic program, and 10 more have committed to submit information in the future. Three
companies additionally committed to participate in a more in-depth program. This information is
being made publicly available and outreach is ongoing to encourage further participation. In
addition, EPA received and took regulatory action on 11 nanoscale materials through the
Premanufacture Notice Review Program.
EPA Helps Reduce Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Emissions: Under the global
Perfluorooctanoic Acid Stewardship Program, the Agency continued its work to reduce the
sources and pathways of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical used in many products
including Teflon and microwave popcorn bags. Participating companies have committed to
reducing perfluorooctanoic acid and related chemicals from emissions and products by 95
percent no later than 2010 and to work toward eliminating emissions and product content by
2015. As of February 2008, the first report shows substantial progress, with three of eight
participating companies reporting reductions in perfluorooctanoic acid emissions and related
chemicals of more than 98 percent.
EPA Makes Progress in Managing Risks From Legacy Chemicals: New risks issues posed
by a set of prominent "legacy" chemicals continue to emerge and require EPA to launch national
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 176
-------
efforts to reduce current and future exposure and associated risks. Significant progress has
occurred in addressing risks from such as mercury, asbestos, formaldehyde, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in FY 2008.
In FY 2008, EPA made progress on many of the commitments outlined in EPA's Roadmap for
Mercury. Developed in 2006, this roadmap explains how the Agency plans to address mercury
issues domestically and internationally. Highlights of progress include:
• Development and application of a mercury products and alternatives database to assess
and initiate follow-up regulation action on certain mercury products.
• Publication of a Chemical Management Guide for school administrators.
• Work with states to promote recycling of fluorescent lamps and other best management
practices for products such as dental amalgam and non-fever thermometers.
EPA promoted the purchase of non-mercury products through several partnership programs
including Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare. In
2008, EPA has also made substantial strides in promoting the reduction of mercury use in
products globally through international Mercury Products Partnerships. EPA's work under these
partnerships includes efforts to reduce or eliminate mercury in products by exchanging
information and expertise, transferring and applying best management practices, developing
and improving mercury use and emission inventories, providing technical assistance to
implement mercury product substitution and reduction programs, and raising awareness of
mercury in products through public education efforts. In addition to building capacity in products
inventory development and reducing mercury use in hospitals and schools worldwide, EPA is
working with the Basel Secretariat to build capacity in developing countries to address mercury
waste.
EPA reviewed and responded to a Toxic Substances Control Act section 21 petition from
numerous organizations and individuals concerned about risks to human health and the
environment from exposure to formaldehyde in composite wood products. Thorough review
during the 90-day petition review period raised new analyses indicating the potential for
prolonged exposure to potentially irritating levels of formaldehyde in new homes due to the use
of pressed wood products. After careful review, EPA granted the petition in part and denied it in
part, deciding to initiate a proceeding to investigate whether and what type of regulatory or other
action might be appropriate. EPA plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) in October 2008, which will focus on irritation concerns associated with formaldehyde
exposure from use of pressed wood products in newly built homes. At the same time, EPA will
work to develop a better understanding of the pressed wood industry and alternatives to
formaldehyde and will initiate development of a more detailed exposure assessment and a
hazard characterization that could be used to evaluate an emissions standard approach. EPA
intends to hold a number of public meetings to obtain stakeholder input on this issue.
New Rule Reduces Children's Exposure to Lead-Based Paint Hazards: EPA along with
other federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development are continuing to combat childhood lead poisoning. Eliminating this
entirely preventable disease is a cross-agency priority as elevated blood lead levels cause
neurological damage and developmental delays. The primary source of lead exposure for
children is lead-based paint.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 177
-------
Data released in 2005 by the Centers for Disease Control demonstrated major reductions in the
incidence of childhood lead poisoning—from approximately 900,000 children with elevated
blood lead levels in the early 1990s to 310,000 children from 1999 to 2002. Because evidence
has shown a higher incidence of childhood lead poisoning among low-income children
compared to other children, EPA continues to measure this difference. In the early 1990's, there
was a 37 percent difference in elevated blood lead levels between low-income and non-low
income children. Most recently available data show that this difference has been reduced to 32
percent.
These data show that EPA is on track to meet ambitious federal governmentwide goals to
eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. The Agency plans to meet these
goals by educating the public, establishing protective regulations, training a large workforce in
lead-safe work practices, and making funding available. Through three competitive grant
programs, EPA is focusing its funding assistance for lead on the most vulnerable populations in
states, localities, and tribal areas. The funds from these grant programs enable communities to
educate those at risk, provide lead-awareness training and develop local ordinances aimed at
lead abatement.
Hazardous Chemicals Removed From 33
Indian Country Schools (Region 8)
Region 8 successfully removed more than 24,000
pounds of hazardous chemicals from 33 schools
in Indian Country. Chemicals removed included
neurotoxins, carcinogens, suspected carcinogens,
strong oxidizers, flammable hydrocarbons,
corrosive, caustic, toxic, and potentially explosive
compounds, and flammable solids that can
generate very high temperature and are a fire
hazard. Chemicals removed were logged,
transported, and disposed of at regulated
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
These efforts have made schools safer for 7,604
Native American schoolchildren and teachers.
To reduce children's exposure to
hazards created by renovation, repair,
and painting that disturb lead-based
paint, EPA announced the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Rule, which requires renovation
contractors to receive training and use
lead-safe work practices renovating in
housing and child-occupied facilities
built prior to 1978. Affected contractors
include builders, painters, plumbers,
and electricians. Trained contractors
must post warning signs, restrict
occupants from work areas, contain
work areas to prevent dust from
spreading, conduct a thorough
cleanup, and verify that cleanup was
effective. The Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule will become fully effective in April 2010,
when all contractors covered by the rule must be certified in the use of lead-safe work practices.
Prior to that time, EPA is currently working closely with the states, tribes, and territories to
encourage them to apply for authorization.
Pesticide Concentration in General Population Decreases by 20 Percent: EPA's National
Pesticide Program promotes public health, safe and abundant food, worker safety, and
protection of land and other media from pesticide contamination. EPA's FY 2008 efforts put the
Agency on a path to provide long-term health benefits by 2011 that include:
• Reducing the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent.
The progress for FY 2008 shows a reduction rate of 20 percent.
• Protecting workers exposed to pesticides by maintaining or improving on the current low
incident rate.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
178
-------
• Achieving a 50-percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic
pesticides.
• Reducing the percent of urban watersheds that exceed National Pesticide Program aquatic
life benchmarks for three key pesticides and reducing the percent of agricultural watersheds
that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides.
In addition, the National Pesticide Program's success in ensuring that safe pesticides continue
to be available to address emergency pest infestations results in avoiding $1.5 billion in crop
losses and $900 million in termite structural damage each year.
The Agency has completed its last Reregistration Eligibility Decision. This multi-year effort
resulted in the identification of a wide range of potential risks and developed mitigation to
address the risks. Final reregistration eligibility decisions will be implemented over the next five
years. Other progress in FY 2008 includes completing 1,194 product reregistrations, as well as
registering 12 reduced-risk chemicals and biopesticides, eight new active ingredients, and 327
new uses. The Agency fully achieved all registration review goals for the year, with 46 new
dockets opened for public review and comment. EPA also met Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA) deadlines for 99.7 percent of over 1,600 pesticide registration
applications received. This fast and consistent turnaround of registration actions helps increase
protection of human health and the environment and achieve the social and economic benefits
of using pesticides
Region Partners With Utah Department of Agriculture and Salt Lake City School District
for First Region 8 School Integrated Pest Management Project
The Region 8's first school integrated pest management project was initiated with the Salt Lake
City, Utah, school district. Salt Lake City schools successfully reduced pesticide applications by
90 percent without an increase in pest problems. The district soon implemented school
integrated pest management in all of its school buildings and spearheaded the formation of the
Utah Integrated Pest Management Coalition. Due to the overwhelming success of the Salt Lake
City Integrated Pest Management program and the creation of the Utah Coalition, the Jordan
School District, Utah's largest, also adopted a school integrated pest management policy.
EPA Completes Major Efforts in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Since the
early 1990s, some chemicals found in the environment have been suspected of disrupting
normal hormone development in animals, including humans. These chemicals have been
termed "endocrine disrupters," and health effects from exposure to them can include
reproductive and other hormone-related abnormalities. By the late 1990s, EPA implemented a
program that will require industry to screen and test chemicals for their potential to interact with
the endocrine system. The program involves:
• Developing and validating tests for chemicals to be used for screening and testing
chemicals.
8. Priority setting by selecting chemicals to be screened.
9. Developing and implementing procedures for requiring testing.
In FY 2008, EPA continued progress on all three of these components, as described below:
• The program completed validation of nine Tier 1 assays; the cumulative number of assays
validated through FY 2008 is 12 of 20 assays. The proposed Tier 1 battery was reviewed by
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 179
-------
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel in March
2008. The panel concluded that the set of Tier 1 assays are appropriate to begin screening
for disrupters of Estrogen, Androgen, and Thyroid axes.
• The program reviewed public comments on the draft list of pesticide chemicals for Tier 1
screening and prepared the final list for publication.
• Following extended comment periods, the final draft of the implementation policies and
procedures, including the draft information collection request and draft 408(p) orders, were
completed and submitted for interagency review. As part of the public comment periods, the
Agency was seeking and received comments on measures to minimize duplicative testing,
promote fair and equitable cost sharing, protect data from inappropriate public disclosure,
and other issues.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding
Goal 4: Objective 1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Lead
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Endocrine Disrupters
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Pesticides: Field Programs
Pesticides: Registration of New
Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of
Existing Pesticides
POPs Implementation
Science Policy and Biotechnology
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
FY 2006
Obligations
$14,605.4
$14,961.5
$510.3
$3,117.8
$0.0
$645.8
$2,072.6
$4,324.7
$2,497.5
$25,171.1
$54,496.6
$78,948.1
$1,953.3
$0.0
$11,425.1
$9,658.2
FY 2007
Obligations
$13,172.1
$21,329.7
$355.4
$1,140.3
$9,870.4
$1,006.9
$5,085.8
$3,463.3
$3,193.8
$22,968.0
$62,365.2
$74,150.5
$414.7
$1,208.1
$12,428.7
$8,294.1
FY 2008
Obligations
$14,413.9
$14,785.2
($0.3)
($103.6)
$6,466.8
$797.5
$5,876.2
$3,106.9
$2,211.3
$5,807.0
$1,904.8
$4,441.3
$29.0
$1,650.5
$11,122.0
$6,529.4
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
180
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
TRI / Right to Know
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
Total
$43,070.5
$12,022.5
$13,887.5
$461.7
$130.3
$6,319.8
($0.1)
$862.0
$3,241.6
$3,413.6
$78,308.5
$4,072.8
$7,267.7
$914.9
$56,618.7
$4,559.5
$1,946.3
$2,228.8
$197.0
$480.4
$202.3
$2,844.7
$1,755.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$469,194.2
$46,152.7
$13,720.3
$14,626.8
$537.4
$130.9
$7,127.4
$0.0
$848.1
$3,343.6
$3,738.2
$76,955.9
$4,537.5
$6,891.6
$949.9
$58,348.0
$5,075.4
$1,721.9
$2,372.0
$207.5
$520.7
$256.3
$1,840.8
$1,884.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$492,234.7
$49,709.1
$12,701.7
$15,064.3
$614.1
$149.0
$8,419.2
$0.0
$826.2
$3,270.8
$2,583.1
$67,787.9
$5,498.1
$7,165.1
$1,310.7
$52,961.2
$5,218.5
$1,951.6
$2,834.5
$105.3
$600.6
$310.3
$2,074.5
$1,821.8
$85,098.3
$53,442.0
$15,294.1
$475,849.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
Lead Categorical Grants contribute significantly to reductions in the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning. They are used primarily to support state and EPA direct implementation of the TSCA
Section 404(g) lead-based paint professionals certification and training program, grants to
reduce lead risks on tribal lands, and two programs targeting populations of children deemed
most at risk of exposure to lead-based paint.
Web Links:
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics: www.epa.gov/oppt
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
181
-------
New Chemicals Program: www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems
Chemical Information and Data Development: www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest
Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: www.epa.gov/oppt/lead
Lead Professionals: www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 182
-------
Objective 4.2: Communities
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 4, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Objective 4
$405,819.9—
28%
Objective 3
$272,638.5
19%
Objective 1
$475,850.1
32%
Objective 2
$298,998.4
21%
Objective 2: Communities,
Performance Measures
EPA Continues to Revitalize Contaminated Property and Leverage Jobs: EPA's
Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program is dedicated to revitalizing real properties where
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants. The Brownfields program works in partnership with states, tribes, and localities
to promote the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse of brownfields and other
contaminated properties.
Although complete FY 2008 performance information will not be available until March 2009 due
to grantee reporting schedules, EPA is on track to achieve its FY 2008 Brownfields performance
goals. FY 2007 results now available show that the program achieved its FY 2007 performance
goals, assessing 1,371 properties, cleaning up 77 properties, and leveraging 5,209 jobs and
$1.7 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds. In addition, the Agency made 2,399 acres
ready for reuse through site assessment or property cleanup. Progress the Brownfields program
made in FY 2008 includes:
• Started an initiative to work with communities and incorporate sustainable development into
the planning, design, and implementation of their Brownfields projects.
• Announced and awarded four geographically based technical assistance Brownfields grants,
which will help communities better understand the health impacts of brownfield sites and
science and technology related to brownfield activities.
• Trained and conducted outreach to more than 5,500 communities and stakeholders at the
Brownfields 2008 National Conference in Detroit, Michigan.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
183
-------
Agency Expands Emergency Response Plans and
Provides 15,000 More Homes With Wastewater
Sanitation: The U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program
(Border 2012) is a collaboration between the United States
and Mexico to improve the environment and protect the
health of the nearly 12 million people living along the border.
Progress includes improvements to wastewater
infrastructure systems, creation of greenhouse gas emission
inventories, removal of 4 million scrap tires, establishment of
a post-graduate degree program at Mexico's Institute of
Public Health, and implementation of 15 sister cities'
emergency response plans to better protect residents along
the border.
US-Mexico Border Drinking
Water Improvements
In 2008, following finalization
of a fiscal management policy
for the US-Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure Program
in August 2007, the program
has:
• Made 5,162 new
drinking water
connections
• Made 31,686 new
wastewater
connections
The program met the FY 2008 target of 2,500 drinking water
connections with a total of 5,162 connections made in 2008.
The program also met the FY 2008 target of 15,000
additional homes served with adequate wastewater sanitation with 31,686 wastewater
connections completed in 2008.
Through Work Within Eurasia, EPA Continues to Strengthen International Environmental
Efforts: To meet many of our domestic environmental protection goals, we must address
international sources of pollutants. For example, in 2008 EPA developed the 10 Year
Framework with China for Energy and Environment Cooperation. The U.S. and China created
the Framework out of the Strategic Economic Dialog to ensure that shared, priority energy and
environment issues continue to receive long-term, high-level attention. To facilitate development
and implementation of the Framework, the U.S. and China established a joint working group
including, the White House, Treasury, Department of State, Energy, and EPA. The White
House designated EPA to lead the development and implementation of environmental and
health action plans on clean water and clean air under the Framework.. Also, EPA, in
partnership with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and over 100 additional
partners, has encouraged the phase-out of leaded gasoline in over 175 countries impacting a
population of over 6 billion and introduced low-sulfur levels to over 40 countries benefiting
approximately 4 billion people.
Even in the remote Arctic, industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
found in the tissues of local wildlife. As a result of EPA's efforts, over 4,100 tons of obsolete
pesticides have been inventoried and placed into safe storage in 10 Arctic and sub-Arctic
regions of Russia since 2003. This includes safe storage of over 70 tons of mercury-containing
pesticides, over 320 tons of POPs-containing pesticides and over 1,500 tons of POPs and
mercury mixes. The safe storage of these pesticides reduces environmental releases and
exposure to a population of over 17 million people residing in these ten regions.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
184
-------
The publication Children's Environmental Health: 2008 Highlights provides updates on actions
that EPA is taking to protection children from environmental dangers. For example:
Latino Outreach to Prevent Pesticide Poisoning: An outreach campaign during National Poison
Prevention Week targeted Latino families and reached 32 million people in the United States
and Latin America with the message "Children act fast, and poisons do, too!" American
Association of Poison Control Centers data show that more than 50 percent of the 2 million
incidents of exposure to chemicals and other materials each year involve children younger than
six, with 90 percent of calls concerning home exposures. EPA's Pesticides Hispanic Outreach
Initiative reduces exposure risk by showing how to minimize exposure, defining the symptoms of
pesticide poisoning, and providing information on where to get help. To read more about how all
programs in the Agency are acting to protect children's environmental health, see:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/2008 highlights.htm/$File/OCHP 2008 High
lights 508.pdf
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
185
-------
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with program projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 2 - Communities
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Brownfields
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Environment and Trade
Environmental Justice
Geographic Program: Other
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Brownfields Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
POPs Implementation
Regulatory Innovation
US Mexico Border
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
FY 2006
Obligations
$52,993.5
$8,670.7
$3,686.5
$2,239.8
$2,329.6
$5,286.1
$1,726.6
$99.7
$456.0
$100,288.4
$48,929.1
$0.0
$2,702.4
$8,003.0
$72.0
$20.8
$1,958.7
$969.4
$177.5
$817.2
$529.0
$9,943.4
$524.7
$834.7
$78.0
$5,697.5
$703.5
$257.0
$2,086.2
$7,734.1
$64.7
$75.0
$31.6
$1,628.0
FY 2007
Obligations
$49,267.2
$16,717.8
$3,855.6
$492.5
$3,860.0
$7,468.2
$3,590.2
$157.7
$326.0
$115,480.9
$53,967.2
$1,698.6
$3,175.8
$5,727.9
$85.6
$22.6
$2,092.1
($57.0)
$181.6
$858.0
$588.7
$10,041.7
$673.6
$799.3
$84.1
$6,130.9
$775.2
$246.4
$2,312.4
$6,281.4
$58.2
$82.9
$40.8
$1,264.8
FY 2008
Obligations
$52,612.1
$15,382.1
$4,291.4
($49.8)
$4,007.9
$4,813.3
$4,433.3
$127.6
$297.9
$97,046.6
$65,100.5
$2,099.2
$3,681.2
$6,043.6
$99.4
$24.9
$2,483.7
($24.1)
$179.0
$850.4
$415.0
$9,217.9
$729.1
$836.8
$132.9
$5,772.7
$818.2
$274.8
$2,625.7
$5,529.5
$54.4
$97.2
$50.2
$1,431.5
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
186
-------
Children and Other Sensitive Populations:
Agency Coordination
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$4,582.3
$273.8
$276,470.5
$4,978.9
$300.1
$303,627.9
$7,217.5
$294.8
$298,998.4
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
Grants provided to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American
Development Bank support development of water infrastructure. In FY 2008, the U.S.-Mexico
Border Program received an appropriation for new projects were certified in FY 2008 to begin
construction while existing projects continued to make progress in providing safe drinking water
and sanitation to citizens on the border.
In FY 2008, EPA selected 195 Brownfields Assessment Grants for inventory, planning, and
assessment activities. EPA selected 112 Brownfields Cleanup Grants for work at identified
properties. In addition, 12 grants were selected to capitalize revolving loan funds that provide
loans and subgrants for property cleanup; 13 grants were awarded to establish environmental
job training programs in communities impacted by Brownfields. EPA awarded nearly $50 million
in grant funding to states and tribes to establish and enhance response programs. FY 2007 data
that became available in FY 2008 showed that the state and tribal grants contributed 241
properties assessed and 22 properties cleanup toward the program's national accomplishments.
Additionally, EPA estimates that more than 18,900 sites were cleaned, with required institutional
controls in place, through state and tribal response programs, totaling more than 250,000 acres,
according to the recently release data based on data from 2006 and 2007.
Web Links:
U.S.-Mexico Border Program: www.epa.gov/border2012
Brownfields Information: www.epa.gov/brownfields
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a governmentwide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
187
-------
Objective 4.3: Ecosystems
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 4, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Objective 4
$405,819.9-
28%
Objective 3
$272,638.5-
19%
Objective 1
$475,850.1
32%
Objective 2
$298,998.4
21%
Objective 3: Ecosystems,
Performance Measures
National Estuary Program Finds Programmatic and Financing Successes: The National
Estuary Program and its federal, state, and local partners implement Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans to protect and restore water quality, ecological integrity,
and critical habitats. National Estuary Program data for FY 2008 show that the 28 National
Estuary Programs and their partners protected or restored more than 83,490 acres of habitat.
Leveraging data also show that the National Estuary Program played a primary role in
leveraging $12.6 million of EPA Section 320 and
earmark funds to obtain an additional $160 million,
which is a ratio of $13 raised for every $1 of Section
320 and earmark funds provided.
EPA Focuses on Coastal Wetlands: The 2006
National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report
showed that from 1998 to 2004, wetland gains
exceeded wetland losses in the United States at a rate
of 32,000 acres per year, aggregated across all
wetland categories. In FY 2008, EPA reported on
cumulative wetland acres gained by applying the most
recent annual rate. The Agency is hopeful that the next
Status and Trends Report—to be released in 2010—
will show that EPA met or exceeded its goals in FY
2008. Although the increase in wetlands acres shown
by the 2006 report is positive, one category of
wetlands, coastal wetlands, continues to decline at a
rate of about 60,000 acres per year. EPA, together
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, intends to
focus on addressing the trends in coastal wetlands in
Water Quality Criteria That Reflect
Natural Background Conditions
EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
worked together to complete
cooperative studies that support a
use attainability analysis for all
freshwater and tidal bayous, and
coastal waters throughout the Bayou
Barataria and Terrebonne basins.
The studies document that
indigenous fish species are able to
tolerate low levels of dissolved
oxygen that fall far below EPA's
recommended criteria. The study
results will support water quality
standards revisions.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
188
-------
2009 and beyond. EPA works with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404 wetlands permit program. Also, through several nonregulatory
wetlands programs, EPA works with states and other federal agencies and partners to protect
and restore wetlands.
Nutrient Loads and Clean Air Interstate Rule Impact the Chesapeake Bay: The
Chesapeake Bay Program partners have achieved 47 percent, 62 percent, and 64 percent of
the goals to implement nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction practices, respectively
(based on Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 2007 Progress Run; 2008 results will be
available in March 2009).
Nitrogen Reduction Implementation In the Chesapeake Bay
O
= 74
National Commitment
Phosphorus Reduction Implementation In the Chesapeake Bay
1
£
"o
15
.a
National Commitment
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
189
-------
Sediment Reduction Implementation In the Chesapeake
TJ
.3.75
025
National Com mrt ment
New challenges include increases in nutrient loads from agricultural lands due to corn-based
ethanol production as well as continued air deposition of nitrogen oxides from power plants.
Great Lakes Health Improves, Impacting Fish, Drinking Water, and Beaches:
Improvements in the Great Lakes Index score indicate that: toxins entering the food chain are
continuing to decline; ecosystem and human health are better protected; fish are safer to eat;
water is safer to drink; and beaches are safer for swimming. From a baseline score of 20, EPA's
Great Lakes Index target score of 23.7 out of a possible 40 indicates long-term progress in
improving the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The Great Lakes Index uses assessments of the condition of ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal
wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, area of concern sediment contamination, benthic health,
fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition) to
assess the overall condition of the Great Lakes. The most recent improvement in the index is a
specific result of having achieved a milestone in contaminated sediment remediation: from
calendar years 1997 to 2007, EPA and its partners remediated a cumulative total of 5.5 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments (more than 10 percent of the total requiring
remediation). Partners remediated approximately 450,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments in 2008. This resulted in the removal of more than 1.5 million pounds of
contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and metals (including mercury) from the environment, thereby reducing risk to aquatic
life and human health.
In the Great Lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient that controls algae growth. Elevated
phosphorus concentrations are linked to some areas of low dissolved oxygen in the bottom
waters, such as in the Lake Erie dead zone. In recent years, phosphorus concentrations in Lake
Erie exceeded guideline levels, including in its central basin, in which annual anoxia problems
persist. FY 2007 data now available indicate that the targeted phosphorus concentration levels
were not met. Exploration of this problem by the Great Lakes National Program Office, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environment Canada, the state of
Ohio, and others show that changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem are due to the invasive zebra
and quagga mussels and increased amounts of phosphorus entering from tributaries.
Gulf of Mexico Receives Recognition on Ocean Issues and Approves Hypoxia Action
Plan: On February 27, 2008, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative released its 2007 Report
Card on the Administration's efforts to address the Commission's recommendations. The Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative commended the gulf states' leadership and achievements in
regional ocean governance reform as well as the active engagement by federal agencies to
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
190
-------
support progress in the region, and assigned the highest grade of A- for these efforts. (See
Chart 2.)
JOINT OCEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE
2007 U.S. OCEAN POLICY REPORT CARD
Subject
Grade
Comments
Regional and
State
Ocean
Governance
Reform
(2006=A-)
A-
Promising
strides in
regions
and states
on a
variety of
ocean
issues.
Notable Progress
• Progress establishing and implementing state ocean legislation
in MA, NJ, and NY and noteworthy progress in AK, CA, FL, HI,
LA, OR, and WA.
• Significant progress in Gulf of Mexico and West Coast regions.
Improvements Needed
• Strengthen existing initiatives, including expanding state
commitment and federal support.
• Implement regional initiatives in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.
Chart 2.
The Gulf Hypoxia Task Force approved the 2008 Hypoxia Action Plan, signed in June 2008.
The revised coastal goal states that subject to the availability of additional resources, EPA
strives to reduce or make significant progress towards reducing the hypoxic zone's five-year
running average aerial extent off the Gulf of Mexico to less than 5,000-square kilometers by the
year 2015 by implementing specific, practical, and cost- effective voluntary actions by all states
and tribes. Additionally, EPA will address all categories of sources and removals within the
Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin to reduce the annual discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus
into the Gulf of Mexico.
Long Island Sound Exceeds Goals for Restoration and Protection: Overall performance for
the restoration and protection of Long Island Sound exceeds expectations, as measured by
point source nitrogen reduction, habitat restoration/protection, and diadromous fish passage.
The states continue to make progress in upgrading their wastewater treatment plants to control
nitrogen discharges, which improves water quality and lessens the threat of hypoxia from
excess nitrogen. The Long Island Sound program (states of New York and Connecticut, EPA
Regions 1 and 2, and other partners) has generally been on target for nitrogen reduction (see
Chart 3); however, New York City is now under a consent order to upgrade its wastewater
treatment plants for nitrogen removal, which will cause a short-term bulge in discharges of
nitrogen due to the cessation of interim nitrogen removal activities during the construction
schedule.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
191
-------
Chart 3. [2008 data available in March 2009]
The Long Island Sound program has exceeded its planned goals for habitat
restoration/protection and fish passage, restoring or protecting a total of 1,151 acres of habitat
versus a goal of 862 acres to be restored by 2011, and reopening 124.4 miles of river corridor to
fish passage versus a 2011 goal of 131 miles to be reopened. Progress is made by working with
local entities to match and exceed federal funding for restoration, protection, and enhancement
as well as fish passage projects.
As the Long Island Sound program continues to reduce point and nonpoint source pollution, the
total cost of necessary infrastructure improvements remains an issue. A planned revision to the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to include the states of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont will require close cooperation and significant financial commitment by
those states' taxpayers, who have no direct Long Island Sound shoreline access. Options for
flexible implementation on a total watershed basis must be evaluated. EPA is involving the
upstream states in Total Maximum Daily Load discussions to evaluate ways and means of
achieving water quality standards in an economically realistic and environmentally responsible
manner. Connecticut's innovative nitrogen credit trading program has been highly successful in
controlling costs and meeting standards, which, if expanded to a regional basis, could
potentially help financially stressed communities meet local commitments to clean water.
Columbia River Improves Significant Habitat Acreage: The Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership is leading the effort in achieving the overall objective of improving 16,000 acres of
habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed by 2011. Progress in 2008 is well on track to
meeting the overall objective with a total of 12,986 acres of habitat protected, enhanced, and
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
192
-------
restored. The collaborative nature of the efforts of the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership, EPA, and other partners has attracted substantial leveraged resources, an
important success.
EPA is writing a State of the River Report with the help of its state, tribal, federal, and local
partners to tell the story of the toxics problems and solutions for the Columbia River Basin. The
final report, expected December 31, 2008, will be used to educate people about the problems in
the Columbia River Basin and to garner support for toxics reduction efforts.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 3 - Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways
Wetlands
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
FY 2006
Obligations
$13,336.9
$15,670.4
$7,377.3
$22,273.7
$20,044.0
$3,712.3
$3,980.8
$958.6
$6,520.8
$32,567.0
$130.2
$213.1
$26,298.5
$20,449.3
$93.1
$26.3
$5,053.1
$269.1
$1,245.7
$688.3
$10,889.4
$349.0
$797.8
$44.8
$4,231.4
FY 2007
Obligations
$16,082.5
$4,578.6
$2,131.4
$20,094.9
$24,212.4
$4,373.0
$995.5
$1,326.0
$6,140.0
$44,072.1
$205.6
$173.8
$20,744.7
$60,666.8
$109.7
$26.7
$5,538.0
$276.5
$1,282.7
$763.4
$10,765.3
$351.6
$688.0
$47.3
$4,570.9
FY 2008
Obligations
$16,722.3
$21,289.0
($129.1)
$36,394.0
$22,710.3
$4,422.0
$2,915.4
$4,822.9
$13,462.1
$22,049.4
$173.5
$167.2
$25,820.1
$70,156.6
$133.6
$32.4
$7,934.6
$282.5
$1,322.9
$562.1
$10,567.6
$425.6
$729.1
$100.9
$4,506.9
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
193
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$958.9
$298.1
$1,363.3
($282.2)
$100.8
$96.9
$40.8
$1,038.4
$353.9
$201,189.8
$1,023.7
$305.1
$1,345.4
($99.1)
$90.0
$106.3
$52.3
$615.3
$384.9
$234,041.3
$1,105.0
$336.2
$2,170.0
($27.5)
$112.1
$130.7
$67.5
$774.1
$396.4
$272,638.4
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Grants:
• Section 320 of the Clean Water Act provides for annual grants to National Estuary Programs
(NEPs). National Estuary Programs have been very effective at leveraging this "base" grant
funding by building relationships with diverse private, local, state, and federal partners.
• Wetland Program Development Grants are critical for building state, tribal, and local
government capacity to protect and manage wetlands. Established in 1990, this grant
program provides funds to states, tribes, and local governments to develop programs that
increase their participation in wetland restoration, improvement, and protection activities.
• The Great Lakes National Program Office issues state and tribal grants for Lakewide
Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans (addressing areas of concern). The program
issues competitive grants addressing pollution prevention and reduction, habitat (ecological)
protection and restoration, invasive species, strategic or emerging issues, atmospheric
deposition, fish contaminants, and biology. The program also addresses contaminated
sediments through grants and project agreements pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
• Clean Water Act Section 117(e) grants fund the full range of state water quality nutrient
reduction programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In particular, the grants emphasize
state tributary strategies to improve water quality and help meet the goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
• 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.
Web Links:
Great Lakes National Program Office: www.epa.gov/glnpo
Chesapeake Bay Grants: www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm
Sediment White Paper: www.iic.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
194
-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a governmentwide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 195
-------
Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 4, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Objective 4
$405,819.9
28%
Objective 3
$272,638.5
19%
Objective 1
r $475,850.1
32%
Objective 2
$298,998.4
21%
Objective 4: Enhance
Science and Research,
Performance Measures
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect, sustain,
and restore human and ecosystem health.
Research Informs Risk Assessors and Protects Human Health: In FY 2008, EPA's Human
Health Research Program furthered the Agency's understanding of how exposures to
environmental pollutants can impact human health. In addition to providing new tools for
measuring human exposures, this research is providing EPA regulators and risk assessors with
new useful information about how chemicals like flame retardants and pesticides (conazoles
and pyrethroids) act in the body. This research uses new genomics approaches to better inform
risk assessments.
Through this program, EPA also furthered society's understanding of how children react to
certain types of environmental pollution. EPA released a summary of research findings, A
Decade of Children's Health Research, based on more than 100 research projects conducted in
the Children's Environmental Health Centers, funded by EPA's Science to Achieve Results
program. This report highlights 10 years of research on how exposures vary for newborn to
school-age children and how responses can be based on genetics. The report complements the
progress of other EPA research studying the factors that affect children's exposures, the
biological markers that indicate exposure or effects, and the steps to identify and prevent
harmful exposures to children.
Ecological Research Develops New Tools for Assessing Water Bodies: In 2008, EPA's
Ecological Research Program reached its goal of providing tools and models to document the
condition of lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, and estuaries in all 50 states. In 2008, the program
transitioned to helping local, regional, and national environmental managers understand how
their choices affect the type, quality, and magnitude of the goods and services society receives
from ecosystems. Examples of new tools delivered include:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
196
-------
• The third National Coastal Condition Report, showing that 6 percent of the coastal waters
are in poor condition, 35 percent are in fair condition, and 59 percent are in good condition.
The report also showed a slight improvement in overall condition since the first National
Coastal Condition Report in 2001.
• An analytical mapping tool that provides valuable information about stream and river
characteristics that support different classes of fisheries and assists environmental
managers in decision-making to conserve ecosystem services. This tool, endorsed by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, is being used in the Lake Michigan
Lakewide Management Plan and meets the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as well
as the Critical Programs Act, both important initiatives for improving the health of the Great
Lakes.
• A Future Midwestern Landscapes Study, which was initiated to examine different
management strategies for biofuels production in a 12-state area of the Midwest. This study
will help us understand how current and projected land uses affect the ecosystem services
provided by Midwestern landscapes. It will provide spatially explicit information that will
enable EPA to articulate sustainable approaches to environmental management. The
ultimate outcome will be Web-based tools depicting alternative scenarios, so users can
evaluate trade-offs affecting ecosystem services.
EPA Undertakes Major Steps to Understand Full Impact of Climate Change: EPA's Global
Change Research Program continues to assess the potential impacts of climate change and
climate variability on the United States and to evaluate alternative adaptation strategies. In
support of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, EPA completed two major assessments:
Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources
and Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human
Systems.
The program also completed a major draft report for public review assessing the impacts of
global change on regional U.S. air quality and completed an assessment of the potential
impacts of climate change on combined sewer overflow events in the Great Lakes and New
England regions. The program and the EPA Office of Air and Radiation are exploring how to
incorporate the findings of the air quality assessment into state implementation plan guidelines.
Additionally, the program is helping EPA regional offices and city planners to incorporate the
findings of the combined sewer overflow report into the design of new combined sewer systems.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 197
-------
Primary Processing and Conversion of Energy Carriers End-Use Sectors
Energy
Gasification Combustion-Based
Direct Electricity
Generation
Industry
EPA's Global Change research program has developed a first-of-a-kind, nine-region Market
Allocation, or MARKAL model of the United States that can be used by decision-makers to
explore future scenarios of energy system development and the associated emissions. A key
feature of the model is that it allows trading of energy supplies, electricity, petroleum products,
and other fuels across regions. In support of EPA's Air Quality Assessment, this model has
been used to evaluate the impacts of technological change on air pollutant emissions for the
contiguous United States at the scale of the nine U.S. Census Bureau regions. The model is
also being used to understand the impact of the expanded production and use of biofuels in the
Midwest.
EPA Researches Risks From Chemical Exposure: EPA's Safe Pesticides/Safe Products
Research Program is providing environmental managers and decision-makers with data needed
to reduce or prevent unreasonable risks to humans, wildlife, and non-target plants from
exposures to pesticides, toxic chemicals, and products of biotechnology. FY 2008 example
accomplishments include:
• EPA scientists produced a publicly available Web-based modeling application that can be
used to inform ecological risk assessments. For example, the application can model the
potential effects on endangered and threatened species by estimating toxicity for untested
species using data from tested species.
• EPA scientists continued to conduct research to support assessments of perfluorinated
chemicals. Researchers worked to determine the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) content in
consumer products, identify major indoor perfluorooctanoic acid sources to which the
general United States population is exposed, and understand concentrations of
perfluorinated chemicals in domestic and foreign soils. EPA began investigating
perfluorooctanoic acid, because it is persistent in the environment; was being found at very
low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population; and
causes developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
• Agency research in biotechnology improved EPA's and other agencies' abilities to
characterize and monitor the impacts of genetically modified crops on the environment and
human health.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
198
-------
Toxicology Research Makes Critical Step Toward Decreasing Amount of Animal Testing:
In FY 2008, EPA's Computational Toxicology Research Program completed a series of studies
that show how new genomic technology can improve data used in risk assessments.
Specifically, the program evaluated the chemical class of conazole fungicides to identify toxic
pathways, or how the chemicals react within humans. Identifying these pathways allows
scientists to interpret lab findings into possible human reactions and will move the Agency
toward using genomic data in its risk assessment process. This work is a critical step toward
producing more relevant data, while using fewer resources and decreasing the number of
animals involved in toxicity testing.
EPA Completes Major Milestone in Research for Evaluating Endocrine Disruptors: EPA's
Endocrine Disruptors Research Program continues to provide the Agency with the scientific
information it needs to reduce or prevent unreasonable risks to humans and wildlife from
exposures to pesticides, toxic chemicals, and environmental mixtures of chemicals that interfere
with the function of the endocrine system. FY 2008 example accomplishments include:
• EPA completed research in developing assays for Tier 1 of the Agency's Endocrine
Disruptors Screening Program. This research has resulted in tests that use fewer animals
than traditional toxicity tests. The assays are also being considered for use internationally by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Research began across all of EPA's laboratories in collaboration with other government
scientists to characterize the environmental impact of hormones (natural and synthetic) from
concentrated animal feeding operations. This research will inform EPA and other federal
and state agencies that are mandated to oversee the environmental impact of concentrated
animal feeding operations.
• Research funded through EPA's Science to Achieve Results program determined that
lowered thyroid hormone levels during development affected the sensitive balance of cells in
the developing brain in rats. The results should help EPA better understand the neurological
and behavioral deficits in children born to mothers with thyroid dysfunction.
Human Health Risk Assessments Inform EPA Decision-Making: The peer-reviewed
products of EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Program are used extensively by EPA
programs, EPA regions, and other parties to support the development of regulatory standards
and to manage environmental cleanups and risk management efforts. In FY 2008, EPA
delivered 16 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments to interagency review or
external review and met 83 percent of its goal to post five of six final health assessment
documents (see below).
Review Level
Interagency
Review
External Review
Delivered and
Finalized
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment
Copper, acrylonitrile, platinum, ethyl tert-butyl ether
Tetrahydrofuran, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, 2-hexanone, acrylamide,
kepone, propionaldehyde, thallium, beryllium, carbon tetrachloride,
cerium, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and tetrachloroethylene
Tetra-polybrominated diphenyl ether, penta-polybrominated diphenyl
ether, hexa-polybrominated diphenyl ether, deca-polybrominated
diphenyl ether, and propionaldehyde
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 199
-------
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
The Integrated Risk Information System is a
compilation of electronic reports on specific
substances found in the environment and their
potential to cause chronic adverse human
health effects. The system was initially
developed for EPA staff in response to a
growing demand for consistent information on
substances for use in risk assessments,
decision-making, and regulatory activities. The
information in the Integrated Risk Information
System is intended for those without extensive
training in toxicology but with some knowledge
of health sciences.
In addition to Integrated Risk Information
System assessments, the Human Health
Risk Assessment Program completed 32
percent new or revised Provisional Peer-
Reviewed Toxicity Values, which support
waste site decision-making. EPA also met
court-ordered deadlines for completed
Integrated Science Assessments for
nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides and
provided significant scientific support to the
Administrator and Office of Air and
Radiation for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards-setting decisions for
ozone and lead.
EPA Works With Homeland Security to
Develop Contaminant Detection Tools and Cleanup Approaches: In 2008, EPA partnered
with Sandia National Laboratories to develop and release data analysis software to assist water
utilities in detecting contamination. The CANARY software, named for its analogy to the canary
in a coal mine, evaluates standard water quality data (e.g., free chlorine, pH, and total organic
carbon) over time and uses mathematical and statistical techniques to identify suspicious
changes in water quality. The CANARY software is available as a free download from the
National Homeland Security Research Center Web site.
In FY 2008, researchers also completed several reports that support sound scientific decisions
on how to clean up contaminants of interest. Researchers examined the persistence of
contaminants on surfaces if left untreated, as well as the impacts of two decontamination
technologies—vaporized hydrogen peroxide and chlorine dioxide—on the integrity of common
building materials. This work follows previous studies that showed both vaporized hydrogen
peroxide and chlorine dioxide to be effective
decontamination technologies. Testing indicated that
persistence is affected by temperature, humidity, time,
and building materials and that building materials only
showed minor structural changes after application of
these technologies.
EPA Evaluates Cutting-Edge Science on
Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology is a cutting-edge
field of science that centers on controlling matter at the
level of atoms or molecules. It works with structures
that are measured in "nanometers" and the
development of materials or devices that are
characterized by this extremely tiny size.
Nanotechnology offers great potential in many sectors.
In the environmental sector, it can be used to remove
toxins or reduce pollution. This technology also poses
many questions, however, such as how toxic some of
the nanomaterials are and whether they will pose
adverse ecological and environmental health impacts.
Grants
EPA-funded researchers at Rice
University have produced iron
oxide nanocrystals capable of
removing toxic arsenic from
drinking water. Results reported
in 2008 indicate that after two
hours, iron oxide nanocrystals
removed between 98.4 and 99.2
percent of the arsenic present.
These results indicate
nanotechnology has the potential
to provide reliable, cost-effective
approaches to remediate soil and
water contaminated with toxic
compounds.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
200
-------
In 2008, EPA's research office developed a Nanomaterial Research Strategy to help guide
Agency research to better understand nanomaterials movement and transformation in the
environment. In addition, EPA-led research continues to publish findings on the performance of
nanomaterials in removing toxins from water, building on several years of work on the use of
nanomaterials to remove pollution.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measures and objectives. This chart lists the Program Projects and associated resources that support this
objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Global Change
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Fellowships
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
FY 2006
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2007
Obligations
$349.2
$722.6
$35,111.2
$1,922.6
$39,415.2
$12,424.8
$10,609.4
$20,317.3
$169,831.5
$29,949.8
$11,982.4
$385.7
$94.0
$7,925.5
$533.2
$1,908.3
$2,674.7
$17,797.2
$3,688.9
$5,341.5
$754.8
$31,341.6
$3,654.3
$1,268.6
$2,521.0
$106.5
$373.7
$184.0
FY 2008
Obligations
($78.5)
$571.6
$37,976.2
$1,449.3
$41,401.9
$14,071.1
$11,239.7
$17,834.9
$146,075.3
$24,790.6
$9,387.4
$445.1
$111.3
$8,507.3
$527.7
$1,913.2
$1,858.8
$33,771.2
$5,159.2
$5,820.0
$1,061.5
$28,875.8
$3,765.8
$1,447.8
$2,797.8
$12.2
$435.4
$225.0
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
201
-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,709.9
$1,352.6
$417,252.0
$3,044.9
$1,320.6
$405,820.1
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
Grants:
• EPA grantee research led to an improved cumulative assessment of pesticides. This work
has resulted in policy and procedural changes within local governments, grower
associations, and produce shippers that will reduce the risks of exposures to multiple
pesticides. (Supported by the following two grants: (1) Centers of Excellence in Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research, and (2) Centers for Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research.)
• EPA grantee research has identified wide population variability in a gene that produces
enzymes for detoxifying organophosphate pesticides; these results show that some people,
especially young children, are more sensitive to the adverse health effects of these
pesticides. (Supported by the following two grants: (1) Centers of Excellence in Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research, and (2) Centers for Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research.)
• In 2007, EPA research grants supported Native American tribes by conducting the science
to determine potential risks unique to their populations because of their customs,
occupations, and lifestyles. (Supported by the grant entitled: Lifestyles and Cultural
Practices of Tribal Populations and Risks From Toxic Substances in the Environment.)
• In 2007, an EPA-funded study of the Willamette River in Oregon found that restoration of the
river's floodplain has the potential to cool thermal discharges to the river, as well as to
create many other benefits such as flood control, increased aquatic habitat, and increased
recreational opportunities. The researchers continue to work with local stakeholders to
determine the pros and cons of alternative restoration options. (Supported by the grant
entitled: Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple Benefits in
Large River Floodplains in the Pacific Northwest.)
• EPA grantee findings indicate that global change will have significant impacts on air quality
in the United States, including higher ozone concentrations. Consequently, EPA is working
to incorporate global change impacts in the air quality management process. (Supported by
the following four grants: (1) Modeling Heat and Air Quality Impacts of Changing Urban
Land Uses and Climate, (2) Development and Evaluation of a Methodology for Determining
Air Pollution Emissions Relative to Geophysical and Societal Changes, (3) Impacts of Global
Climate and Emission Changes on U.S. Air Quality, and (4) Application of a Unified Aerosol-
Chemistry-Climate GCM to Understand the Effects of Changing Climate and Global
Anthropogenic Emissions on U.S. Air Quality.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
202
-------
Web Links:
Children's Research Center White Paper:
yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/CEHRC Findings.htm/$file/CEHRC%20Findings.d
oc
Wilamette Ecosystem Marketplace Development:
www.mwvcog.org/WillamettePartnership/WillamEcoMarket.asp
Human Health Research Program: www.epa.gov/hhrp
Climate Change Program: www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
Endocrine Disrupters Research Initiative: www.epa.gov/endocrine
National Center for Environmental Research: www.epa.gov/ncer/fellow
Board of Scientific Counselors: http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a governmentwide Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual
planning and reflected performance measure improvements. The tables of measures and
results provided in Section II of this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures, which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance
measures. Please refer to www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 203
-------
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and
partnerships.
OBJECTIVE: 4.1: CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE RISKS
By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Performance Measures Met
21
Performance Measures Not Met
6
Data Available After November 17,
2008
6
Total Performance Measures
33
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.1: Reduce Chemical Risks
By 2011, prevent and reduce chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, eliminate or effectively manage risks associated with 100 percent of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals for which
unreasonable risks have been identified through EPA risk assessments.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(248) Percentage of HPV
chemicals identified as priority
concerns through assessment of
Screening Information Data Sets
and other information with risks
eliminated or effectively managed.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent of
HPV
Chems.
Baseline - The baseline for the HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998. EPA screening of data obtained through the HPV Challenge
Program is commencing in 2006; actions to obtain additional information needed to assess risks will commence subsequently as
chemicals are identified as priority concerns through the screening process.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
204
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - 2 chemicals were identified as high priority chemicals of special concern last year. Both chemicals have been the subject
of targeted initiation of risk management actions.
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(247) Percent of new chemicals or
organisms introduced into
commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment.
FY 2005
Target
Baseline
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
96
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to
workers, consumers, or the environment was developed from a 2 year analysis from 2004-2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical
submissions and is 100 percent.
Explanation - In FY 2007, OPPT analyzed 21 TSCA 8(e) notices of substantial risk that related back to 24 previously reviewed New
Chemical submissions. This self evaluation compared newly available information from the 8(e) notices with original OPPT decisions on
new chemicals, essentially challenging the program 24 times. One of the 24 chemicals suggested an unreasonable risk upon
reassessment and 23 of 24 chemicals did not pose an unreasonable risk upon reassessment, leading to performance of 96 percent.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, achieve a 31 percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health risk from environmental releases of industrial chemicals
in commerce since 2001.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2010, eliminate childhood lead poisoning cases as a public health concern by reducing to zero the number of cases of children
(aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
205
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(10A) Annual percentage of lead-
based paint certification and
refund applications that require
less than 20 days of EPA effort to
process.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
N/A
Actual
90
FY 2007
Target
90
Actual
92
FY 2008
Target
91
Actual
91
Unit
Percent
Certif/ and
Refund
Baseline- Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to
process is 77 percent in 2004, which is taken from the Federal Lead Based Paint Program database records.
Explanation- Measure was met due to sustained attention to Regional components of processing time, the primary contributor to this
measure. Sustained high-level of customer service was achieved in processing applications in a timely fashion.
(196) Number of cases of children
(aged 1-5 years) with elevated
blood lead levels (>10 ug/dl).
Bi-annual
Bi-annual
216,000
121,000
Bi-annual
Bi-annual
90,000
Data
Unavailable
Children
Baseline - Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey in May of 2005 estimated a population of
310,000 children aged 1 - 5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater).
Explanation - CDC has not officially released 2003-2004, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 information.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2010, reduce to 28 percent the percent difference in the geometric mean blood lead level in low-income children 1-5 years old as
compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(10D) Percent difference in the
geometric mean blood level in
low-income children 1-5 years old
as compared to the geometric
mean for non-low income children
1-5 years old.
FY 2005
Target
Bi-annual
Actual
Bi-annual
Data
FY 2006
Target
29
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
Bi-annual
Actual
Bi-annual
Data
FY 2008
Target
29
Actual
Data
Unavailable
Unit
Percent
Baseline - Baseline for percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the
geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old is 37% in 1991-1994.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
206
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY
Target
Explanation - CDC has not officially released 2003-2004, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 information.
2008
Actual
Unit
Strategic Target (6)
By 2011, through work with international partners, eliminate the use of lead in gasoline in the remaining 35 countries that still use
lead as an additive, affecting over 700 million people. (Baseline: As of January 2006, 35 countries still need to phase lead out of
gasoline. Information source: United Nations Environment Program and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles maintain a
global database on fuel quality, which is updated periodically).
Strategic Target (7)
By 2011, through work with international partners, over 3 billion people will have access to low-sulfur fuel in 10 countries, including
China, India, Mexico and Brazil. (Baseline: As of January 2006, none of the developing countries has access to low-sulfur fuel,
according to the United Nations Environment Program and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles.)
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(097) Safe Disposal of
Transformers
FY 2005
Target
8000
Actual
7,015
FY 2006
Target
5000
Actual
6,480
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2008
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
Unit
Transformers
Explanation - Disposal is voluntary and is compiled from Regional reporting. The disposal of this electrical equipment is not driven by any
regulatory requirement. Therefore reporting is unpredictable and varies from year to year. This measure was discontinued after FY 2006.
(098) Safe Disposal of Capacitors
6,000
1,457
9000
343
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Capacitors
Explanation - Disposal is voluntary and is compiled from Regional reporting. The disposal of this electrical equipment is not driven by any
regulatory requirement. Therefore reporting is unpredictable and varies from year to year. This measure was discontinued after FY 2006.
(241) Annual number of chemicals
with proposed values for Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels
(AEGL)
20
29
24
23
24
33
24
28
Chemicals
Baseline EPA developed Proposed AEGL values for 78 chemicals through 2002. In 2007, a total of 218 chemicals with proposed AEGL
Values were reported for the AEGL Program (cumulative count).
Explanation - The FY 08 target was exceeded through increased program efficiency in reviewing and presenting chemicals at international
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
207
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
meetings.
(239) Annual number of chemicals
with final values for Acute Exposure
Guideline levels.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
37
Chemicals
Baseline- Baseline from program initiation in 1996 through 2008 is 37 chemicals.
(72A) Percent reduction from
baseline year in total EPA cost per
chemical for which proposed AEGL
value sets are developed.
N/A
N/A
Baseline
$38,178
2
19.1
4
17.4
Percent Cost
Savings
Baseline - Total EPA cost per chemical for which proposed AEGL values sets are developed is $38,178 using a 3 year average of AEGL
program costs from FY 2005 through FY 2007.
Explanation - Given that proposed AEGLs completed for FY 2008 is 28, exceeding target of 24, the efficiency measure target of 4% will be
exceeded. OPPT will pursue target increases in the Fall PART update.
(249) Cumulative number of
chemicals for which the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation
Program data needs documents
are issued by EPA in response to
Industry sponsored Tier 1 risk
assessments.
N/A
N/A
8
6
9
14
10
15
Cum. Chems.
Baseline - Baseline for the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program is 0 for FY 2003.
Explanation - In FY 2008, OPPT completed one additional data needs document for Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program
chemicals bringing the cumulative total to 15. In FY 2007, OPPT was able to continue and complete work on data needs documents for
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program chemicals which were not ready to report at the end of FY 2006. Also, the program was
able to group similar chemicals into one group, issuing one data needs documents for this group.
(270) Annual number of High
Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals with Risk Based
Prioritizations Completed.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
0
150
150
HPV
Chemicals
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
208
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - The baseline for the number of HPV chemicals with risk based prioritizations completed in 2007 is zero.
(296) Annual number of Moderate
Production Volume (MPV)
chemicals with Hazard Based
Prioritizations Completed.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
0
55
14
MPV
Chemicals
Baseline - The baseline for the number of MPV chemicals with hazard based prioritizations completed in 2007 is zero.
Explanation - Finalization and publication of hazard based prioritizations was complicated by Confidential Business Information concerns
regarding hazard data for MPV and supporting analogue chemicals. The program is on track to finalize and post 55 Hazard Based
Prioritizations by early FY09.
(278)Cumulative number of High
Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals with Screening Level
Hazard Characterization Reports
completed.
N/A
N/A
Baseline
522
781
733
1,152
1,013
HPV
Chemicals
Baseline - The baseline for the number of chemicals with Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports was developed using data
from internationally sponsored HPV chemicals through 2006. EPA assisted with the development and finalization of reports for these 359
chemicals.
Explanation - Original baseline assumption were incorrect because OPPT can only count Hazard Characterizations completed through the
international process that are manufactured in the U.S. and part of the Chemical Assessment and Management Program chemical
universe. Relative targets remain at the same interval but are decreased over time. In FY 2007, Hazard Characterizations began to be
developed solely by EPA. These added to ongoing international work and provide the beginning step for risk based prioritizations.
(282) Annual reduction in the
production-adjusted risk-based
score of releases and transfers of
High Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals from manufacturing
facilities.
1.4
5.3
3.0
1.8
2.6
Data
Unavaila
ble
2.5
Data
Unavail
able
Percent RSEI
Risk
Baseline - The baseline for the percent reduction in the risk based score for HPV chemicals is zero percent in 1998, which was the year the
HPV program began. A cumulative 30.3 percent reduction has been observed between 1998 and 2005.
Explanation - RSEI scores are dependent on TRI data which are subject to a 2 year data lag. FY05 actuals were recalculated based on
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
209
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
new assumptions resulting in slightly different results for FY 06. Overall progress toward long term target is accelerating due to a reduced
release of the chemical diaminotolune in a high exposure area.
(DSC) Percent increase from
baseline year in cost savings due to
new chemical prescreening.
N/A
N/A
6.67
15.1
13.4
-42
20
-40
Percent Cost
Savings
Baseline - The baseline was developed from 2004 and 2005 data showing an average cost savings of $51 ,000 from chemical pre-
screening.
Explanation - FY 08 is the last year that OPPTS will be reporting on this measure. Fewer Sustainable Futures trainings were offered during
FY 2008 due to slow implementation of MOU which passed SF training off to third party. This resulted in fewer pre-screened new
chemicals submitted. While some cost savings were realized from pre-screening, they did not equal the baseline cost savings of $51 ,000.
Only approximately $20,000 or 40 percent of baseline savings were realized.
(226) Reduction in time required to
issue Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions.
7
75
10
62
40
40
60
60
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Baseline for reduction in time required to issue Registration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) decisions is 30 months in FY 2002
(281) Reduction in cost of
managing Pre-Manufacture Notice
(PMN) submissions through the
Focus meeting as a percentage of
baseline year cost
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
$459,800
N/A
N/A
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Percent reduction from baseline year in managing PMN submissions through the Focus meeting is $459,800 in 2007.
(280) Percent reduction from
baseline year in average cost of
Toxic Substance Control Act 8(e)
processing and searches.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
$14.88
N/A
N/A
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Baseline for the percent reduction from baseline year in the average cost of processing and searching TSCA 8(e) reports was
$14.88 in 2007.
Explanation - No target for FY 08. Measure was pushed back to 09, IT improvements haven't happened.
(250) Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted risk-based
2.5
-0.3
4.5
-0.3
4.0
Data
Unavaila
3.5
Data
Unavail
Percent RSEI
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
210
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
score of releases and transfers of
toxic chemicals from manufacturing
facilities.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
ble
FY 2008
Target
Actual
able
Unit
Risk
Baseline -Baseline for the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model Program in 2001 was zero percent. 2001 was selected as the
baseline year because of changing TRI reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals that took effect in 2001. These
changes significantly affect the RSEI model, making comparisons with years prior to 2001 inappropriate. A consistent set of chemicals can
be used from 2001 forward. Cumulative reduction reported through 2005 is 29.3 percent.
Explanation - RSEI scores are dependent on TRI data which are subject to a 2 year data lag. Updates to the RSEI model have improved
underlying assumptions regarding air dispersion models. While FY 2005 and 2006 performance has not been met, overall progress toward
long term target is accelerating largely due to a reduced released of chemical diaminotoluene in a high exposure area. Since 2001 ,
cumulative reductions through 2006 are 39.5 percent.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
By 2011, protect human health, communities, and the environment from chemical releases through facility risk-reduction efforts and
building community preparedness and response capabilities.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, continue to maintain the Risk Management Plan prevention program and further reduce by 5 percent the number of
accidents at Risk Management Plan facilities. (The baseline is an annual average of 340 accidents, based on Risk Management Plan
program data through 2003.)
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce by 5 percent the consequences of accidents at Risk Management Plan facilities, as measured by injuries, fatalities,
and property damage. (The baseline is an annual average of 358 injuries, 13 fatalities, $143,487,189 property damage at Risk
Management Plan facilities from 1995-2003.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, vulnerability zones surrounding Risk Management Plan facilities will be reduced by 5 percent from the 2004 baseline, which
will result in the reduction of risk for over 4 million people in the community. (The 2004 baseline is 33,504 miles of total cumulative
radius of all vulnerability zones).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
211
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, improve by 10 percent from the 2007 baseline the capabilities of Local Emergency Planning Committees to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to chemical emergencies (as measured by a survey of those planning committees), thereby reducing the
risk to communities from the potentially devastating effects of chemical accidents.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(CH2) Number of risk
management plan audits and
inspections completed.
FY 2005
Target
400
Actual
730
FY 2006
Target
400
Actual
885
FY 2007
Target
400
Actual
550
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
628
Unit
Audits
Baseline - 2820 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2002 and FY 2006.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.3: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Through 2011, protect human health by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be
safe and available when used in accordance with the label.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent. Baselines are determined from
1990-1992 Centers for Disease Control-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(266) Percent reduction in
concentrations of pesticides
detected in general population.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2006
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
5
FY 2008
Target
Biannual
Actual
Biannual
Unit
Percent
cum.
reduction
Baseline - According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues
detected in blood samples from the general population are: Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 ug/L;
Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07
ug/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 ug/L.
Explanation - Data Limitations have been identified and OPPTS is working to resolve these limitations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
212
-------
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, protect those occupationally exposed to pesticides by improving upon or maintaining a rate of 3.5 incidents per
100,000 potential risk events. Baseline: There were 1385 occupational pesticide incidents in 2003 out of 39,850,000 potential
pesticide risk events/year.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reaching a 50 percent targeted reduction in moderate to
severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion,
pyrethrins, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), and carbofuran. Baselines will be determined from the Poison Control Center
Toxics Exposure Surveillance System database for 1999-2003.
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
(143) Percentage of
agricultural acres treated with
reduced-risk pesticides.
FY 2005
Target
13.5
Actual
16
FY 2006
Target
17
Actual
18
FY 2007
Target
18
Actual
20
FY 2008
Target
18.5
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Percent
acre-
treatment
s
Baseline - The baseline for acres-treated is 3.6 percent of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acre treatments
was 30,332,499 and total (all pesticides) was 843,063,644 acre- treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by
Doane Marketing Research, Inc serve as the basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk
pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total number of pesticides treatments which acre receives each year.
Explanation - Data is collected on CY basis. FY 08 data will be available by EOY FY 09. FY07 actual exceeded target due to
market conditions and an increased use of corn.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
(001) Register reduced risk
pesticides, including
biopesticides.
FY 2005
Target
14
Actual
14
FY 2006
Target
14
Actual
15
FY 2007
Target
14
Actual
14
FY 2008
Target
10
Actual
12
Unit
Registrations
Baseline - Zero in 1996. Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 200 registrations.
(002) New Chemicals
8
3
8
19
8
16
12
8
Registrations
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
213
-------
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
(Active Ingredients)
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - Zero in 1996. Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 117 new chemicals (active ingredient).
Explanation - Active ingredients withdrawn and renegotiated due dates to FY 09.
(265) Incidents per 100,000
potential risk events in
population occupationally
exposed to pesticides.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<=3.5/100,000
<=3.5/1 00,000
Incidents
Baseline - There were 1 ,388 incidents out of 39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides
in FY 2003.
(267) Percent reduction in
moderate to severe
incidents for six acutely
toxic agricultural pesticides
with the highest incident
rate.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
43
Cum. Percent
Reduction
Baseline - The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates
base on FY 1999 -2003 data were: Chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29
incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents, based on data from Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure
Surveillance System, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's Sentinel Event Notification System for
Occupational Risk.
Explanation - Exceeded due to cancellation of residential uses process.
(244) Percent reduction in
review time for registration
of conventional pesticides.
7
7
8
34
9
5
10
-37
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - The baseline for review time for registration of convention pesticides is FY 2002 turnaround time of 44 months
(pre-PRIA); Percent reduction from the prior year.
Explanation -Two active ingredients, pyridalyl and iodomethane, were received in FY04 when the allowable review
timeframes under PRIA were the greatest (38 months) - whereas other Als received that fiscal year were registered in a
timeframe significantly shorter than the 38 months allowed, these two chemicals had serious risk issues to address and were
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
214
-------
Annual Performance
Measures and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
problematic for EPA to register. The PRIA dates for both of these chemicals were renegotiated thus the legally allowable
timeframe for review was actually greater than the 38 months that was assumed when the target for the efficiency measure
was developed. To a lesser degree, this is also the case for flubendiamide, which was renegotiated beyond the original
timeframe of 24 months.
(273) Reduced cost per
pesticide occupational
incident avoided.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
Cum. Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Based on FY 2001- 2003 data, the cost avoided for occupational pesticide incidents is $11,550 per incident
avoided.
(005) New Uses
200
164
200
235
200
235
250
327
Actions
Baseline - Zero in 1996. Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 3,774 new use actions.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.4: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Through 2011, protect the environment by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to
be safe and available when used in accordance with the label.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds sampled by the US Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment
(USGS NAWQA) program that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern
(diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion). The 1992 - 2001 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded
benchmarks are Diazinon: 40 percent; Chlorpyrifos: 37 percent; and Malathion: 30 percent.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds sampled by the USGS NAWQA program that exceed EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for 2 key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos). Based on 1992-2001 data, 18 percent of agricultural watersheds
sampled exceeded benchmarks for Azinphos-methyl and Chlorpyrifos.
No Strategic Target
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
215
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(268) Percent of urban
watersheds that exceed EPA
aquatic life benchmarks for three
key pesticides of concern.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2006
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2008
Target
25
Diazinon;
25
chlorpyrif
os; 20
malathio
n
Actual
40
diazinon;
0
chlorpyrif
os; 30
malathio
n
Unit
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - The 1992-2001 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 40
percent; chlorpyrifos, 37 percent; and malathion, 30 percent.
Explanation - Variance from target associated with phase out process of chemicals and with variability in monitoring data.
(010) Cumulative percent of
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
Completed.
81.4
82
93.5
91
97
95.4
100
100
Percent
Decisions
Baseline - Baseline for cumulative percent of Registration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) completed is 613 REDs completed by FY 2008.
Twenty-seven (27) of these decisions were completed during FY 2008.
(275) Average cost and average
time to produce or update an
Endangered Species Bulletin
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
($3,600
& 90 hrs)
N/A
19
($3,240
& 81 hrs)
N/A
Cum.
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin in FY 2004 is $4,000 and 100 hours.
Explanation - No bulletins issued.
(226)Reduction in time required to
issue Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions.
7
75
10
62
40
40
60
60
Percent
reduction
Baseline - Baseline for reduction in time required to issue Registration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) decisions is 30 months in FY 2002
(011) Product Reregistration
400
501
545
545
545
962
1075
1194
Actions
Baseline - FY 05 actual is 501 product reregistrations.
Explanation - Target exceeded due to external review of product reregistration process done to streamline the process and expedite
timely implementation of risk mitigation measures.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
216
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.5: Realize the Value from Pesticide Availability
Through 2011, ensure the public health and economic benefits of pesticide availability and use are achieved.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, annually avoid $900M in termite structural damage by ensuring that safe and effective pesticides are registered/re-
registered and available for termite treatment.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, avoid $1.5 billion of crop loss by ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address emergency pest infestations.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(271) Millions of dollars in termite
structural damage avoided
annually by ensuring safe and
effective pesticides are
registered/reregistered and
available for termite treatment.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2006
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
FY 2008
Target
900M
Actual
900M
Unit
Dollars
Saved
Baseline - Based on U.S Census housing data, industry data, and academic studies on damage valuation, EPA calculates that in FY
2003 there were $900 million in annual savings from structural damage avoided due to availability of registered termiticides.
(272) Billions of dollar in crop loss
avoided by ensuring that effective
pesticides are available to address
pest infestations.
Baseline
1.5B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5B
1.5B
Dollars Loss
Avoided
Baseline - According to EPA and USDA data for the years FY 2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $1.5 billion
in avoided crop loss.
(274) Reduce cost per acres using
reduced risk pest management
practices compared to the grant
and/or contract funds expended
on environmental stewardship.
Baseline
2.63
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
Cum
Reduction
($/acre)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
217
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - For FY 2005, funding of Strategic Agriculture Initiative grants resulted in $2.63 per acre impacted.
(240) Maintain timeliness of S18
decisions
45
42
45
48
45
36.6
45
34
Days
Baseline - The Section 18's 2005 baseline is 45 days.
Explanation - Target exceeded as a result of the emergency exemption streamlining rule that was completed in 2006.
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(108) Contract cost reduction per
study for assay validation efforts in
the Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
FY 2006
Target
N/A
Actual
FY 2007
Target
1
Actual
63
FY 2008
Target
1
Actual
3
Unit
Percent
Baseline - The average cost per study was calculated based on contract costs over a five year period (2002-2006). A laboratory study
was defined as conduct of an assay with a single chemical in a single lab, and represents standardized study costs based on a mix of in
vitro and in vivo studies, as well as detail review papers. The baseline average cost per study is $62,175 in FY 2006.
(257) Cumulative number of
assays that have been validated.
N/A
11/20
2/21
8/20
3/20
13/20
12/20
Assays
Baseline - Zero assays validated in FY 2005.
Explanation - Target not met due to one of the planned assay validations being delayed because of contract and technical issues that
arose during the conduct of the interlaboratory validation study.
OBJECTIVE: 4.2: COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Performance Measures Met
3
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
7
Total Performance Measures
10
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
218
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.1: Sustain Community Health
By 2011, reduce the air, water, and land impacts of new growth and development through use of smart growth strategies in 30
communities that will achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health improvements. The baseline will be
established in 2006.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.2: Restore Community Health Through Collaborative Problem-Solving
Make significant environmental improvements in communities with potential disproportionately high and adverse environmental
and/or public health effects ("areas with potential environmental justice concerns") and foster the ability of communities to address
local environmental concerns with other stakeholders through collaborative problem solving.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields
Working with state, tribal, and local partners, promote the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse of brownfields properties.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, conduct environmental assessments at 13,900 properties. (FY 2005 baseline is 7,900.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B29) Brownfield properties
assessed.
FY 2005
Target
1,000
Actual
1,381
FY 2006
Target
1,000
Actual
2,139
FY 2007
Target
1,000
Actual
1,371
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Assessments
Baseline — In FY2005, the Brownfields program assessed 1,381 properties.
Explanation — Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY 2008 data will not be available until May 2009. EPA exceeded its target in FY
2007 for this measure
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, make 1,125 acres (cumulative) of brownfields ready for reuse.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B33) Acres of Brownfield
properties made ready for reuse.
FY 2005
Target
NA
Actual
NA
FY 2006
Target
NA
Actual
1,598
FY 2007
Target
NA
Actual
2,399
FY 2008
Target
225
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Acres
Baseline - In FY 2006, the Brownfields program made 1,598 acres ready for reuse.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
219
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY08 data will not be available until May 2009. EPA exceeded its target in
FY 2007 for this measure
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, leverage $12.9 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at brownfields properties. (FY 2005
baseline is $7.5 billion.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup
and redevelopment funds
leveraged at brownfields sites.
FY 2005
Target
0.9B
Actual
1.0
FY 2006
Target
0.9B
Actual
1.4
FY 2007
Target
1B
Actual
1.7
FY 2008
Target
0.9
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
$ Funds
Baseline — In FY 2005, the Brownfields program leveraged $1.0 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Explanation — Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY 2008 data will not be available until May 2009. EPA exceeded its target in FY
2007 for this measure
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B34) Jobs leveraged from
brownfields activities.
FY 2005
Target
2,000
Actual
6,128
FY 2006
Target
5,000
Actual
5,504
FY 2007
Target
5,000
Actual
5,209
FY 2008
Target
5,000
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Jobs
Baseline — In FY2005, the Brownfields program leveraged 6,128 jobs.
Explanation — Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY 2008 data will not be available until May 2009. EPA exceeded its target in FY
2007 for this measure
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(B32) Number of properties
FY 2005
Target
60
Actual
68
FY 2006
Target
60
Actual
88
FY 2007
Target
60
Actual
77
FY 2008
Target
60
Actual
Data
Unit
Properties
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov.
220
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
cleaned up using Brownfields
funding.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2005, the Brownfields program cleaned up 68 properties.
Explanation - Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY08 data will not be available until May 2009. EPA exceeded its target in FY
2007 for this measure
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
By 2012, sustain and restore the environmental health along the U.S.-Mexico border through implementation of the "Border 2012"
plan.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a majority of currently exceeded water quality standards in impaired transboundary surface waters. (2002 Baseline:
17 currently exceeded water quality standards were identified for 10 transboundary segments of U.S. surface waters.)
Strategic Target (2)
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25 percent of homes in the Mexican border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in
2003. (2003 Baseline: 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(SP-24) Number of additional
homes provided safe drinking
water in the Mexican border area
that lacked access to drinking
water in 2003.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
2,500
Actual
5,162
Unit
Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.
Explanation - - In 2003, 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2012, provide adequate wastewater sanitation to 25 percent of homes in the Mexican border area that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation in 2003. (2003 Baseline: 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
221
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(SP-25) Number of additional
homes provided adequate
wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked
access to wastewater sanitation in
2003.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
15,000
Actual
31,686
Unit
Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation.
Explanation - In 20032008, 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation
Strategic Target (4)
By 2012, cleanup five waste sites (two abandoned waste tires sites and three abandoned hazardous waste sites) in the U.S.-Mexico
border region.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.5: Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
By 2011, sustain and restore the environmental health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 95 percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories served by community drinking water systems will
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the year. (2005 Baseline: 95
percent of the population in American Samoa, 10 percent in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 80 percent of
Guam served by community water systems received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
throughout the year.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(SP-26) Percent of population in
each of the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories served by community
water systems will receive drinking
water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
72
Actual
Data
Available
12/2008
Unit
Percent
Population
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
222
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
standards throughout the year.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2005, 95 percent of American Samoa; 10 percent of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and 80 percent of
Guam were served by community water systems receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards.
Explanation - Data available December
2008.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, the sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90 percent of the time with permit limits for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). (2005 Baseline: The sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories complied 59 percent of the time with the biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids permit
limits.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(SP-27) Percent of the time that
the sewage treatment plants in the
U.S. Pacific Island Territories will
comply with permit limits for
biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and total suspended solids
(TSS.)
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
67
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Percent
Time
Baseline - In 2005, sewage treatment plants complied with permit limits 59 percent of the time.
Explanation - Data available in 2009.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming 96 percent of days of the beach season. (2005 Baseline: Beaches were open and safe 64 percent of the 365-day beach
season in American Samoa, 97 percent in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 76 percent in Guam.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
223
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(SP-28) Percent of days of the
beach season that beaches in
each of the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories monitored under the
Beach Safety Program will be
open and safe for swimming.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
70
Actual
80
Unit
Percent
Days
Baseline - In 2005, 84 percent of beach days were open and safe for swimming.
Explanation - Beach data appears to be more influenced by seasonal rains and nonpoint sources than wastewater compliance and
spills.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure
By 2011, reduce the mean maternal serum blood levels of persistent organic pollutant contaminants in indigenous populations in the
Arctic.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous
populations in the Arctic to 5.6 ug/l.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured as the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in
indigenous populations in the Arctic to 1.1 ug/l.
OBJECTIVE: 4.3: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
Performance Measures Met
12
Performance Measures Not Met
8
Data Available After November 17,
2008
5
Total Performance Measures
25
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands
By 2011, working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland condition.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
224
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per year with additional focus on biological and
functional measures and assessment of wetland condition. (2004 Baseline: 32,000 acres annual net wetland gain based on new U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report, 1998-2004.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(4F) Working with partners,
achieve a net increase of acres of
wetlands per year with additional
focus on biological and functional
measures and assessment of
wetland conditions, (cumulative)
FY 2005
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
unavaila
ble
FY 2006
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
unavaila
ble
FY 2007
Target
200,000
Actual
Data
unavaila
ble
FY 2008
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
Available
2011
Unit
Acres/Year
Baseline - The United States achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands over a 6-year period, from 1998
through 2004, as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States, 1998 to 2004. (Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. U.S.
Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp.)
Explanation - Data available in 2011.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), states, and tribes, achieve "no net loss" of wetlands each
year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program, beginning in 2007. (Baseline: new baseline to be determined in
2008)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(4E) In partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, states,
and tribes, achieve no net loss of
wetlands each year under the
Clean Water Act Section 404
regulatory program
FY 2005
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data lag
FY 2006
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data lag
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data lag
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Unit
Acres
Baseline- No Net Loss: FY ?003- 1:1.12 (ELI 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the U.S., pg. 24;
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
225
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
www.eDa.qov/owow/wetlands/Ddf/ELIMitiqation2005
FY 2006
Target
.Ddf
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - EPA will have data to report under this measure once the EPA interface for the ORM 2.0 Database is complete (estimated
01/01/2009)
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.2: Facilitate the Ecosystem-Scale Restoration of Estuaries of National Significance
By 2011, working with partners, protect or restore an additional (i.e., measuring from 2007 forward) 250,000 acres of habitat within
the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program. (2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected
or restored; cumulative from 2002.)
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(202) Acres protected or restored
in NEP study areas.
FY 2005
Target
25,000
Actual
103,959
FY 2006
Target
25,000
Actual
140,033
FY 2007
Target
50,000
Actual
102,462.
9
FY 2008
Target
50,000
Actual
83,490
Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2002, 0 acres were protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Explanation - It is difficult to determine an accurate number of habitat acres that will be protected and restored because of many
unforeseen and uncontrollable factors such as delays in funding, multiple partners involved, weather, timing of permits, availability of
materials, contract bid process, and negotiations with willing landowners. EPA works with the NEPs to set the most realistic acreage
target possible, but many issues can arise which may change the actual number of acres NEPs report.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.3: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is at least 23
points on a 40-point scale. (2005 Baseline: Great Lakes rating of 21.5 on the 40-point scale where the rating uses select Great Lakes
State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.)
Strategic Target (1)
Through 2011, maintain or improve an average annual 5 percent decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of PCBs
in whole lake trout and walleye samples. (Baseline: decline from 1990 levels.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
226
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(620) Average annual percentage
decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole
lake trout and walleye samples.
FY 2005
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2006
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2007
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
5
Actual
6
Unit
Annual
Percent
Decrease
Baseline - On average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually -
average concentrations at Lake sites from 2002 were: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; and L
Ontario- 1.2ug/g. 9iv)
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, maintain or improve an average 7 percent annual decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of toxic
chemicals (PCBs) in the air in the Great Lakes basin. (Baseline: Decline from 1992 levels measured through Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network data.47)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(621) Average annual percentage
decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in the air
in the Great Lakes Basin.
FY 2005
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2006
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
7
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
7
Actual
7
Unit
Annual
Percent
Decrease
Baseline - Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air (PCBs) from 2002 were; L Superior- 60 pg/m2; L Michigan- 87 pg/m2; L
Huron-19 pg/m2; L Erie- 183 pg/m2; and L Ontario- 36 pg/m2.
Explanation - All Lakes declined except for Lake Michigan. Cleanup of contaminated sediment is contributing to progress.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2010, restore and delist a cumulative total of at least 8 Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes basin (2005 Baseline: 0 areas of
concern de-listed as of 2005 of the 31 total areas of concern.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(622) Number of Areas of Concern
in the Great Lakes Basin which
a.- — -J -J -J- i:_j.__i
FY 2005
Target
3
Actual
0
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
1
FY 2007
Target
1
Actual
1
FY 2008
Target
3
Actual
1
Unit
Number of
AOCs
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
227
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
are restored and de-listed.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted.
Explanation - Measure delayed because of lag time between cleanup (such as the 5 completed Legacy Act sediment remediations) and
monitored environmental response. EPA is working with states to address Beneficial Use Impairments through target setting and
delistings.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, remediate a cumulative total of 7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes. (2005 Baseline: 3.7
million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes have been remediated from 1997 through 2004 of the 75 million
yards estimated to need remediation.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(606) Cubic yards of contaminated
sediment remediated (cumulative)
in the Great Lakes.
FY 2005
Target
2.9
Actual
3.7
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
4.1
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4.5
FY 2008
Target
5.5
Actual
5.5
Unit
M Cubic
Yards
Baseline - 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring
remediation.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(433) Improve the overall
ecosystem health of the Great
Lakes by preventing water
pollution and protecting aquatic
systems.
FY 2005
Target
21
Actual
21.9
FY 2006
Target
21
Actual
21.1
FY 2007
Target
21
Actual
22.7
FY 2008
Target
22
Actual
23.7
Unit
Scale
Baseline - Great Lakes rating of 20.9 reported in 2003, based on most current data available, generally from 2001) on a 40 point scale
where the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator,
where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
228
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Explanation - Sediments component improved (>10 percent remediated) due to Legacy
maintained progress.
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
and other remediation; other components
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(623) Number of Beneficial Use
Impairments removed within
Areas of Concern.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
16
Actual
11
Unit
Number of
BUIs
Removed
Baseline - In 2006, six BUIs were removed within Areas of Concern.
Explanation - Following development of delisting targets by December 2008, states will be able to apply those targets toward BUI
listings.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.4: Improve the Aquatic Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is
improved.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the long-term restoration goal of 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation.
(2005 Baseline: 39 percent (72,935 acres) of submerged aquatic vegetation goal achieved.)
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, achieve 40 percent (29.92 cubic km) of the long-term restoration goal of 100 percent attainment of the dissolved oxygen
water quality standards in all tidal waters of the Bay. (2005 Baseline: 34 percent (25.40 cubic km) of dissolved oxygen goal
achieved.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, achieve 59 percent (95.88 million pounds) of the long-term goal to reduce annual nitrogen loads 162 million pounds from
1985 levels.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
229
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(230) Percent of point source
nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9
million pounds achieved.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
65
Actual
68
FY 2007
Target
70
Actual
69
FY 2008
Target
74
Actual
69
Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 61 percent of point source nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Maintained reductions demonstrated in the FY 07 result. The process of incorporating nutrient limits into permit cycles is
ongoing as well as upgrades of wastewater treatment plants.
(cb3) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of nitrogen
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the nitrogen
reduction goal of 162.5 million
pounds).
44
44
47
46
50
47
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 41 percent of nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Improvements to this measure as compared to 2007. Efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural practices are occurring
but not at a sufficient enough pace due to increasing loads from urban/suburban growth. The process of Incorporating nutrient limits into
permit cycles is ongoing as well as upgrades of wastewater treatment plants.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, achieve 74 percent (10.63 million pounds) of the long-term goal to reduce annual phosphorus loads 14.3 million pounds
from 1985 levels.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(231) Percent of point source
phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16
million pounds achieved.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
82
Actual
84
FY 2007
Target
84
Actual
87
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
87
Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 80 percent of point source phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Load reductions maintained.
(cb4) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of phosphorus
61
61
64
62
66
62
Percent
Goal
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
230
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the phosphorus
reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Achieved
Baseline - 58 percent of phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Improvements to this measure as compared to 2007. Efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural practices is occurring but
not at a sufficient enough pace due to increasing loads from urban/suburban growth. The process of Incorporating nutrient limits into
permit cycles is ongoing as well as upgrades of wastewater treatment plants.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, achieve 74 percent (1.25 million tons) of the long-term goal to reduce annual land-based sediment loads 1.68 million tons
from 1985 levels.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(cb5) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of sediment
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the sediment
reduction goal of 1.69 million
pounds).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2007
Target
61
Actual
62
FY 2008
Target
64
Actual
64
Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 54 percent of sediment goal achieved in 2005.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(232) Percent of forest buffer
planting goal of 10,000 miles
achieved.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
46
Actual
46
FY 2007
Target
53
Actual
53
FY 2008
Target
60
Actual
57
Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
231
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - 38 percent of goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - FY 08 target was not met due to funding and resources available at levels
less than previously estimated.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.5: Improve the Aquatic Health of the Gulf of Mexico
By 2011, the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be improved from 2.4 to 2.6 on the good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report. (2004 Baseline: Gulf Coast rating of fair or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 4-point system
where 1 is poor and 5 is good.)
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 71 impaired segments (cumulative) in 13 priority coastal
areas (i.e., 20 percent of the 354 impaired segments identified in 13 priority coastal areas). (2005 Baseline: 28 segments restored)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
Restore water and habitat quality
to meet water quality standards in
impaired segments in 13 priority
coastal areas (cumulative starting
FY 07).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
64
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Impaired
Segments
Baseline - In 2005, 28 segments restored
Explanation - Data from the 303(d) Reports of all five Gulf states is not available. Data will be available in January 2009
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, restore, enhance, or protect 20,000 acres of important coastal and marine habitats. (2005 baseline: 16,000 acres restored,
enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
Restore, enhance, or protect a
cumulative number of acres of
important coastal and marine
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
18,200
Actual
25,215
Unit
Acres
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
232
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
habitats.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2005, 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico to less than 5,000 km2, as measured by the 5-year running average of the size of the zone. (Baseline: 1996-2000 running
average size = 14,128 km2.)
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(22b) Improve the overall health of
coastal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico on the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report.
FY 2005
Target
0.1
Actual
2.4
FY 2006
Target
2.4
Actual
2.4
FY 2007
Target
2.4
Actual
2.4
FY 2008
Target
2.5
Actual
Data
Available
December
2008
Unit
Scale
Baseline - In 2004, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is poor and 5 is
good and is expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report II indicators: water
quality index, sediment quality index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
Explanation - The National Coastal Condition Report III is still in draft format and is scheduled to be released in December 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.6: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
By 2011, working through the Long Island Sound Study Management Conference partnership, prevent water pollution, improve water
quality, protect aquatic systems, and restore the habitat of Long Island Sound.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound by 58.5 percent as measured by the Long Island Sound
Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load. (Annual reduction target: 8,303 Ibs/day. TMDL baseline: 212,899 Ibs/day; 2014 target: 88,353
Ibs/day.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
233
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H1) Reduce point source nitrogen
discharges to Long Island Sound
as measured by the Long Island
Sound Nitrogen Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL).
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
37,323
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2009
Unit
Pounds Per
Day
Baseline- In 1999, point source nitrogen discharges reduced to 211,724 Ibs/day. Baseline updated from 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
Explanation - Point source discharge data will not be available until March 2009.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the size of hypoxic area in Long Island Sound (i.e., the average maximum July-September <3mg/l DO) by 25
percent; reduce average duration of maximum hypoxic event by 25 percent. (2005 baseline derived from 19-year averages as of
December 2005. Size: 203 sq/mi. Duration: 58 days.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, restore or protect an additional 300 acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater
wetlands from the 2005 baseline. (2005 baseline: 562 acres restored and 150 acres protected.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(N3) Restore or protect areas of
coastal habitat, including tidal
wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers,
and freshwater wetlands.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
862
Actual
1,199
Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 562 acres restored and 150 acres protected.
Explanation - FY 2008 acreage achieved was an additional 176 acres restored/protected.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reopen an additional 50 miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage from the 2005 baseline through
removal of dams and barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as fishways. (2005 baseline: 81 miles.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
234
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(N4) Reopen miles of river and
stream corridor to anadromous
fish passage through removal of
dams and barriers or installation of
by-pass structures such as
fishways.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
105.9
Actual
124.3
Unit
Miles
Baseline - In 2005, 81 miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage were open.
Explanation - 1.3 additional river miles reopened in 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.7: Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Protect and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve "no net loss" of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with all stakeholders (federal, state,
regional, and local). (2005 baseline: Mean percent stony coral cover 6.7 percent in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and
5.9 percent in Southeast Florida.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(sf1) Achieve "no net loss" of
stony coral cover in FL Keys Nat'l
Marine Sanctuary and in the
coastal waters of Dade, Broward,
and Palm Beach Counties, FL
working with all stakeholders.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
6.7/5.9
Actual
6.4/5.1
Unit
Mean
Percent of
Area
Baseline - 6.8% in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7% was revised to 6.8%. The Coral Reef
Evaluation and Monitoring Project for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was modified in 2006 by dropping one hardbottom
monitoring site because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (less than 0.2%) resulting in an increase of .1% in the
mean percent stony coral cover for the entire Sanctuary. Statistical analyses of the Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project
indicated that sampling a reduced number of stations at sites with low stony coral cover would still produce statistically valid results);
5.9% in SE Florida in 2005.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
235
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - The corals of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and southeast Florida have been impacted by multiple stressors.
The target was not met because of the following causes: mechanical damage from tropical storms and hurricanes in 2005; bleaching
as a result of increased water temperatures in 2006; and coral diseases remain relatively high.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary each year
beginning in 2008, as measured by the long-term sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and abundance,
productivity, and nutrient availability. (Baseline index of sea grass health to be determined using information collected and analyzed
in FY 2005.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary each
year, beginning in 2008. (Baseline concentrations for inorganic nitrogen [nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium], soluble reactive
phosphorus, water clarity [turbidity and light attenuation], and chlorophyll a to be determined using information collected and
analyzed in FY 2005 as measured by the long-term water quality monitoring project.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(sf3) Maintain the overall water
quality of near shore and coastal
waters of the Florida Keys Nat'l
Marine Sanctuary.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Maintain
Unit
Water
Quality
Baseline - Elemental Indicator = 8.3; Species Composition Index = 0.48 in 2005.
Explanation - Light attenuation - 25 sites/Chlor - 49/DIN - 348/TP - 362. For DIN and TP, increase was regional in scope and
persistent.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, maintain the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem each year, beginning in 2008, as measured through water quality
monitoring of total phosphorus. (Baseline is 1995 water quality.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
236
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(sf4) Improve the water quality of
the Everglades ecosystem as
measured by total phosphorus,
including meeting the 10 ppb total
phosphorus criterion throughout
the Everglades Protection Area
marsh.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintain
ed
Unit
Parts Per
Billion
Baseline - The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water
Conservation Area 3A, 13 ppb in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow
- weighted total phosphorus discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) ranged from 13 ppb for area % and 98 ppb for area
1 Win 2005.
Explanation - TP for four areas are as follows: 10.6, 12.0, 8.5, and 5.2. Effluent limits were met in five STAs and exceeded in one STA.
10 ppb criterion not met throughout Everglades Protection Area (two areas met the limit and two did not). Only one STA of six did not
meet effluent limits.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
By 2011, improve water quality, air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.
Strategic Target (1)
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, 200 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments are remediated, (Baseline: as of January 2006, approximately 5,000 acres
of remaining contaminated sediments required some evel of remediation.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011 3,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuanne wetlands are restored, (Baseline: tota intertida and near shore
habitat acres identified in the 2006 Puget Sound Near Shore Restoration Site Inventory Database.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
237
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, in the by 8
will be in
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.9: Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
By 2011, prevent water pollution, and improve and protect water quality and ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks
to human health and the environment.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, protect, enhance or restore 13,000 acres of wetland habitat and 3,000 acres of upland habitat. (2005 Baseline: 96,770
acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement, or restoration.)
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(cr1) Protect, enhance, or restore
acres of wetland habitat and acres
of upland habitat in the Lower
Columbia River watershed
(cumulative starting in FY 05.)
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
3,000
Actual
12,986
Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement, or restoration.)
Explanation - Target exceeded due to significant collaborative efforts by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, clean up 150 acres of known highly contaminated sediments. (Baseline: 400 acres of known highly contaminated
sediments in the main-stem of the Columbia River and Lower Willamette River as of 2006.)
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
(Chemical-specific baseline will be available in 2006 from the following sources: Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Studies for
Oregon as of 200649; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for WashingtonSO; 2002 EPA Columbia River Basin Fish
Contaminant Survey51; Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2006 Monitoring Study52; and Washington Ecology's March 2005
Report: Concentrations of 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, Measured with Passive Samplers Deployed in the Lower Columbia
River.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
238
-------
OBJECTIVE: 4.4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2011, identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and analyses to support Agency
guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on pesticides and
chemical toxicology; global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
Performance Measures Met
14
Performance Measures Not Met
6
Data Available After November17,
2007
4
Total Performance Measures
24
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H13) Number of states using a
common monitoring design and
appropriate indicators to
determine the status and trends of
ecological resources and the
effectiveness of programs and
policies.
FY 2005
Target
20
Actual
22
FY 2006
Target
25
Actual
25
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
30
FY 2008
Target
35
Actual
35
Unit
States
Baseline - The Ecological Research Program developed a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the status
and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of national programs and policies. In 2005 when usage data were first available,
22 states were using this Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the ecosystems.
(H40) Improved protocols for
screening and testing
2
2
1
1
6
3
2
2
Reports
Baseline - In 2001 , the program began tracking improved protocols for screening and testing and produced 9 of 9 reports on time. This
measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems, with regard to chemical toxicology.
Explanation - The computational toxicology grants that originally supported this measure were relocated to EPA's Safe Pesticides/ Safe
Products Research Program during Multi-Year Plan revisions.
(H41) Effects and exposure
5
5
9
9
4
5
5
4
Reports
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
239
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
milestones met
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2001, the program began tracking reports related to effects and exposure and produced 22 of 22 reports on time. This
measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems, with regard to chemical toxicology.
Explanation - One research project was delayed and is expected to be complete by April 2009. This research will support OPPTS, OW
and the Regional decision makers in predicting vulnerability of the neuroendocrine system to contaminant-induced effects.
(H43) Risk management
milestones met
5
5
3
3
3
2
1
1
Reports
Baseline - In 2001, the program began tracking reports related to risk management and produced 2 of 2 reports on time. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities,
and ecosystems, with regard to chemical toxicology.
Explanation - The scope of the work in this area was revised during the Endocrine Disrupters Research Program's Multi-Year Plan
Revision process. The work in this area was relocated to the EPA's Safe Pesticides/ Safe Products Research Program.
(H72) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
efficient and effective clean-ups
and safe disposal of
contamination wastes.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
92
Percent
Baseline - EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to
help decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical
and/or biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its
response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be
identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance
documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of remediation goals. These products will enable first
responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious materials.
Explanation - The program completed 10 out of 11 planned outputs intended to support the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, regions, and other stakeholders in their ability to respond to terrorist attacks affecting buildings and the outdoor environment.
The final output is scheduled to be complete in late 2008 and will include updates to the Support for Rapid Risk Assessment (SERRA)
internet knowledgebase of biological agents. The SERRA database version 2.0 has undergone peer review and includes four biothreat
agents. The comments are being addressed and will be reflected in SERRA version 4.0, with an expected delivery of January 2009.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
240
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(H73) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
water security initiatives.
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
83
Unit
Percent
Baseline - EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to
help decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical
and/or biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its
response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be
identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance
documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of remediation goals. These products will enable first
responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious materials.
Explanation - The program completed 5 out of 6 planned outputs intended to support the Office of Water, regions, and water utilities in
making decisions regarding the transport and health effects of contaminants in water systems. The final study is currently underway and
is expected to be completed by December 2008.
(H78) Percent progress toward
completion of a framework linking
global change to air quality.
45
47.5
60
65
75
75
85
Data
Available
July
2009
Percent
Baseline - In 2001 , the program began work on a framework linking global change to air quality and completed 0% of the hierarchy. This
measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems, with regard to global change.
(H79) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered.
Baseline
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, the Global Change research program began measuring the percentage of outputs delivered. This measure will
contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and
ecosystems, with regard to global change.
(H81) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of Air
Quality Criteria/Science
Assessment documents.
N/A
100
N/A
100
90
100
90
75
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of the Air Quality/Science Assessment document and had
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
241
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
an output delivery of 0 percent. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions
related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
Explanation—In 2008, the program had 4 major milestones associated with releasing draft and final Integrated Science Assessments
(ISA). Due to court ordered deadlines that were more stringent than initially planned by EPA, release of the first draft ISA for particulate
matter was delayed to ensure that the other assessments would be released on time as planned. EPA expects to release the first draft
ISA for particulate matter in the first quarter of FY 2009.
(H82) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
human health risk assessments
(HHRAs) health assessments.
N/A
108
N/A
63
90
100
90
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of HHRA health assessments and delivered 73 percent or 8
of 11 planned assessments on time. This measure tracks the program's ability to release a targeted 16 draft health hazard assessments
of high priority chemicals for interagency review or external peer review each year and contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
(H83) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
HHRA Technical Support
Documents.
N/A
44
N/A
81
90
100
90
89
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents and delivered 83
percent of outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions
related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
Explanation - The program completed 8 of 9 planned annual outputs in support of its long term goal to deliver HHRA Technical Support
Documents to program partners. The delayed project is awaiting peer review and acceptance for publication. Seven manuscripts were
developed under this research project: One manuscript has been published, five have been accepted but not published, and one is
awaiting acceptance. All manuscripts should be accepted and published by spring 2009.
(H29) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
public health outcomes long term
goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2002, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its public health outcomes long-term goal and
completed 100 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
242
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
policy decisions related to human health.
(H31) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
aggregate and cumulative risk
long term goal
100
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its aggregate and cumulative risk long term goal and
completed 80 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy
decisions related to human health.
(H32) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
mechanistic data long term goal
100
93
100
92
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its mechanistic data long term goal and
completed 100 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
policy decisions related to human health.
(I06) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances' and other
organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to prioritize
testing requirements; enhance
interpretation of data to improve
human health and ecological risk
assessments; and inform
decision-making regarding high
priority pesticides and toxic
substances.
(I08) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances' and other
100
100
86
100
100
100
80
100
100
100
86
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
243
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target Actual
Unit
organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data for probabilistic
risk assessments to protect
natural populations of birds, fish,
other wildlife, and non-target
plants.
(121) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
state, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for causal diagnosis
tools and methods to determine
causes of ecological degradation
and achieve positive
environmental outcomes.
100
100
100
86
100
100
100
91
Percent
Explanation - The program missed 2 of its 22 planned outputs under the program's long term goal to assist States, tribes, and relevant
EPA offices in diagnosing and determining the causes of ecological degradation, thus helping partners achieve positive environmental
outcomes. The two delayed outputs are joint projects with non-EPA organizations. The first is a joint project with USDA Forest Service
and the final draft of this report is expected by December 2008. The second output is a joint project with The National Council on
Economic Education (NCEE). Unfortunately, NCEE is not able to provide the recourses necessary to fully co-develop the valuation
strategy. EPA's clients would like to see a valuation strategy; therefore, the research program will continue work on this project at a
slower pace than originally intended.
(I22) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
state, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for environmental
forecasting tools and methods to
forecast the ecological impacts of
various actions and achieve
positive environmental outcomes.
100
83
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
(I23) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
state, tribe, and relevant EPA
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
244
-------
office needs for environmental
restoration and services tools and
methods to protect and restore
ecological condition and services
to achieve positive environmental
outcomes.
(110) 'Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances' and other
organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to make
decisions related to products of
biotechnology.
100
86
100
100
100
80
100
100
Percent
(H30) 'Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
susceptible subpopulations long
term goal
100
100
100
92
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its susceptible subpopulations long term goal and
completed 100 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy
decisions related to human health.
(111) Percentage of SP2
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
Baseline
22.2
Biennial
Measure
Biennial
Measure
23.2
Data
Available
July 2009
Percent
Baseline - In 2006, EPA's Office of Research and Development obtained baseline data for the percentage of program publications rated as
highly cited papers, finding that 22.2 percent of papers fit this criteria.
Explanation - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator." Each analysis evaluates the publications from
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
245
-------
the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels—such as
the BOSC— in their program evaluations.
(111) Percentage of SP2
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
(112) Percentage of SP2
publications in "high impact"
journals.
Baseline
Baseline
22.2
35.2
Biennial
Measure
Biennial
Measure
Biennial
Measure
Biennial
Measure
23.2
36.2
Data
Available
July 2009
Data
Available
July 2009
Percent
Percent
Baseline - In 2006, EPA's Office of Research and Development obtained baseline data for the percentage of program publications rated as
high impact papers, finding that 35.2 percent of papers fit this criteria.
Explanation - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are
published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in
prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last
ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is
impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels—such as the BOSC—
in their program evaluations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
246
-------
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Goal at a Glance
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements
by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship.
Encourage innovation and provide incentives for government, business, and the public that promote
environmental stewardship and long term sustainable outcomes.
Goal 5 FY 2008 Performance Measures
Met =10 Not Met = 3 Data Available After November 17, 2008 = 5
(Total Measures = 18)
Goal 5 Performance Measures
(FY 2008)
] Goal Not Met • Data Lag n Goal Met
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
(Dollars In Thousands)
Source: FY 200B Statement of Met Cost by Coal
Clem Air and Global Ornate Chance
• Clean and Sife Water
• Land Preservation and rUHtaratjon
• Healthy Communrrjes and Ecosystems
| Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Goal 5 FY 2008 Performance and Resources
Strategic Objective
Objective 1 - Improve Compliance
By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment
through enforcement and other compliance assurance activities by achieving a 5%
increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated
entities, including those in Indian country.
Objective 2 - Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
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.
Objective 3 - Build Tribal Capacity
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.
Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies
and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
Goal 5 Total
FY2008
Obligations
(in thousands)
$526,596.0
$119,226.7
$79,244.1
$59,760.8
$784,827.6
%of
Goal 5
Funds
67%
15%
10%
8%
100%
"In FY08, EPA concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to spend at least $11 billion on pollution
controls, clean-up and environmental projects. These actions will keep at least an estimated 3 billion pounds
of pollutants out of the environment each year. This year continues EPA's trend of record-setting results to
protect the nation's air, water and land."
- Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
247
-------
Goal Purpose: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with federal laws and
regulations by monitoring compliance and taking enforcement actions that result in reduced
pollution and improved environmental management practices. To accelerate the nation's
environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the source, encourage other
forms of environmental stewardship, and promote the tools of innovation and collaboration.
Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are critical to achieving the
human health and environmental benefits expected from environmental laws. EPA monitors
compliance patterns and trends and focuses on priority problem areas identified in consultation
with states, tribes, and other partners. The Agency supports the regulated community by
assisting regulated entities in understanding environmental requirements, helping them identify
cost-effective compliance options and strategies, and providing incentives for compliance.
EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, sustainability, and
accountability to achieve its strategic goals. Collaborating closely with other federal agencies,
states, and tribes, the Agency identifies and promotes innovations that assist businesses and
communities in improving their environmental performance. EPA works to improve and
encourage pollution prevention as the first choice for environmental protection, striving for
sustainable practices and helping businesses and communities move beyond compliance and
become partners in protecting natural resources and improving the environment and public
health. EPA promotes source reduction while working with businesses to increase energy
efficiency, find environmentally preferable substitutes for chemicals of concern, and change
processes to reduce toxic waste. EPA promotes improved communication through data sharing
and collaboration and conducts research on pollution prevention, new and developing
technologies, social and economic issues, and decision-making to help promote environmental
stewardship. EPA also works with other nations as they develop their own environmental
protection programs, leading to lower levels of pollution in the United States and worldwide.
Ensuring compliance and promoting environmental stewardship are important components of
the Agency's efforts to protect human health and the environment in Indian Country. EPA
continues to provide resources to support federally recognized tribes and inter-tribal consortia in
assessing environmental conditions on their lands and building environmental programs tailored
to their needs. Tribes, the first stewards of America's environment, provide an invaluable
perspective on environmental protection that benefits and strengthens the Agency's stewardship
programs.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 248
-------
Data Trends
Estimated Millions of Pounds of Pollution Reduced Through Enforcement Action
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
EPA secures commitments for future pollution controls to reduce, treat, or eliminate millions of
pounds of pollution through enforcement actions. Pollution reduction totals show large variations
from year to year because of the fact that reductions tend to be driven by the results from a few
very large cases. For additional information, please visit EPA's Web site at:
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.
Data Quality: EPA uses data from its performance measurement to manage, and to ensure that
the data are complete and reliable; data are subject to the Agency's Quality System policies and
procedures. Every performance measure in this report has corresponding in-depth information
to explain the data's source, limitations, and other factors. This report includes examples in
each goal to better inform EPA's stakeholders. For a complete list of this information, visit:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf.
What This Shows: The estimated number of pounds of pollution reduced through enforcement
has been approximately 1 billion pounds for each of the past four years, and a large increase in
FY 2008, consistently exceeding target values for this measure. EPA believes our progress in
this area is a result of the focus on nine National Priority areas, selected for their environmental
significance and high noncompliance. These priorities include: air toxics, combined and
sanitary sewer overflows, concentrated animal feeding operations, financial responsibility,
Indian Country, mineral processing, new source review/prevention of significant deterioration,
and stormwater. Each year a small number of big cases provide the majority of pollutant
reductions, which makes setting targets highly uncertain. In FY 2008, the estimated pounds of
pollution reduced saw a record increase, to an estimated 3.9 billion pounds, as a result of large
settlements on six national cases, two addressing New Source Reviews under the Clean Air
Act, and the other four addressing stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows under the
Clean Water Act. Future levels and types of pollutants reduced may fluctuate as EPA files
different cases addressing other National Priorities. For example, air toxics cases tend to
produce smaller amounts of pollution reduced, but those pollutants pose significant health and
environmental risk, thus justifying air toxics as a national enforcement priority.
Implications for human health and the environment: Compliance with environmental laws is
necessary to improve the environment in which we live and protect public health. Enforcement
is a critical part of encouraging businesses, and other regulated entities to meet their
environmental obligations. Some examples of the human health and environmental benefits
resulting from fulfillment of environmental obligations include:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
249
-------
1) A settlement with American Electric Power addresses air pollution problems at 16 of
American Electric Power's coal-fired plants. This settlement is EPA's single largest enforcement
settlement in history, and will result in the largest amount of emission reductions from a Clean
Air Act stationary source. Emissions from these plants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate
matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that can cause a range of human health and ecological
effects ranging from increased asthma cases or premature deaths for people with existing
respiratory problems, to acidification of lakes and streams. EPA estimates that there will be at
least 1 billion pounds of air pollution reductions in the first year after facilities install the required
pollution controls and the resulting health benefits are estimated to be $34 billion in avoided
health-related costs.
Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS Federal Enforcement and
Compliance is collected through the Case Conclusion Data Sheet, which Agency staff prepare
after the conclusion of each civil, judicial and administrative enforcement action. In FY 2008,
The Criminal Enforcement Program also collected information on pollution reductions on a
separate case conclusion data form.
Data Limitations: Pollutants reduced or eliminated reported in Case Conclusion Data Sheet
are projected estimates that will result over a one year time period 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.
Contributing Programs
Compliance Assistance Program, Compliance Incentives Program, Monitoring and Enforcement
Program, Toxic Substances Compliance Grant Program, Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program,
Sector Grant Program, Pollution Prevention Program, State and Tribal Pollution Prevention
Grants, National Center for Environmental Innovation, American Indian Environmental Office,
Tribal General Assistance Program, Environmental Technology Verification Program, Resource
Conservation Challenge, National Partnership for Environmental Priorities, Economic Decision
Sciences Research, and Sustainability Research.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 250
-------
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 5, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Objective 4
^^- $59,760.8
8%
Objective 3
$79,244.1 -
10%
Objective 2 /
$119,226.1-/
15%
Objective 1
$526,596.0
67%
Objective 1: Improve
Compliance, Performance
Measures
EPA assists members of the regulated community in understanding and complying with
environmental regulations and improving their environmental management practices with the
goal of reducing the amount of pollution they produce or discharge. The Agency offers
compliance assistance directly, through onsite visits and training, and through its Compliance
Assistance Centers. EPA uses inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions to identify
egregious violations and return violators to compliance as quickly as possible, greatly reducing
impacts on sensitive populations and environments. To increase compliance and improve
environmental management practices, EPA encourages facilities to identify, disclose, and
correct violations through incentives such as reduced or eliminated penalties. EPA's progress
toward the objective of improving compliance can be demonstrated through a few key
performance accomplishments.
EPA's Largest Injunctive Relief Settlement to Fund Cleaner Air From Power Plants
EPA, eight states, and 13 citizen groups reached a settlement agreement with American Electric
Power under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions. The funds from the settlement
will be used to address pollution problems at 16 of American Electric Power's coal-fired plants
located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. This settlement is the largest
environmental settlement in terms of injunctive relief for Clean Air Act stationary sources. It is
estimated that American Electric Power will spend more than $4 billion to comply with the
agreement. This settlement is also the largest in terms of pollution reductions at a Clean Air Act
stationary source(s). Upon full implementation, there will be at least 1 billion pounds of air
pollution reductions from American Electric Power's 16 power plants in the first year after
pollution controls are installed. EPA estimates that the annual benefits to public health will
include approximately $34 billion per year saved in avoided health-related costs associated with
respiratory and cardiopulmonary illnesses, such as asthma and heart attacks.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
251
-------
Pollution Avoided Because of Strong Enforcement: In FY 2008, EPA secured commitments
in enforcement actions for future pollution controls to reduce, treat, or eliminate an estimated 3.9
billion pounds of pollutants in the first year after pollution controls are installed. That is 3.01
billion pounds more than the amount of pollutants reduced last year and represents a significant
contribution to environmental protection. For additional information on recent enforcement
cases, please visit EPA's web site: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.
EPA significantly exceeded the 890 million pound performance target for pollutant reductions
from enforcement settlements due to particularly significant Clean Air Act (CAA) New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Clean Water Act storm water enforcement
settlements. The six most significant FY 2008 enforcement settlements, when fully
implemented, will cumulatively reduce more than an estimated 2 billion pounds of pollutants,
including: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, pathogens, and storm
water pollutants, such as suspended solids, over a one-year time period. The record American
Electric Power Company settlement will reduce over 1 billion pounds of pollutants - meaning
fewer cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The KB Homes, Centex Homes, Pulte
Homes, and Allegheny County Sewer Authority Clean Water Act settlements will reduce over 1
billion pounds of suspended solids, pathogens, and other storm water pollutants to promote
healthy aquatic life and improve the quality of fish and shellfish. Pollution reduction totals
normally show large variations from year to year due to the fact that reductions tend to be driven
by the results from a few very large cases.
EPA's compliance incentives policies that encourage facilities to self-audit, disclose and correct
violations achieved 5.4 million pounds in pollutant reductions. The Agency surpassed the FY
2008 performance target of 0.4 million pounds through a particularly significant Clean Air Act
mobile source disclosure of violations whose correction and other settlement conditions resulted
in more than an estimated 3.5 million pounds of NOX and hydrocarbon pollutants over a one
year time period. Pollution reduction results achieved by EPA compliance incentive programs
represent reductions that will occur over a one-year time period once facilities implement the
steps required under audit agreements. Pollutant reductions from audit disclosures vary widely
from case to case, resulting in total reduction levels that are also highly variable year to year.
The purpose of EPA's Audit Policy is to encourage regulated entities to voluntarily discover,
disclose, correct, and prevent the recurrence of environmental violations, by offering incentives
such as penalty mitigation. EPA is taking the Audit Policy in some new directions, with the
goals of encouraging audits and disclosures that yield significant environmental and human
health outcomes, and clarifying and streamlining implementation of the Policy. To further these
goals, in August 2008, EPA launched (1) the "Interim Approach to Applying the Audit Policy to
New Owners,"which tailors incentives to motivate new owners to self-disclose and fix violations
at recently acquired facilities, and (2) the "eDisclosure" pilot, a web-based system that allows
companies to quickly, easily, and electronically self-disclose violations. For additional details
please visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/index.html.
EPA Drives Improvements to Environmental Management Practices: As a result of
concluded enforcement actions, violators have committed to spending $11.8 billion to improve
environmental performance or improve environmental management practices. Also, 82 percent
of facilities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA self reported improved
environmental management practices. This includes actions that properly manage a waste
stream or prevent a release or exposure, such as: plugging abandoned wells, installation of
secondary containment around existing waste containers, improved waste labeling and disposal
practices, and development of spill prevention plans.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 252
-------
Dollars Invested in Improved Environmental Performance or Environmental Management
Practices: EPA and the Department of Justice achieved landmark enforcement settlements in
FY 2008 that require defendants to invest a record $11.8 billion to achieve and maintain
compliance with the nation's environmental laws. The Clean Air Act (CAA) settlement with
American Electric Power addressed alleged violations at 16 coal-fired power plants and requires
an estimated investment of over $4 billion to achieve compliance and install pollution control
technologies. This settlement is EPA's single largest enforcement settlement in history, and will
result in the largest amount of emission reductions from a Clean Air Act stationary source.
Significant Clean Water Act enforcement settlements with the Allegheny County Sewer
Authority and City of San Diego require more than an estimated $2 billion to be invested in
pollution controls and environmentally beneficial projects. These three cases account for
approximately 60 percent of the total investments and will result in removing pathogens and
fecal coliform from waterways, and reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides air emissions.
Compliance Assistance: The Agency exceeded its current compliance assistance
performance targets in FY 2008. EPA continues to explore ways to improve data collection
methods from compliance assistance activities through a statistically-valid outcome
measurement pilot project.
EPA poses a set of questions to compliance assistance recipients regarding their improvements
in environmental practices and pollution reductions. These measures are not calculated from a
representative sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on
the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary
surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to
answer these questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the survey. Even for
those respondents who respond positively, there is no objective way to verify the accuracy of
their response.
Protecting Water Quality Near Construction Sites
Improving compliance with the Clean Water Act at construction sites is one of EPA's
national enforcement priorities. Construction projects have a high potential for
environmental harm because construction disturbs large areas of land and significantly
increases the potential for high volumes of sediment-laden runoff. Without onsite pollution
controls, this polluted run-off may flow into nearby waterways and degrade water quality.
In August 2008, DOJ and EPA concluded settlements with four of the nation's largest
home builders to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act storm water
requirements. The builders, Centex, Pulte, MDC Holdings/Richmond American Homes,
and KB Homes agreed to implement company-wide compliance programs that will prevent
more than 1 billion pounds of sediment from polluting our nation's waterways each year.
The companies also paid more than an estimated $3 million in civil penalties.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 253
-------
Explanation of the Missed Measures
EPA missed the performance target for the percentage of concluded cases that require pollutant
reductions by one percent in FY 2008. It is not possible to predict the number of enforcement
actions that will be concluded in a given year or the percentage that will require pollutants to be
reduced. The number of concluded enforcement cases increased over the last three years.
However, during that same period, EPA exceeded targets for pounds of pollutants reduced.
EPA achieved such high pollutant reductions despite missing the performance target for the
percentage of cases requiring pollutant reductions due to the remarkable pollutant reductions
from six large settlement agreements that combined will reduce, treat, or eliminate more than
2.5 billion pounds of air and water pollutants over a one year time period once facilities
implement the legally required terms of the settlement.
EPA did not meet the 30 percent complying actions performance target in FY 2008. In FY 2009,
EPA will improve documentation regarding deficiencies and complying actions by developing
guidance that addresses counting complying actions that occur after the inspection which are
not observed by the inspector and which describe the documentation required to assure
verification of the actions and accurate results calculation.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measurements and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that
support this objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 1 - Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved
Compliance
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Administrative Law
FY 2006
Obligations
$21,110.5
$5,715.5
$1,905.2
$119,478.2
$27,861.0
$8,557.8
$88,138.5
$423.6
$51,194.3
$3,246.7
$928.2
$4,426.5
$2,216.9
$754.3
$676.8
FY 2007
Obligations
$18,404.5
$5,272.4
$1,161.1
$124,038.2
$28,404.6
$9,699.4
$92,683.6
($7.2)
$49,136.1
$3,479.5
$1,463.3
$5,812.6
$1,794.9
$6.3
$795.6
FY 2008
Obligations
$20,550.0
$5,339.3
$1,690.9
$133,066.8
$28,206.1
$10,412.7
$94,140.5
($28.1)
$50,325.7
$3,943.8
$1,163.6
$4,685.3
$1,568.4
$0.0
$913.5
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
254
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$200.1
$9,294.2
$1,825.2
$9,426.1
$4,940.9
$82,940.0
$4,809.0
$6,412.6
$424.9
$38,386.6
$6,634.2
$2,211.8
$2,596.8
$733.9
$704.2
$296.6
$2,661.3
$2,573.0
$513,705.4
$212.7
$10,216.9
$1,877.6
$9,771.7
$5,464.7
$82,270.8
$5,265.1
$5,827.0
$452.8
$40,262.6
$7,201.3
$2,172.7
$2,545.8
$640.7
$770.9
$379.5
$1,590.9
$2,790.4
$521,859.0
$233.2
$11,969.0
$1,850.7
$9,873.2
$3,795.8
$74,560.6
$5,919.4
$5,839.5
$746.4
$36,669.4
$7,360.1
$2,300.8
$3,181.8
$694.0
$893.5
$461.7
$1,558.3
$2,710.1
$526,596.0
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
Categorical Grants—Pesticides Enforcement; Toxic Substance Compliance.
Web Links:
www.epa.gov/compliance, www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/index.html
www.epa.gov/ebtpages/complianceenforcement.html
www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART):
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
255
-------
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 5, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$79,244.1 -\
10%
Objective 4
— $59,760.8
8%
Objective 2 /
$119,226.7^
15%
Objective 1
$526,596.0
67%
Objective 2: Improve
Environmental
Performance Through
Pollution Prevention and
Innovation, Performance
Measures
During FY 2008, EPA made significant progress in preventing pollution at the source as
businesses; institutions; and federal, state, and local governments participating in pollution
prevention programs significantly reduced their use of hazardous materials, their generation and
emission of greenhouse gases, and their use of water—and saved millions of dollars. As of
early November 2008, 839 million pounds of hazardous materials were reduced, 1.5 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) were conserved, and 21.4 billion gallons of
water were conserved. These reductions, when added to others since FY 2000, boosted
cumulative results toward the program's FY 2011 strategic targets to 3.2 billion pounds of
hazardous materials reduced, 3.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent conserved,
and 32.9 billion gallons of water conserved5. Those who prevent pollution also derive economic
benefits-in FY 2008, Pollution Prevention Program participants saved $187 million, bringing
cumulative cost savings from pollution prevention to $664 million since 2002.
Agency Pollution Prevention Program Achieves Success: The Agency's successes were
achieved collectively through the Pollution Prevention Program's seven "Centers of Results,"
which interact with program participants using a variety of proven strategies to reduce pollution
at the source, including: establishing voluntary consensus standards to identify green products
for consumers; developing greener/safer chemical substitutes; developing greener technologies
and processes; leveraging federal and state purchasing; marketing greener chemicals and
products to consumers (e.g., through labeling); developing/marketing cleaner and more efficient
energy sources; and promoting water conservation.
The Pollution Prevention Program has worked within the larger community with partners listed
above to prevent pollution through technical assistance, develop pollution prevention capacity in
1 Pollution Prevention Programs: www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
256
-------
states and tribes, recognize strong pollution prevention activities through awards, promote
pollution prevention through federal procurement, promote green technology innovation and
transfer, and develop "definitions of green" through voluntary consensus standards and safer
substitutes. Noteworthy achievements from the seven Centers of Results are identified in the
descriptions that follow.
Regional Grant Programs Prevent Pollution and Save Millions of Taxpayer Dollars:
Pollution prevention programs in EPA's 10 regional offices generate source reduction results
through two grant programs and through direct action. In FY 2008, regional pollution prevention
programs managed 46 state and tribal Assistance Grants and 15 Source Reduction Assistance
Grants. In FY 2008, the program finalized FY 2007 grants results, demonstrating 66 million
pounds of hazardous materials reductions, 1.5 billion gallons of water, 2,100 billion British
thermal units (Btu) of energy conservation, and $38.5 million of cost savings.
Regions and States Benefit From Resource Exchange Centers: The Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange program provides national-level pollution prevention information directly to
businesses and indirectly through a network of state and tribal technical assistance providers. In
FY 2008 the exchange program centers interacted with 3,000 clients directly, while states and
businesses accessed the program's online resources approximately 3 million times. These
centers help state technical assistance providers avoid duplication of effort and enhance
efficiency of services. These centers also manage a data collection system for states to enter
their program results. To account for the value-added of the centers, and Pollution Prevention
program research and products shared with states, the program takes credit for 10 percent of
state results not attributable to Pollution Prevention program grants. The National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable aggregates and presents these results. FY 2004 through FY 2006
results have recently become available and show that the Pollution Prevention community has
reduced 7.6 billion pounds of waste , 4,800 billion British thermal units, and 4.1 billion gallons of
water, and saved 6.5 billion dollars from the implementation of Pollution Prevention practices.6
The Federal Government Buys Green: Environmentally Preferable Purchasing is a federal
government-wide program that implements Presidential executive orders requiring federal
agencies to purchase environmentally preferable products and services and assists them in
doing so. Specifically, the program has been active in the electronics sector, partnering with 16
federal agencies through the Federal Electronics Challenge. These agencies cover 209 facilities
and over 650,000 federal employees. In addition, the program is working with the Green
Electronics Council to promote the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. In FY
2008, EPA finalized FY 2007 data for the Federal Electronics Challenge Program and
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool programs and realized substantial energy
savings. Through EPA's Federal Electronics Challenge, the federal government conserved 670
billion British thermal units of energy, and saved $17 million. FY 2007 results, which became
available in 2008, showed that the purchase of Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool computer products conserved 3,292 billion British thermal units and saved $83.6 million. In
FY 2008, EPA commenced work to develop similar voluntary consensus standards for
televisions and other electronics products. EPA also made significant progress in completing its
strategy for green buildings to better integrate efforts across the Agency, including facilitating
the development of and response to voluntary consensus standards for green buildings
products.
6 National Pollution Prevention Roundtable Pollution Prevention results: www.p2.org/wp-content/04-06-
p2-results-svstem-report-final-draft.pdf
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: oc/b/'nfo@epa.gov. 257
-------
Green Suppliers Network Helps Industry on Environment and Economics: The Green
Suppliers Network is a collaboration among EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and
industry to help all levels of the manufacturing supply chain achieve environmental and
economic benefits. The Green Suppliers Network leverages the Department of Commerce
partnership centers and state pollution prevention experts to offer manufacturers clean technical
assistance to improve their productivity, efficiency, and environmental performance. In FY 2008,
the Green Suppliers Network completed 23 partner reviews, with 17 reviews currently in
process and 76 partner leads identified. Each Green Suppliers Network Lean and Clean review
identifies, on average, $543,090 in cost savings.
Another supply chain effort focuses on EPA's partnership with the automobile industry. The
Suppliers Partnership for the Environment has established a successful model of promoting
information exchange, training and assessments of human health and environmental issues
using an energy and materials management framework. For example, the group is conducting a
detailed assessment of potential risks associated with chemicals used in auto interior
components and will expand the use of this methodology to the rest of the vehicle. With the
assistance of both EPA and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the benefits of
such cooperative efforts throughout the automobile supply chain have led to the creation of
sister organizations in both Mexico and Canada.
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program Awards Innovation: The Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program recognizes innovations in greener chemical
product and process design, development, and implementation. Each year EPA celebrates
innovative, award-winning technologies developed by high-quality nominees. In FY 2008, the
13th year of the program, EPA received more than 100 nominations from businesses and
academia in three focus areas: 1) greener synthetic pathways, 2) greener reaction conditions,
and 3) the design of greener chemicals. The five winning entries were nationally recognized on
June 24, 2008, at an awards ceremony. One 2008 award winner, the Nalco Company,
introduced a three-dimensional Trasar technology that continuously monitors the condition of
cooling water, adding chemicals only when needed rather than on a fixed schedule. This
technology resulted in the conservation of 21 billion gallons of water. Through FY2008, award
winners collectively account for close to 1 billion pounds of hazardous materials reduction, 2
million dollars saved, and 22 billion gallons of water conserved.
Healthcare Practices Are Going Green: The Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare is a
program working with the healthcare industry to reduce the industry's environmental impact,
including preventing pollution and reducing hazardous wastes, such as mercury. Initially called
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, the program was EPA's first voluntary program to become
an independent nonprofit organization, in 2006. The partnership represents EPA's continued
work with the newly independent organization, Practice Green Health, providing technical
assistance and policy integration support. Newly available FY 2007 results released in FY 2008
show 45 million gallons of water conserved and 468 billion British thermal units conserved by
hospitals and other healthcare operations throughout the United States.
Design for the Environment Program Makes Financial and Environmental Gains: The
Design for the Environment Program is a partnership that collaborates with businesses and
trade organizations to design or redesign products, processes, and environmental management
systems that are cleaner, more cost-effective, and safer for workers and the public. In FY 2008,
all active partnership projects within Design for the Environment reduced more than 200 million
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 258
-------
pounds of chemicals of concern, more than any previous year.7 In FY 2008, Design for the
Environment recognized more than 300 products from 60 partners under the formulators
program, finalized an information collection request (ICR) for the Safer Detergents Stewardship
Initiative, and held 31 workshops to reach 1,000 auto-refinishing professionals. Design for the
Environment's Formulator Program labels products that Design for the Environment has
reviewed and found to be safer for human health and the environment. Design for the
Environment currently allows use of its label on more than 600 products and tens of millions of
Design for the Environment products have been sold to consumers and institutional purchasers.
Also in FY 2008, the program completed a calculator that estimates emission reductions as well
as material use reductions and cost savings based on implementation of specific best practices.
Based on this calculator, EPA estimates that 80 percent of those in attendance implemented
best practices and reduced 100,000 pounds of emissions and saved $2 million in operational
costs. The majority of emissions reduced prevent the release of extremely toxic chemicals such
as diisocyanates (the leading cause of occupational asthma) and chromium.
One Million Mercury Switches Are Recovered From Used Automobiles: The National
Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program has the potential to recover 80 to 90 percent of all
available mercury switches from end-of-life automobiles. This recovery occurs before the scrap
autos are shredded and melted to make new
steel in electric arc furnaces, the nation's
fourth largest source of mercury air
emissions. The program is made up of
representatives from auto and steel
manufacturing, scrap and auto recyclers,
states, environmental groups, and EPA. The
program celebrated the collection of the 1-
millionth auto switch in February 2008. On
June 30, 2008, an EPA rule regulating
electronic arc furnaces became effective for
the control of mercury emissions. The rule
considers participation in the mercury switch
program as one of three potential ways to
comply with the mercury requirements. In July 2008, the program held its second annual
assessment meeting. The program partners committed to perform additional outreach to
increase switch recovery, to explore ways to more easily share data, and to pay an incentive fee
of $4.00 per light switch and $6.00 for anti-lock brake systems that contain mercury switches.
Program partners believe that these actions, along with the new rule, will work together to
continually improve the mercury switch recovery program. Data show that through FY 2008,
nearly 7,222 participants have collected 1.8 million switches, which represents about 3,866
pounds of mercury prevented from entering the atmosphere.
EPA Exceeds Target for Reducing Hazardous Chemical Release: The National Partnership
for Environmental Priorities, a key component of the Resource Conservation Challenge, is a
partnership to reduce potentially hazardous chemicals throughout the life cycle of products that
otherwise might be released into the environment. Under EPA's Strategic Plan, this program
has committed to reducing 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from FY 2007 to FY 2011.
The Naval Institute for Dental and
Biomedical Research Institute located in
Great Lakes, Illinois, joined the National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities in
December, 2003, with the goal to install
amalgam separation equipment in all Navy
dental treatment facilities to remove
mercury-containing amalgam debris from the
wastewater leaving treatment facilities.
Studies have estimated that up to 40 percent
of the mercury entering wastewater
treatment plants comes from dental sources.
7 Design for the Environment (Design for the Environment): www.epa.gov/opptintr/Design for the
Environment/
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: oc/b/'nfo@epa.gov. 259
-------
In FY 2008, actual reductions reported by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
partners and verified by EPA total 5.6 million pounds, against the 2008 target of 1 million
pounds. This target was exceeded as the result of one partner's successful project to remove
and recycle a large quantity of lead-sheathed electrical cable. Lead's resistance to corrosion
makes it useful in this application; however, alternatives are becoming more popular. A
manufacturer of lead-sheathed cable also joined the National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities to increase its process efficiency and reduce the use of lead in making this product for
users that still require it. Since program inception, National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities partners have reduced more than 9.2 million pounds of priority chemicals through both
source reduction and recycling activities. The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
currently has more than 215 partners from various industry sectors, including many federal and
state facilities.
Lead Wheel Weights Phased Out in Favor of Steel: Tire companies, big box stores, wheel
weight manufacturers, tire manufacturers, automobile trade associations, federal agencies,
state agencies, and environmentalists are helping to put the brakes on the use of lead wheel
weights. Through EPA's National Lead-Free Wheel Weight Initiative, launched in 2008, partners
have agreed to phase-in the use of lead-free (steel) wheel weights to reduce the amount of lead
released into the environment by 2011. Eliminating lead wheel weights is a significant step
toward reducing the overall amount of lead released into the environment. EPA estimates that
50 million pounds of lead per year are used for wheel weights in cars and light trucks.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measurements and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that
support this objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding
Goal 5: Objective 2 - Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution
Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Environmental
Information
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
NEPA Implementation
Pollution Prevention Program
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Regulatory Innovation
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
FY 2006
Obligations
$4,079.1
$19,574.5
$5,679.4
$154.6
$639.4
$13,680.7
$17,506.5
$2,446.6
($278.1)
$20,040.0
$110.5
$31.2
$2,052.9
FY 2007
Obligations
$6,010.3
$15,194.4
$2.2
$241.4
$521.5
$14,790.2
$17,606.3
$2,971.3
($86.3)
$19,510.1
$128.9
$31.4
$2,001.4
FY 2008
Obligations
$5,138.6
$14,525.9
($13.0)
$180.8
$398.2
$15,800.7
$15,549.9
$3,540.6
($145.0)
$19,686.8
$139.2
$33.8
$2,368.1
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
260
-------
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Environmental Education
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Small Business Ombudsman
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$257.7
$1,171.8
$8,434.5
$817.2
$15,777.0
$681.8
$1,344.8
$134.5
$9,377.5
$1,110.7
$411.8
$733.6
$92.8
$115.0
$48.4
$1,346.4
$2,499.2
$420.2
$130,492.2
$263.6
$1,188.6
$7,678.4
$896.4
$15,662.0
$736.4
$1,220.7
$142.0
$9,831.7
$1,213.9
$393.0
$674.4
$83.9
$124.9
$61.5
$1,076.6
$3,768.0
$452.0
$124,391.1
$248.6
$1,172.9
$9,098.5
$585.6
$12,857.6
$786.1
$1,125.1
$197.4
$7,881.7
$1,183.4
$397.2
$803.1
$79.9
$136.1
$70.4
$1,213.2
$3,772.5
$413.0
$119,226.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
There are three components of Pollution Prevention grants: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Source Reduction Grants, and a portion of Pollution Prevention State and Tribal Assistance
grants which fund Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange Centers through the Pollution
Prevention Information Grant Program These grants collectively contribute directly and
significantly to Pollution Prevention Environmental Results. In FY2008, performance results
from FY 2007 Regional Pollution Prevention State and Tribal Assistance Grants and SRA grants
were finalized and collectively show that grantees reduced 65 million pounds, conserved 1.5
billion gallons of water, conserved 6450 billion British thermal units, and saved $38.5 million.
These grants have continued to contribute significantly to the overall environmental results for
the Pollution Prevention program.
Web Links:
www.epa.gov/p2/, www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/index.htm, www.p2rx.org/,
www.epa.gov/oppt/dfe/, www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/,
www.epa.gov/oppt/greenchemistry/, www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm,
www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/, www.p2.org/
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
261
-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 262
-------
Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 5, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Objective 3
$79,244.1 -\
10%
Objective 4
^- $59,760.8
8%
Objective 2
$119,226.7
15%
Objective 1
L$526,596.0
67%
Objective 3: Improve
Human Health and the
Environment in Indian
Country, Performance
Measures
In 2008, EPA demonstrated improvements in core tribal environmental program capacity, which
is critical to protecting human health and the environment in Indian Country. EPA met its overall
annual performance goal under this objective. EPA considers the Indian General Assistance
Program its core component for achieving the objective of building tribal capacity. The Agency
provides funds to federally recognized tribes to plan, develop, and establish environmental
protection programs. EPA demonstrated efforts to improve human health and the environment
in Indian Country through the following achievements.
Targets for Environmental Programs in Indian Country: In 2008, EPA has a target
establishing environmental programs in 6 percent of tribes in Indian country. This target is a
result of the Agency implementing a strategy called "treatment in the Same Manner as a State,"
which streamlined the approval process. EPA also has a 2008 target of 21 percent of tribes
conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian
country. This measure counts the number of tribes with EPA- approved Quality Assurance
Plans.
EPA has set a cumulative target of 57 percent of tribes to have an environmental program. This
measure counts tribes that have acquired an environmental office or coordinator in the most
current year and that have met at least one of the following indicators: completed Tier III Tribal
Environmental Agreements; established laws, codes, regulations, or ordinances as evidenced
by a document signed by the tribal government; completed solid and/or hazardous waste
implementation activities; or completed an inter-governmental environmental agreement with
EPA and the tribal government. The measure also counts tribes that have developed
environmental programs and those that are building environmental capacity to administer
environmental programs to address environmental concerns specific to their needs. A reporting
system, the Tribal Program Management System that captures this information is expected to
be available for reporting in FY 2009.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
263
-------
GAP Regional Distribution
FY 2008 Enacted Budget $56,037,000
Region 2:
Region 1: 1% Region 4:
2% ~1 \ T 1%
Region 10:
Region 8:
5%
Regarding the number of environmental programs implemented in Indian Country per million
dollars, EPA has set a target of 14.1 programs and is on track to meet this efficiency measure.
The efficiency measure is calculated annually by summing up the number of tribes receiving the
following: General Assistance Program grants, "Treatment in the Same Manner as a State"
approvals or primacies, Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements, and General
Assistance Program grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid and hazardous
waste programs. That sum is then divided by the annual General Assistance Program
appropriation (less rescissions and annual set-asides). Multiple environmental programs within
one tribe are counted individually.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measurements and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that
support this objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Tribal - Capacity Building
FY 2006
Obligations
$61,096.5
$396.8
$34.6
$58.0
$11,834.6
FY 2007
Obligations
$57,758.3
($282.6)
$56.2
$46.8
$11,048.5
FY 2008
Obligations
$59,726.2
$282.6
$43.0
$37.8
$12,276.6
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
264
-------
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$24.7
$7.0
$412.4
$68.1
$304.0
$182.8
$2,955.2
$80.7
$214.1
$12.2
$1,204.8
$244.5
$72.2
$564.2
$33.1
$25.7
$10.8
$266.9
$94.0
$80,197.9
$30.0
$7.3
$408.8
$76.4
$325.7
$208.5
$2,980.0
$82.2
$169.7
$12.8
$1,285.4
$270.9
$81.3
$555.5
$29.5
$29.0
$14.3
$352.8
$105.1
$75,652.4
$33.1
$8.0
$497.4
$67.9
$316.8
$139.2
$2,627.4
$97.6
$187.8
$46.9
$1,114.7
$280.8
$83.1
$654.8
$29.7
$32.4
$16.7
$545.6
$98.2
$79,244.3
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Grants:
Categorical Grant—Tribal General Assistance Program, authorized by the Indian Environmental
General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
Web Links:
Evaluation of the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP):
www.epa.gov/evaluate/GAPFinalReport.pdf
The American Indian Environmental Office: www.epa.gov/indian/
American Indian Tribal Portal: www.epa.gov/tribalportal
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
265
-------
Objective 5.4: Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability through Science and
Research
FY2008 Obligations: Goal 5, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Objective 4
^^- $59,760.8
Objective 3 _^*^^i^L 8%
$79,244.1
10%
Objective 2
$119,226.7-
15%
Objective 1
$526,596.0
67%
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to promote
environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
EPA Publishes Draft Biofuels Strategy: In 2008, the Agency developed the Draft EPA
Biofuels Strategy to promote policies and practices that can lead to the sustainable production
of biofuels. The energy efficiency and environmental soundness of the country's biofuels system
determines the degree to which biofuels reduce reliance on fossil fuels. In 2008, EPA supported
14 new biofuel-related research projects and is working with other federal agencies to define a
set of criteria and indicators for sustainable biofuel production. This interagency effort requires
clearly identifying critical elements of the biofuel system and identifying relevant indicators to
measure progress toward sustainability.
New Projects Pave the Way for New Approaches to Environmental Protection: In FY 2008,
EPA's Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability, a testing ground for
scientifically based tools and approaches that promote sustainable outcomes at the regional
level, provided funding for projects related to "Communities and the Built Environment" and
"Industrial Ecology and Organizational Behavior." These projects will generate new approaches
to environmental protection that are systems-oriented, forward-looking, preventive, and
collaborative.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
266
-------
EPA's Sustainability Research Program brought a holistic, system-based analysis based on
sustainability principles to demonstrate how a local government, including the regional
metropolitan sewer district, could reduce storm water runoff in their watershed by using a
"reverse auction," with one buyer and multiple sellers, to make planting rain gardens and
installing rain barrels more attractive to local property owners.
Project staff is now providing technical support to EPA's regional office as it begins to review the
sewer district request to implement this approach. Collaborators include Hamilton County
Engineer, Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District, Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer
District, Cincinnati Parks Board, Ohio EPA, and EPA Region 5.
Student Competition Brings New Designs to Market: In FY 2008, EPA also continued to
support its "People, Prosperity, and the Planet" student design competition and Design Expo.
This year's competition demonstrated a wide array of innovative new technologies. Winning
designs included the development of technology to produce plastic from wastewater,
construction of a laboratory to produce biodiesel from a cafeteria's vegetable oil waste, and
development of a hand-held water sanitizer useful for disinfecting drinking water in households
of poor communities around the world.
EPA provided financial assistance to help award winners move their conceptual designs to
market. Since 2005, several award winners have successfully made this transition. For
example, Appalachian State University's "Collaborative Biodiesel Project," a 2007 award winner,
created a closed-loop biodiesel processing facility that recycled its wastes and generated its
own energy. This project ultimately contributed to the town of Boone, North Carolina's decision
to transition to biodiesel fuel for its buses.
FY 2008 Resources for Program Projects Supporting This Objective**
Program Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting and they serve
as the foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, Program Projects support multiple performance
measurements and objectives. This table lists the Program Projects and associated resources that
support this objective.
""Resources associated with Program Projects might not match the goal and objective obligations exactly because of rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 4 - Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science
and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Forensics Support
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
FY 2006
Obligations
$10,101.1
$16,850.4
$82.6
FY 2007
Obligations
$3,577.6
$17,542.9
$121.3
FY 2008
Obligations
($209.5)
$17,670.0
$91.6
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
267
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV)
Research: Pollution Prevention
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Research: Economics and Decision
Science(EDS)
Research: Sustainability
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$520.2
$2,775.5
$7,477.3
$63.8
$21.2
$1,305.9
$106.3
$361.0
$449.0
$2,478.8
$1,254.5
$1,084.0
$120.3
$6,069.3
$590.4
$245.3
$470.3
$16.7
$66.3
$27.9
$330.0
$491.3
$22,009.5
$242.4
$75,611.3
$358.1
$1,405.3
($403.5)
$68.6
$21.7
$1,136.1
$94.8
$348.9
$457.3
$3,566.5
$1,221.6
$1,009.5
$125.3
$5,722.5
$623.8
$204.8
$370.7
$18.9
$66.4
$32.7
$562.3
$2,290.3
$25,468.1
$240.5
$66,253.0
$260.0
($10.9)
($141.0)
$75.2
$21.3
$1,124.2
$89.1
$332.9
$303.8
$5,789.6
$1,363.1
$1,047.0
$168.5
$4,986.6
$609.6
$225.8
$375.4
$2.1
$73.5
$38.0
$396.2
$1,879.8
$22,976.0
$223.0
$59,760.9
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
Grants:
Recipients of EPA project-specific grants found for which there are no significant sustained
improvements in environmental performance, even though companies are willing to participate
in voluntary programs that target changes in production processes. Of the industry-led
programs, only the adoption of a formal Environmental Management System seems to be
associated with some environmental improvements. (These results were supported by the
following grants: 1) "Environmental Management Strategies and Corporate Performance:
Identification and Analysis of the Motivators of Regulated Entities' Environmental Behavior and
Performance"; 2) "Do Formalized Management Systems Produce Superior Performance?"; 3)
"Environmental Management Systems: Informing Organizational Decisions"; 4) "Oregon
Business Decisions for Environmental Performance"; 5) "Pollution Prevention: The Role of
Environmental Management and Information"; and 6) "Comparative Plant-Level Analysis of
Three Voluntary Environmental Programs."
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
268
-------
Web Links:
Sustainability Research Program: www.epa.gov/sustainability/
Program Assessment Rating Tool:
In FY 2008, EPA developed and implemented an action plan for all Agency Program
Assessment Rating Tool measures in response to a government-wide Program Assessment
Rating Tool measure review. The plan leveraged ongoing strategic and annual planning and
reflected measure improvements. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of
this report, "Performance Results," identify all Program Assessment Rating Tool measures,
which make up more than two-thirds of EPA's performance measures. Please refer to
www.expectmore.gov for more detailed information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 269
-------
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing
environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide
incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable
outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: 5.1: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED COMPLIANCE
By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through enforcement and other compliance assurance
activities by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities, including
those in Indian country. (Baseline: 3-year rolling average FYs 2005-2007: 960,000,000 pounds.)
Performance Measures Met
6
Performance Measures Not Met
2
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total Performance Measures
8
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.1: Compliance Assistance
By 2011, prevent noncompliance or reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including those
with potential environmental justice concerns, through EPA compliance assistance by maintaining or improving on the following
percentages for direct assistance provided to regulated entities, including those in Indian country.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(988) Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
compliance assistance from EPA
reporting that they improved
environmental management
practices as a result of EPA
FY 2005
Target
50
Actual
51
FY 2006
Target
50
Actual
74
FY 2007
Target
50
Actual
91
FY 2008
Target
50
Actual
82
Unit
Percentage
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
270
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
assistance.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - The FY2007 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that
they improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance is 91%. These measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the
regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these
questions on voluntary surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these
questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys
Explanation - The Agency exceeded this performance target in FY 2008, in part due to changes made in FY2007 in how it calculates
results. Based on two years of data with an improved calculation method, EPA will re-evaluate the targets for these measures. In
addition, EPA continues to explore ways to improve data collection methods from compliance assistance activities through a statistically-
valid outcome measurement pilot project.
(992) Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct assistance
from EPA reporting that they
reduced, treated, or eliminated
pollution, as a result of EPA
assistance.
25
13
15
28
15
50
15
49
Percentage
Baseline - The FY2007 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that
they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of EPA compliance assistance is 50%. These measures are not calculated from
a representative sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that
answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who
chose not to answer these questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys.
Explanation - The Agency exceeded this performance target in FY 2008, in part due to changes made in FY2007 in how it calculates
results. Based on two years of data with an improved calculation method, EPA will re-evaluate the targets for these measures. In
addition, EPA continues to explore ways to improve data collection methods from compliance assistance activities through a statistically-
valid outcome measurement pilot project.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
271
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives
By 2011, identify and correct noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas
including those with potential environmental justice concerns. Use of compliance incentives will result in a 5 percentage point
increase in the number of facilities that use EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat
or eliminate pollution or improve environmental practices at their facilities, including those in Indian country.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(176) Pounds of pollutants
estimated to be reduced, treated,
or eliminated, as a result of audit
agreements.
FY 2005
Target
0.25
million
Actual
1.9
million
FY 2006
Target
0.4
Actual
0.05
FY 2007
Target
0.4
Actual
1.20
FY 2008
Target
0.5
Actual
5,4
Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The FY2007 baseline for pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements
is 1 .2 million pounds of pollutants.
Explanation - The Agency surpassed the FY 2008 performance target of 0.5 million pounds through a particularly significant Clean Air
Act mobile source disclosure of violations whose correction and other settlement conditions resulted in more than an estimated 3.5
million pounds of NOX and hydrocarbon pollutants over a one year time period. Pollution reduction results achieved by EPA compliance
incentive programs represent reductions that will occur over a one-year time period once facilities implement the steps required under
audit agreements. Pollutant reductions from audit disclosures vary widely from case to case, resulting in total reduction levels that are
also highly variable year to year.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement
By 2011, identify, correct, and deter noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all
areas including those with potential environmental justice concerns, through monitoring and enforcement of regulated entities'
compliance, including those in Indian country, by achieving: a 5 percent increase in the number of facilities taking complying actions
during EPA inspections and evaluations after deficiencies have been identified; a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of
enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated; and a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of
enforcement actions requiring improvement of environmental management practices.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
272
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(178) Pounds of pollution
estimated to be reduced, treated,
or eliminated as a result of
concluded enforcement actions.
(civil enforcement)
FY 2005
Target
300
Actual
1,100.00
FY 2006
Target
450
Actual
890.00
FY 2007
Target
500
Actual
890.00
FY 2008
Target
890
Actual
3,900
Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The FY 2005-2007 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated is
960,000,000 pounds of pollutants.
Explanation - EPA significantly exceeded the 890 million pound performance target for pollutant reductions from enforcement settlements
due to particularly significant Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Clean Water Act storm water
enforcement settlements. The six most significant FY 2008 enforcement settlements, when fully implemented, will cumulatively reduce
more than an estimated 2 billion pounds of pollutants.
(179) Percentage of concluded
enforcement cases requiring that
pollution be reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
30
28.8
30
Data
Available
Late
2008
30
27
30
26
Percentage
Baseline - The FY 2007 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants estimated to be reduced,
treated, or eliminated is the FY2007 result which is 27 percent.
Explanation - EPA missed the performance target for the percentage of concluded cases that require pollutant reductions by four percent
in FY 2008. Although EPA exceeded targets for pounds of pollutants reduced, the number of concluded enforcement cases increased
over the last three years. EPA achieved such high pollutant reductions despite missing the performance target for the percentage of
cases requiring pollutant reductions in FY 2008 due to the remarkable pollutant reductions from six large settlement agreements that
combined will reduce, treat, or eliminate more than an estimated 2 billion pounds of air and water pollutants over a one year time period
once facilities implement the legally required terms of the settlement.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
273
-------
(180) Percentage of concluded
enforcement cases requiring
implementation of improved
environmental management
practices.
60
72.5
65
82
70
70
70
70
Percentage
Baseline - The FY 2007 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices is 70 percent.
(182) Percentage of regulated
entities taking complying actions
as a result of on-site compliance
inspections and evaluations.
10
19
25
16
30
18
30
23
Percentage
Baseline - The FY 2007 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance
inspections and evaluations is 18 percent.
Explanation - EPA did not meet the 30% complying actions performance target in FY 2008. In FY 2009, EPA will improve documentation
regarding deficiencies and complying actions by developing guidance that addresses counting complying actions that occur after the
inspection which are not observed by the inspector and which describe the documentation required to assure verification of the actions
and accurate results calculations.
(183) Dollars invested in improved
environmental performance or
improved environmental
management practices as a result
of concluded enforcement actions
(i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)
4
10
4.1
5
4.2
10.6
4.3
11.8
Billion
Dollars
Baseline - The FY 2005-2007 rolling average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices is $8,500,000,000.
Explanation - EPA and the Department of Justice achieved landmark enforcement settlements in FY 2008 that require defendants to
invest a record $1 1.8 billion to achieve and maintain compliance with the nation's environmental laws due three cases that account for
approximately 60 percent of the total investments. These investments reported are estimates of expenditures that will occur over a one
year time period once facilities implement the legally required terms of the settlement.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
274
-------
OBJECTIVE: 5.2: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OTHER
STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES
By 2011, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution
prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
Performance Measures Met
4
Performance Measures Not Met
1
Data Available After November 17,
2008
2
Total Performance Measures
7
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship by Government and the Public
Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship. By 2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and improve
other environmental stewardship practices while reducing costs through implementation of EPA's pollution prevention programs.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce 4.5 billion pounds of hazardous materials cumulatively compared to the 2000 baseline of 44 million pounds reduced.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(264) Pounds of hazardous
materials reduced by pollution
prevention (P2) program
participants.
FY 2005
Target
290M
Actual
501 .7M
FY 2006
Target
401 M
Actual
528.5M
FY 2007
Target
414M
Actual
456.9M
FY 2008
Target
429M
Actual
839.6M
Unit
Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program hazardous material reduced was 44 million pounds in FY 2000.
Explanation - In FY 2008, the P2 program exceeded its targets due to significant contributions from regional grant results, Green
Chemistry, and Design for the Environment projects. Increasing collaboration across the P2 program is encouraging the development of
new projects funded through P2 grants which have begun to may in the future realize large reductions in pounds of hazardous materials.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
275
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce, conserve, or offset 31.5 trillion British Thermal Units (Btus) cumulatively compared to the 2002 baseline amount of
0 Btus reduced, conserved, or offset.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(261) Btus of energy reduced,
conserved or offset by P2 program
participants.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
906.7B
Actual
4,7496
FY 2007
Target
1,106.86
Actual
2,1006
FY 2008
Target
1,217.46
Actual
Data Not
Available
Unit
6tus
Baseline - The baseline reference point for reductions of pollution and conservation of Btus and water is zero for 2002.
Explanation - In FY 2007, the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Center of results and the regional center of results both produced
significant energy savings. FY 2008 results are incomplete. Full results from both regions and the EPP center of results will enable the
program to exceed its FY 2008 target. Full results will be available for Spring 2009 PART update.
Strategic Target (3)
6y 2011, reduce water use by 19 billion gallons cumulatively compared to the 2000 baseline amount of 220 million gallons reduced.
Annual Performance Measures
and 6aselines
(262) Gallons of water reduced by
P2 program participants.
FY 2005
Target
6aseline - The baseline for the Pollution
Actual
Prevention
FY 2006
Target
329M
Actual
2.329M
FY 2007
Target
1.790M
Actual
1.619M
FY 2008
Target
1 ,640M
Actual
21.602M
Unit
Gallons
Program gallons of water was 220 millions gallons in FY 2000.
Explanation - In FY 2007, the P2 program may still meet its target after receiving additional data from states that have not yet reported.
These state data are an important part of overall P2 results, but water conservation results have been less than expected in recent years
which are the primary reason that 07 results are lower than the 07 target. However, substantial water savings were realized by regional
grantees including those grants that fund state leadership programs that encourage water conservation. Less than expected state, non-
grant, data is the primary reason that 07 results are lower than 07 target.
In FY 2008, a Green Chemistry award winning technology (Nalco's 3D-TRASAR technology) has had a huge impact on water savings
from industrial and commercial cooling systems (e.g. heating, ventilating, and air conditioning). The technology reduces the need to
flushing and refilling the cooling water as well as reducing the amount of treatment chemicals needed to keep systems running efficiently.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
276
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, save $791.9 million through pollution prevention improvements in business, institutional, and governmental costs
cumulatively compared to the 2002 baseline of $0.0 saved.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(263) Business, institutional and
government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2005
Target
30.4M
Actual
172.9M
FY 2006
Target
38.2M
Actual
209.7M
FY 2007
Target
44.3M
Actual
186.7M
FY 2008
Target
45.9M
Actual
Data Not
Available
Unit
Dollars
Saved
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program cost savings was 0 dollar in FY 2002.
Explanation - Only partial data are available for FY08.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(279) Annual reductions of Design
for the Environment (DfE)
chemicals of concern per federal
dollar invested in the DfE
program.
FY 2005
Target
N/A
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Baseline
Actual
72
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
FY 2008
Target
90
Actual
118
Unit
Pounds/$
Baseline - The baseline for percent change for pounds of chemicals reduced from the Design for the Environment Program is 72 lbs/$ for
FY 2006.
Explanation - Target was exceeded due to sustained and increased performance from formulators program within the Design for the
Environment Program. Products recognized with DfE label as including safer formulations were produced in record numbers for FY
2008.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
277
-------
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from waste streams as measured by National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities (NPEP) contributions, Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), and other tools used by EPA to achieve priority
chemical reductions.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(PBS) Number of pounds (in
millions) of priority chemicals
reduced, as measured by National
Partnership for Environmental
Priorities members.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
0.5
Actual
1.3
FY 2008
Target
1
Actual
5.7
Unit
Pounds
Baseline - In FY 2006, 1.28 million pounds of priority list chemicals were reduced.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.2: Promote Improved Environmental Performance through Business and Community Innovation
Promote Improved Environmental Performance Through Business and Community Innovation. Through 2011, improve
environmental performance with sustainable outcomes through sector-based approaches, performance-based programs, and
assistance to small business.
Strategic Target (1)
By FY 2011, the reported results of Performance Track member facilities collectively will show the following normalized annual
reductions: 5.1 billion gallons in water use; 13,000 tons of hazardous materials use; 230,000 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCOE) of greenhouse gases; 300 tons of toxic discharges to water; and 5,500 tons of combined NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM
emissions. (Performance Track member facilities make commitments to, and report yearly progress on, performance improvements
in up to four environmental areas. In FY 2005, Performance Track members achieved normalized annual reductions of 3.4 billion
gallons in water use; 8,794 tons of hazardous materials use; 151,129 MTCO2E of greenhouse gases; 186 tons of toxic discharges to
water; and 3,533 tons of combined NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM emissions.)
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, the participating manufacturing and service sectors in the Sector Strategies Program will achieve an aggregate 10 percent
reduction in environmental releases to air, water, and land, working from a 2004 baseline and normalized to reflect economic growth.
(Baseline and normalization factors to be developed by December 2006.)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
278
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(195) Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of
water use; 16.3 million MMBtus of
energy use; 1,050 tons of
materials use; 460,000 tons of
solid waste; 66,000 tons of air
releases; & 12,400 tons of water
discharges.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
4
Actual
0
Unit
Media
Reduction
Baseline - For Performance Track, the baseline year is 2001 for FY 2005, 2006, and 2007. Performance will be measured against the
2001 baseline annual reduction of 475 million gallons of water conserved, 0.24 million Btus (MMBtus) of energy conserved, 150,000 tons
of solid waste reduced, 1,113 tons of air emissions reduced, 6,870 tons of water discharged, and -2,154 tons of materials reduced. For
FY 2008, the baseline year is 2005. The 2005 baseline annual normalized reductions are: 3,387,333,545 gallons of water reduced,
8,794 tons of hazardous materials reduced, 151,129 MTCO2Es of greenhouse gas emissions reduced, 186 tons of toxic discharges to
water reduced, and 3,533 tons of NOx, SOx, VOCs and PM emissions reduced.
The goal for FY08 was to meet 3 of the strategic targets for reducing environmental impacts in 5 priority areas. The targets, normalized for
changes in production or activity level at a facility, were not met this year. Performance Track is currently in the process of changing the
methodology for calculating results to a method consistent with the 3-year membership cycle of member facilities. The current method of
calculating all members' results during the calendar year yields program-wide results that fluctuate heavily from year to year and thus are not a
meaningful indicator of program progress. The new method calculates members' environmental improvements once the three-year membership
term has been completed. This methodology puts annual fluctuations in a facility's results in the context of the facility's performance over the
entire three-year membership term. Performance Track plans to modify the strategic targets for future years to make them consistent with the
new methodology.
The current targets were set based on 2004 results. An assumption was made at the time that results would increase linearly from year to year.
Additional years of data have revealed that annual results fluctuate heavily and are not a good indicator of member performance. For example,
this year's toxic discharges to water result is negative due to one facility's discharge of salt. Over the facility's three-year membership term, the
discharge of salt greatly decreased and the facility surpassed its goal. However, from 2006 to 2007, the discharge of salt increased although
still remaining well below the baseline level in 2004. This annual increase caused the overall program-wide result for the toxics discharges to
water indicator to be negative.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
279
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.3: Promote Environmental Policy Innovation
Through 2011, achieve measurably improved environmental results, promote stewardship behavior, and advance sustainable
outcomes by testing, evaluating, and applying alternative approaches to environmental protection in states, companies, and
communities. This work also will seek to improve the organizational cost effectiveness and efficiency for regulatory agencies as well
as regulated entities.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, innovation projects under the State Innovation Grant Program and other piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average, an 8
percent or greater improvement in environmental results (such as reductions in air or water discharges, improvements in ambient
water or air quality, or improvements in compliance rates), or a 5 percent or greater improvement in cost effectiveness and efficiency.
(Each project's achievement will be measured by the goals established in the grantee's proposal. Baselines for ambient conditions
or pollutant discharges or costs of compliance will be developed at the beginning of each project, and improvements for each project
will be measured after full implementation of the innovative
OBJECTIVE: 5.3: IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally-recognized tribes to build environmental
management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian
country.
Performance Measures Met
0
Performance Measures Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
3
Total Performance Measures
3
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal environmental programs in Indian country to 9 percent.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
(5pg) Percent of tribes
implementing federal regulatory
programs in Indian country.
6
Data
Available
in FY
2009
Percent of
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
280
-------
assessments of their lands will be conducted.
Explanation - In 2008, we will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and accurately
capture criteria to be measured. The Agency developed a reporting system that captures information for the strategic plan measures and
data is expected for these measures in FY 2009.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian
country to 26 percent.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(5ph) Percent of tribes conducting
EPA-approved environmental
monitoring and assessment
activities in Indian country.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
21
Actual
Data
Available
inFY
2009
Unit
Percent of
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental
assessments of their lands will be conducted.
Explanation - In 2008, we will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and accurately
capture criteria to be measured. The Agency developed a reporting system that captures information for the strategic plan measures and
data is expected for these measures in FY 2009.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program to 67 percent.
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(5pl) Percent of tribes with an
environmental program.
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
57
Actual
Data
Available
in
FY 2009
Unit
Percent of
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental
assessments of their lands will be conducted.
Explanation - In 2008, we will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and accurately
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
281
-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
Unit
capture criteria to be measured. The Agency developed a reporting system that captures information for the strategic plan measures and
data is expected for these measures in FY 2009.
OBJECTIVE: 5.4: ENHANCE SOCIETIES CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic, sustainable
systems, and decision-making tools. By 2011, the products of this research will be independently recognized as providing critical and
key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
282
-------
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Energy Consumption Reduction
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
1
Total PMs
1
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
Performance Measures
Cumulative percentage reduction in
energy consumption.
Target
Actual
Target
2
Actual
3
Target
6
Actual
12
Target
9
Actual
13
Unit
Percent
Baseline - On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and
Transportation Management, requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and energy intensity by 3% annually
through FY 2015 compared to a FY 2003 baseline (for a 30% cumulative reduction). This annual energy reduction requirement was
reinforced by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy intensity is
359,087 BTUs per square foot (Btu/GSF).
Explanation - The actual FY 2008 reduction in energy intensity represents a projection based on compiled data through 3rd quarter FY
2008 data. 4th quarter FY 2007 energy data are used as proxy data for outstanding 4th quarter FY 2008 energy data. Final FY 2008
energy data will be available in early 2009 and reported in the FY 2009 PAR.
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total PMs
1
Performance Measures
Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions.
FY 2005
Target Actual
80 125
FY 2006
Target Actual
80 121
FY 2007
Target Actual
80 103
FY 2008
Target Actual
80 84
Unit
Actions
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
283
-------
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 98 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions, j^is number is
based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Explanation - The OIG met its goal by continuing to conduct investigations that both prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse. The
results of this work contribute to the public confidence in the integrity of EPA's programs and operations.
Audit and Advisory Services
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total PMs
3
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit
Environmental and business actions 303 407 318 464 334 463 Actions
taken for improved performance or risk
reduction.
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 426 environmental and business actions taken for improved
performance or risk reduction. This number is based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Explanation - The OIG is both improving the quality of its recommendations and implementing a comprehensive follow-up program to
promote greater recognition of, accountability for, and action on OIG recommendations. The actual number is a reflection of both these
efforts and normal lag time for actions on a high number of recommendations from previous years.
Environmental and business 925 1,024 925 949 971 624 Recomme
recommendations or risks identified for ndations
corrective action.
Baseline - FY 2005, the OIG established 991 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action.
This number is based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Explanation - OIG staffing averaged only 83 percent of authorized staffing level due to the delay in the enacted budget level and the
subsequent delay in the recruitment process for staff to perform audits, evaluations and investigations consistent with the targets. With
nearly 20 new hires recently on board, and 23 new recruits to come on board during the first part of FY 2009, we anticipate regaining our
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 284
-------
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target Actual
Unit
previous performance levels on this area. Also, the OIG has focused on producing fewer recommendations, but of higher quality, which is
being reflected in the greater number of recommendations being sustained and action taken for results.
Return on the annual dollar investment, 150 1100 150 189 150 183 Percent
as a percentage of the OIG budget, from
audits and investigations.
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established 211% in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget, from savings,
questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements.
Explanation - OIG increased its emphasis on audit and evaluation work that could demonstrate potential monetary benefit, and
identified $96 million in questioned costs, cost efficiencies and settlements fines and recoveries. For example, we identified significant
savings opportunities in the funds management of the Superfund program, and recommended that about $55 million be deobligated for
additional program use.
Office of Inspector General Cumulative Results Vs GPRA Targets FY 2003 - 2008
Environmental and Business Recommendations and Risks from OIG Audits, Evaluations,
Inspections and Investigations
DFY2008
• FY2007
• FY2006
DFY2005
• FY2004
• FY2003
Targets
Results
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
285
-------
Environmental and Business Actions Taken and Risks Reduced from OIG Audit, Evaluation, Inspection and Investigation
Recommendations
DFY2008
• FY2007
• FY2006
DFY2005
• FY2004
DFY2003
Targets
Results
OIG Questioned Costs, Efficiencies, Savings, Fines, Recoveries from OIG Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
o
DFY2008
• FY2007
• FY2006
DFY2005
• FY2004
• FY2003
Targets
Results
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
286
-------
Criminal, Civil, Administrative Actions from OIG Investigations
D FY 2008
• FY 2007
• FY 2006
D FY 2005
• FY 2004
• FY 2003
Targets
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
287
-------
Information Exchange Network
PMs Met
2
Performance Measures
PMs Not Met Data Available Af
20
0 C
FY 2005 FY 2006
ter November 17, Total PMs
08
) 2
FY 2007 FY 2008
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit
Number of major EPA environmental 12 22 29 32 36 37 45 48 Systems
systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Number of users from states, tribes, 20,000 45,000 47,000 62,000 55,000 88,516 100,00 127,575 Users
laboratories, and others that choose CDX 0
to report environmental data electronically
to EPA.
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Information Security
PMs Met
1
Performance Measures
PMs Not Met Data Available Af
20
0 C
FY 2005 FY 2006
ter November 17, Total PMs
08
) 1
FY 2007 FY 2008
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit
Percent of Federal Information Security 75 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Management Act reportable systems that
are certified and accredited.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
288
-------
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target Actual
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
Human Capital
PMs Met
4
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 17,
2008
0
Total PMs
4
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target Actual
Unit
Percent above the initial target of non-
SES managers and supervisors at the
proficiency level (above intermediate) for
"Interpersonal Skills and Oral
Communication."
10
14.5
Percent
Baseline - Survey data is used to assess the competencies of EPA's mission critical occupations (MCOs). Reassessments of the
assessed MCOs are repeated and compared to previous assessments.
15
32
Percent
Percent increase in the number of SES
managers and supervisors at the targeted
proficiency level (advanced) for
"Interpersonal Skills and Oral
Communication."
Baseline - Survey data is used to assess the competencies of EPA's mission critical occupations (MCOs). Reassessments of the
assessed MCOs are repeated and compared to previous assessments.
Average time to hire non-SES positions
from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
Baseline - Based on 796 cases, the average is 31 days.
For SES positions, the average time from
date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
45
28
45
26.3
Days
90
66
73
66
Days
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
289
-------
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit
Baseline - Based on 14 cases, the average is 116 days.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 290
-------
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov. 291
-------
Additional FY 2008 External Efficiency Measures
Goal 2:
Program
Surface Water
Protection
Measure
Loading (pounds) of pollutants
removed per program dollar
expended.
FY05
Target
180
FY05
Actual
180
FY06
Target
233
FY06
Actual
233
FY07
Target
285
FY07
Actual
310
FY08
Target
332
FY08
Actual
332
Units
Number of
pounds
Baseline — The baseline for this measure is 122 loading of pollutants removed per dollar expended in 2004.
Water Pollution
Control (Sec. 106)
Cost per water segment restored.
Baseline
828,654
1,358,351
Baseline — The baseline for this measure is $701,495 in 2005.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Number of waterbodies protected
per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Baseline
Baseline — The baseline for this measure is 0. 1.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Number of waterbodies restored or
improved per million dollars of
CWSRF assistance provided.
Baseline
Baseline — The baseline for this measure is 0.07
Water Quality
Research
Peer-reviewed publications over
FTE.
N/A
.78
576,618
636,744
512,735
0.1 0.1 0.22
0.07 0.07 0.165
.79
.78
0.8
643,119
547,676
0.1 0.2
0.07 0.15
0.73
.81
Dollars
Waterbodies
Waterbodies
Data
avail, in
2009
Publications
Baseline — In 2004, the program began measuring its number of peer reviewed publications per full-time employee and achieved a ratio of 0.76. This measure contributes to
EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support
the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Goal 3:
Program
Measure
FY05
Target
FY05
Actual
FY06
Target
FY06
Actual
FY07
Target
FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
Units
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfot&epa.gov.
292
-------
Land Protection and
Restoration
Research
Average time (in days) for technical
support centers to process and
respond to requests for technical
document review, statistical analysis
and evaluation of characterization
and treatability study plans.
Baseline
35.3
32.5
31
30.5
23.4
29.0
Data
available
in 2009
Days
Baseline — In 2005, the program began tracking the average number of days its technical support centers take to process and respond to requests for technical document
review, statistical analysis, and the evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans for tech plans. The average amount of time to process and respond was 35.3 days
in 2005. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
Explanation — Data for this measure will be available in July 2009. The technical support centers compile and calculate their processing time at the end of the calendar year.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Percent increase of final remedy
components constructed at RCRA
corrective action facilities per
federal, state, and private sector.
3
6.2
3
7.0
Percent
Baseline — In FY 2006, there were .665 final remedy components constructed per million dollars.
RCRA Base,
Permits, and Grants
Facilities under control (permitted)
per total permitting cost.
2
3.36
3.64
Data
available
in 2009
Percent
Baseline — In FY 2006, there were 3 . 1 facilities under control (permitted) per million dollars of permitting cost.
Superfund Removal
Superfund-lead removal actions
completed annually per million
dollars.
2.1
1.54
0.91
1.02
0.92
1.04
0.93
1.049
Removals
Baseline — In FY 2004, there were .87 removal actions annually per million dollars.
Superfund
Remedial Action
Human exposures under control per
million dollars.
6.1
6.9
6.4
Data
available
in 2009
Thousand
Baseline — In FY 2006, there were 6. 1 human exposures under control per million dollars, and in FY 2005, there were 5.7.
Goal 4:
Program
Measure
FY05
Target
FY05
Actual
FY06
Target
FY06
Actual
FY07
Target
FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
Units
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. QOV.
293
-------
Human Health Risk
Assessment
Average cost to produce Air Quality
Criteria/Science assessment
documents.
14191
7,252
5,386
5,533
3796
Data
avail in
2009
Average
Cost ($)
14191
Baseline — When the program began producing Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents in FY 2004, the average cost to produce these
assessment documents was $13,989. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
Explanation — The average annual cost was significantly lower than 2006, but marginally (2.7%) above the ambitious target for 2007.
Human Health
Research
Average time (in days) to process
research grant proposals from
Request For Applications closure to
submittal to EPA's Grants
Administration Division, while
maintaining a credible and efficient
competitive merit review system.
N/A
340
o T3
323
277
307
254
292
250
Average Days
Baseline — In 2003, the program began tracking its average grants processing time and developed a baseline of 405 days. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Chesapeake Bay
Total nitrogen reduction practices
implementation achieved as a result
of agricultural best management
practices implementation per million
dollars to implement agricultural
Best Management Practices.
49,113
45,928
47,031
43,529
48,134
Data
Avail
Late
2008
Pounds per
million $
Baseline — The baseline for this measure is 43,289 pounds per million dollars.
Explanation — End-of-year data will not be available until November 30, 2007. Based on the mid-year data which is 45,928 the measure is not on track to
meet the end-of-year target.
Great Lakes
Program
Cost per cubic yard of contaminated
sediments remediated.
Baseline
115
200
121
200
Cost per cubic
121 yard
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. QOV.
294
-------
Mexico Border
Program
Additional people served per
million dollars (U.S. and Mexico
federal expenditures.)
Baseline
3,278
3,200
4,433
3,200
10,292
8,000
12,686
People served
Baseline — Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 40 days of EPA effort to process is 54% in 2004.
Ocean, Coastal, and
Estuary Protection
Program dollars per acre of habitat
protected or restored.
515
533
510
401
505
482
500
909
Baseline — 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
Dollars/acre
Explanation - Target not met due to unexpected funds appropriated in the 2008 Appropriation Bill.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
295
-------
PART Measures
Supplemental PART Information
Goal 1 : Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measure
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone Depleting
substances measured in tons/yr. of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually
through lowered radon exposure.
MMTCE of greenhouse gas in the building sector.
MMTCE of greenhouse gas in the industry sector.
MMTCE of greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector.
Millions of tons of NOX reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
Millions of tons of VOCs reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
eastern Class I areas.
Percent of change in number of chronically acidic water bodies in acid-
sensitive regions.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
PM2.s in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
ozone in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percentage of Office of Research and Development (ORD)-developed
outputs appearing in the Office of Air and Radiation National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Staff Paper (SP).
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted cancer risk emissions
from 1993 baseline.
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted of noncancer risk
emissions from 1993 baseline.
Progress in assessing the linkage between health impacts and air
pollutant sources and reducing the uncertainties that impede the
understanding and usefulness of these linkages.
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard setting and air quality management decisions.
Reductions in melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers, measured by
millions of skin cancer cases avoided (melanoma and nonmelanoma).
Tons of fine PM2.s since 2000 from mobile sources.
Tons of SO2 emissions reduced from electric power generating
sources.
Year Data
Available
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2018
FY 2030
FY2015
FY2015
TBD
FY2010
FY2010
TBD
TBD
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
296
-------
PART Measures
Annual Performance Measure
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant
sources based on the risk they pose to human health.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large
engines (nonroad compression ignition, heavy duty gas and diesel
engines).
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total emission
reduction dollars spent.
Tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emissions
reduced per total cost ($).
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Long-Term Performance Measure
100% of serviceable rural Alaska homes will have access to drinking
water supply and wastewater disposal.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Long-Term Revolving Level
($billions/year).
Drinking Water SRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/year).
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure
the use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading
to scientifically sound Six-Year Review Decisions made by the Office of
Water (OW).
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure
the use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading
to scientifically sound CCL decisions made by OW.
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale).
Number of baseline monitoring stations showing improved water quality
in tribal waters.
Number of water bodies identified by states (in 2000 or subsequent
years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully
restored.
Number of waterbody segments identified in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained.
Percentage of Alaska population served by public water systems in
compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory requirements.
Percentage of community water systems for which minimized risk to
public health through source water protection is achieved.
Year Data
Available
FY 2009
FY2012
TBD
TBD
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY2018
TBD
TBD
FY 201 1
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
297
-------
PART Measures
Percentage of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
Percentage of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking
water.
Percentage of WQRP publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of WQRP publications rated as highly cited publications.
Section 319 funds (millions of dollars) expended per partially or fully
restored water body.
Annual Performance Measure
Percent of data for violations of health-based standards at public water
systems that is accurate and complete in Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS)/FED for all MCL and TT rules.
Percentage of research products used by OW as the basis of or in
support of Contaminant Candidate List Decisions.
Percentage of research products used by OW as the basis of or in
support of Six- Year Review Decisions.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project initiating operations.
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into compliance.
Number of water bodies protected per million dollars of Clean Water
SRF assistance provided (under development).
Number of water bodies restored or improved per million dollars of
Clean Water SRF assistance provided (under development).
People receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards per million dollars spent to manage the national drinking
water program.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measure
Acres of land ready for reuse at Superfund sites.
Federal Facility Superfund sites with contaminated ground water under
control (exposure pathways eliminated or potential exposures under
health-based levels for current use of land/water resources).
Federal Facility Superfund sites with human exposures under control
(exposure pathways are eliminated or potential exposures are under
health-based levels for current use of land or water resources).
Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the
Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
Increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards
Year Data
Available
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
TBD
TBD
FY2012
FY 201 1
TBD
TBD
FY2012
FY2011
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY2010
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY2011
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
298
-------
PART Measures
for human exposure and ground water migration on Indian County.
Percent of all FRP facilities inspected (and presumed then to be in
compliance).
Percentage of land publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of land publications rated as highly cited publications.
Total Superfund-led removal actions completed.
Total voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Cleanups complete (three-year rolling average) per total cleanup
dollars.
Number of annual confirmed underground storage tank (LIST) releases
per federal, state, and territorial costs.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measure
Acres protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study
areas, (incremental)
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered
Species Bulletin.
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25% of homes in the U.S.-
Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
By 2012, provide wastewater sanitation to 25% of homes in the U.S.-
Mexico border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in
2003.
Cumulative number of chemicals for which proposed values for AEGL
have been developed.
Cumulative reduction in the number of systemic poisoning incidents
associated with exposure from organophosphate pesticides as reported
to the Poison Control Centers.
Cumulative reduction in the production adjusted risk based score of
releases and transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
Cumulative reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of
releases and transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
from manufacturing facilities.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on
humans, wildlife, and the environment to better inform the federal and
scientific communities.
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing
Year Data
Available
FY 201 1
TBD
TBD
FY2011
FY2011
TBD
TBD
FY 201 1
TBD
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 2009
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
TBD
FY2011
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
299
-------
PART Measures
water pollution and protecting aquatic systems.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin which are
restored and de-listed.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of
Concern.
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>10ug/dl).
Percentage difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income
children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low-
income children 1-5 years old.
Percentage of agricultural watersheds that exceeds EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern.
Percentage of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards attainment
achieved based on annual monitoring from the previous calendar year
and the preceding two years.
Percentage of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce
that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment.
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA RAs where ORD methods, models,
or data for assessing risk to susceptible subpopulations are cited as
supporting a decision to move away from or apply default risk
assessment assumptions.
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's
characterization of aggregate/cumulative risk is cited as supporting a
decision to move away from or to apply default risk assessment
assumptions.
Percentage of submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres
achieved based on annual monitoring from previous goal.
Percentage of global publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of global publications rated as highly cited publications.
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's
mechanistic information is cited as supporting a decision to move away
from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions.
Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used
HHRA peer-reviewed health assessments.
Reduce the number of currently exceeded water quality standards met
in shared and transboundary surface waters.
Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
Reduction in cost per RED.
Year Data
Available
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY2010
FY2012
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
TBD
TBD
FY 201 1
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY2012
FY2011
FY 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
300
-------
PART Measures
Reduction in perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), PFOA precursors, and
related higher homologue chemicals in facility emissions by PFOA
Stewardship program participants.
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.
States use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to
determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the
effectiveness of programs and policies.
Usefulness of HHRA's Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs),
represented by the number of days between the completion of AQCD
peer review and publication of the EPA staff document that relies on
AQCD.
Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for states, tribes,
and relevant EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation
and achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for states,
tribes, and relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological impacts of
various actions and achieve environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and
methods for states, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and
restore ecological condition and services.
Utility of ORD's methods and models for risk assessors and risk
managers to evaluate the effectiveness of public health outcomes.
Utility of ORD's methods, model, and data for risk assessors/risk
managers to characterize aggregate and cumulative risk in order to
manage risk of humans exposed to multiple environmental stressors.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make decisions related to products of biotechnology.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural
populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and nontarget plants.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to characterize and provide adequate protection for
susceptible subpopulations.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to use mechanistic (mode of action) information to reduce
uncertainty in risk assessment .
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data under SP2's long-term goal
one for OPPTS and other organizations.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Year Data
Available
FY2010
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
301
-------
PART Measures
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measure
Change in behavior to use improved management practices, (criminal
enforcement)
Cumulative business, institutional and government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
Cumulative pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
Number of states adopting or aligning guidelines for learning curricula
and standards to state academic standards or number of states
developing new environmental education standards based on
Guidelines for Learning.
Percent of all students and teachers targeted that demonstrate
increased environmental knowledge, as measured by Guidelines for
Learning K-12, developed by North American Assoc for Environmental
Education.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (civil enforcement)
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (criminal
enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enforcement)
Annual Performance Measure
Number of NNEMS fellows who pursue environmental careers.
Change in behavior to use improved management practices, (criminal
enforcement)
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement, (pest, enforcement)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pest.
enforcement)
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (criminal
enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enforcement)
Efficiency Performance Measure
Increase the efficiency of reducing, treating, or eliminating pollutants
and generating enforcement outcomes through the effective allocation
and utilization of resources.
Number of enforcement actions taken (federal and state) per million
Year Data
Available
TBD
FY 2009
FY 201 1
FY 201 1
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY200
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
302
-------
PART Measures
dollars of cost (federal and state), (pest enforcement)
Pounds of pollutant reduction per FTE. (criminal enforcement)
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE. (civil
enforcement)
Ratio of number of students/teachers that have improved environmental
knowledge per total dollars expended.
Year Data
Available
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
303
-------
EPA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Section
Financial Statements
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 304
-------
Principal Financial Statements
Financial Statements
1. Consolidated Balance Sheet
2. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
3. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
4. Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
5. Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
6. Statement of Custodial Activity
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
Note 4. Investments
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
Note 6. Other Assets
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net - Non-Federal
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment (PP& E)
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
Note 11. Stewardship Land
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Note 14. Leases
Note 15. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Note 16. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
Note 18. Amounts Held by Treasury
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
Note 21. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship Land
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
Note 25. State Credits
Note 26. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 27. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary
Resources
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 305
-------
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Note 33. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 34. Imputed Financing Sources
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 36. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the
Statement of Financing)
Note 40. Other - Statement of Net Position
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
1. Deferred Maintenance and Stewardship Land
2. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 306
-------
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2) $ 9,605,356
Investments (Notes 4 and 18) 6,174,828
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5) 34,636
Other (Note 6) 107,433
Total Intragovernmental $ 15,922,253
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
Stewardship PP& E (Note 11 )
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 12)
Other (Note 13)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 24)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note 16)
Commitments & Contingencies (Notes 19 and 24)
Payroll & Benefits Payable (Note 35)
Other (Note 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 20)
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
10
349,739
17,088
814,253
3,655
17,106,998 S
80,655
13,158
47,951
109,377
251,141
713,595
44,615
19,411
286,630
44
232,958
115,648
1,664,042
8,674,711
6,212,479
555,766
15,442,956
17,106,998 S
FY 2007
10,466,600
5,753,061
57,039
81,069
16,357,769
10
359,302
23,161
809,873
4,574
17,554,689
122,207
16,156
39,369
98,360
276,092
912,000
39,786
18,214
190,269
205,198
113,739
1,755,298
9,350,591
5,886,227
562,573
15,799,391
17,554,689
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
307
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
FY 2007
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Notes 21, 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 22)
8,675,411 $
634,201
9,263,304
550,098
8,041,210 $
8,713,206
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
308
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air
Costs:
Intragovernmental $ 181,467
With the Public $ 816,336
Total Costs (Note 22) 997,803
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal $ 18,360
Earned Revenue, non-Federal _$ 2,043
Total Earned Revenue
(Notes 21 and 22) 20,403
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS (Note 22) $ 977,400
Clean & Safe
Water
$ 162,679
$ 3,334,953
3,497,632
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
$ 347,011
$ 1,654,205
2,001,216
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
$ 281,767
$ 1,126,764
1,408,531
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
$ 176,376
$ 593,853
770,229
7,615
2,841
73,829
460,055
$ 22,710 $ 5,540
$ 39,407 $ 1,801
10,456
533,8
62,117
7,341
3,487,176 S 1,467,332 S 1,346,414
762,888
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
(Notes2land 22)
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS (Note 22)
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,149,300
$ 7,526,111
8,675,411
128,054
506,147
634,201
S 8,041,210
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
309
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Clean Air
$ 185,389
818,753
1,004,142
15,594
2,997
18,591
Land Healthy Compliance &
Clean & Safe Preservation Communities & Environmental
Water & Restoration Ecosystems Stewardship
$ 180,571
3,868,428
4,048,999
11,016
2,262
13,278
$ 396,786 $
1,607,952
2,004,738
101,036
352,963
453,999
275,068 $
1,144,793
1,419,861
18,450
38,902
57,352
182,101
603,463
785,564
5,613
1,265
6,878
985,551 S 4,035,721 S 1,550,739 S
1,362,509 S
778,686
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,219,915
$ 8,043,389
$ 9,263,304
$ 151,709
$ 398,389
$ 550,098
S 8,713,206
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
310
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Other (Note 40)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 33)
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
FY2008
Earmarked
Funds
5,886,227
5,886,227 3
241,873
204,115
(18,190)
984,974
19,878
1,432,650 3
20,933
20,933 3
(1,127,331)
326,252
6,212,479 3
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,212,479 S
FY 2008 All
Other Funds
562,573
! 562,573 3
7,743,276
-
-
37,151
(984,974)
-
! 6,795,453 3
28
111,591
! 111,619 3
(6,913,879)
(6,807)
i 555,766 3
9,350,591
9,350,591
7,197,712
(7,875)
(122,441)
(7,743,276)
(675,880)
8,674,711
9,230,477 S
FY2008
Consolidated
Total
6,448,800
i 6,448,800
7,743,276
241,873
204,115
18,961
-
19,878
i 8,228,103
28
132,524
i 132,552
(8,041,210)
319,445
i 6,768,245
9,350,591
9,350,591
7,197,712
(7,875)
(122,441)
(7,743,276)
(675,880)
8,674,711
15,442,956
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
311
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Adjustment:
Change in Accounting Principle (Note 38)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
FY2007
Earmarked
Funds
5,533,025
20,900
5,553,925 $
258,986
252,148
(25,686)
1,040,371
1,525,819 $
39
21,868
21,907 $
(1,215,424)
332,302
5,886,227 $
-
-
5,886,227 S
FY2007 All
Other Funds
575,846
; 575,846 $
8,367,123
43,491
(1,040,371)
; 7,370,243 $
525
113,741
; 114,266 $
(7,497,782)
(13,273)
; 562,573 $
10,299,640
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
9,913,164 S
FY 2007
Consolidated
Total
6,108,871
20,900
6,129,771
8,367,123
258,986
252,148
17,805
8,896,062
564
135,609
136,173
(8,713,206)
319,029
6,448,800
10,299,640
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
15,799,391
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
312
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1: $ 3,541,387 $ 3,247,087
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 15,527
Adjusted Subtotal 3,541,387 3,262,614
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (Note 29) 281,117 3 87,621
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation 7,268,236 7,495,028
Borrowing Authority 34 29
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected 708,430 640,354
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (22,170) (72,546)
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received 77,880 (34,934)
Without Advance from Federal Sources 59,780 (625)
Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds 37,151 43,491
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 861,071 575,740
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 33) 1,387,967 1,344,610
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 29) (6,366)
Permanently Not Available (Note 29) (125,526) (7,333)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 28) $ 13,207,920 $ 13,058,309
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $ 9,035,912 $ 9,027,170
Reimbursable 620,128 489,752
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 28) 9,656,040 9,516,922
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 30) 3,204,800 3,274,344
Total Unobligated Balances 3,204,800 3,274,344
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 30) 347,080 267,043
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 13,207,920 $ 13,058,309
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 313
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 9,873,207 $ 10,956,328
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 7,215
Adjusted Total 9,873,207 10,963,543
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1 (632,790) (712,239)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 9,240,417 10,251,304
Obligations Incurred, Net (Note 28) 9,656,040 9,516,922
Less: Gross Outlays (Note 28) (9,880,035) (10,219,637)
Less Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (Note 29) (281,117) (387,621)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (33,457) 79,449
Total, Change in Obligated Balance 8,701,848 9,240,417
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations 9,368,094 9,873,207
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (666,246) (632,790)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period $ 8,701,848 $ 9,240,417
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note 28) $ 9,880,035 $ 10,219,637
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note 28) (827,616) (655,188)
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Notes 28 and 32) (1,118,429) (1,307,458)
Total, Net Outlays $ 7,933,990 $ 8,256,991
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 314
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Cash Collections:
Fines and Penalties $ 126,283 $ 86,409
Other (13,733) (4,171)
Total Cash Collections $ 112,550 $ 82,238
Accrual Adjustment 8,107 7,092
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 27) $ 120,657 $ 89,330
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund) $ 112,695 $ 90,774
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred 7,962 (1,444)
Total Disposition of Collections $ 120,657 $ 89,330
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 27)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 315
-------
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Notes to Financial Statements
(Dollars in Thousands)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A. Basis of Presentation
These accompanying financial statements have been prepared to report the financial
position and results of operations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
Agency) as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994. The reports have been prepared from the financial
system and records of the Agency in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial
Reporting Requirements, and the EPA's accounting policies which are summarized in this
note. In addition to the reports required by OMB Circular No. A-136, the Statement of Net
Cost has been prepared with cost segregated 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 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 2008, the accompanying financial statements are grouped and presented in a
consolidated basis for the Balance Sheet, and Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net
Position and Custodial Activity and a combined basis for the Statement of Budgetary
Resources. These financial statements include the accounts of all funds described in this
note by their respective Treasury fund group.
General Fund Appropriations (Treasury Fund Groups 0000 - 3999)
a. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Appropriation: The STAG appropriation,
Treasury fund group 0103, provides funds for environmental programs and infrastructure
assistance including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and performance
partnership grants. Environmental programs and infrastructure supported are: Clean and
Safe Water; capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Clean
Air; direct grants for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure needs, partnership grants to
meet Health Standards, Protect Watersheds, Decrease Wetland Loss, and Address
Agricultural and Urban Runoff and Storm Water; Better Waste Management; Preventing
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 316
-------
Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems; and
Reduction of Global and Cross Border Environmental Risks.
b. Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation: The S&T appropriation, Treasury
fund group 0107, finances salaries, travel, science, technology, research and development
activities including laboratory supplies, certain operating expenses, grants, contracts,
intergovernmental agreements, and purchases of scientific equipment. These activities
provide the scientific basis for the Agency's regulatory actions. In FY 2008, Superfund
research costs were appropriated in Superfund and transferred to S&T to allow for proper
accounting of the costs. Environmental scientific and technological activities and programs
include Clean Air; Clean and Safe Water; Americans Right to Know about Their
Environment; Better Waste Management; Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in
Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems; and Safe Food.
c. Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriation: The EPM
appropriation, Treasury fund group 0108, includes funds for salaries, travel, contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements for pollution abatement, control, and compliance
activities and administrative activities of the Agency's operating programs. Areas
supported from this appropriation include: Clean Air, Clean and Safe Water, Land
Preservation and Restoration, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship.
d. Buildings and Facilities Appropriation (B&F): The B&F appropriation, Treasury
fund group 0110, provides for the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities that are owned or used by the EPA.
e. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Appropriation: The OIG appropriation, Treasury
fund group 0112, provides funds for audit and investigative functions to identify and
recommend corrective actions on management and administrative deficiencies that create
the conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement.
Additional funds for audit and investigative activities associated with the Superfund and
the LUST Trust Funds are appropriated under those Trust Fund accounts and transferred to
the Office of Inspector General account. The audit function provides contract, internal
controls and performance, and financial and grant audit services. The appropriation
includes expenses incurred and reimbursed from the appropriated trust funds accounted for
under Treasury fund group 8145 and 8153.
/ Payments to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Appropriation: The Payment to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriation, Treasury fund group 0250, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted
through the Hazardous Substance Superfund Program.
g. Payments to Leaking Underground Storage Tank Appropriation: The Payment to
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank appropriation, Treasury fund group 0251,
authorizes appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities
conducted through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 317
-------
h. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury
fund group 0118, Program Account, for interest subsidy and administrative support; under
Treasury fund group 4322, Financing Account, for loan disbursements, loans receivable
and loan collections on post-FY 1991 loans; and under Treasury fund group 2917 for pre-
FY 1992 loans receivable and loan collections.
The Asbestos Loan Program was authorized by the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement
Act of 1986 to finance control of asbestos building materials in schools. Funds have not
been appropriated for this Program since FY 1993. For FY 1993 and FY1992, the program
was funded by a subsidy appropriated from the General Fund for the actual cost of
financing the loans, and by borrowing from Treasury for the unsubsidized portion of the
loan. The Program Account 0118 disburses the subsidy to the Financing Fund for increases
in the subsidy. The Financing Account 4322 receives the subsidy payment, borrows from
Treasury and collects the asbestos loans.
i. Allocations and Appropriations Transferred to the Agency: The EPA receives
allocations or appropriations transferred from other federal agencies.
j. Treasury Clearing Accounts: The EPA Department of the Treasury Clearing Accounts
include: (1) the Budgetary Suspense Account, (2) the Unavailable Check Cancellations and
Overpayments Account, and (3) the Undistributed Intra-agency Payments and Collections
(IPAC) Account. These are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 3875, 3880 and
3885, respectively.
k. General Fund Receipt Accounts: General Fund Receipt Accounts include: Hazardous
Waste Permits; Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures; General Fund Interest;
Interest from Credit Reform Financing Accounts; Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies;
Fees and Other Charges for Administrative and Professional Services; and Miscellaneous
Recoveries and Refunds. These accounts are accounted for under Treasury fund groups
0895, 1099, 1435, 1499, 2753.3, 3200 and 3220, respectively.
/. Allocation of Budget Authority: EPA is an allocation budget transfer parent to five
federal agencies: Department of Interior, Department of Labor, Center for Disease Control,
Department of Commerce, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. EPA has an
Interagency Agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each child
agency to provide an annual work plan and quarterly progress report containing an
accounting of funds obligated in each budget category within 15 days after the end of each
quarter. This allows EPA to properly report the financial activity. The allocation transfers
are reported in the net cost of operations, changes in net position, balance sheet and
budgetary resources where activity is being performed by the receiving Federal entity. In
addition, EPA receives allocation transfers, as a child, from the Bureau of Land
Management.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 318
-------
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 re-registration and
reassessment of tolerances for pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by
law.
b. Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group
4311, was authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are paid by industry
for federal services to set pesticide chemical residue limits in or on food and animal feed.
The fees collected prior to January 2, 1997 were accounted for under this fund. Presently
these fees are being deposited in the FIFRA fund (see above).
c. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury
fund group 4322, Financing Account for loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan
collections on post-FY 1991 loans. Refer to General Fund Appropriations paragraph h. for
details.
d. Working Capital Fund (WCF): The WCF, Treasury fund group, 4565, includes four
activities: computer support services, financial system services, employee relocation
services, and postage. The WCF derives revenue from these activities based upon a fee for
services. The 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 of the financial statements.
Special Funds (Treasury Fund Group 5000 - 5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt
Account authorized by a 1990 act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (P.L. 101-549),"
Treasury fund group 5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with
environmental programs, including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training,
motor vehicle engine certifications, and water pollution permits. Receipts in this special
fund can only be appropriated to the S&T and EPM appropriations to meet the expenses of
the programs that generate the receipts as authorized by Congress in the agency's
appropriations bill.
b. Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a
1992 act, "Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389),"
Treasury fund group 5297, has funds available to carry out authorized environmental
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 319
-------
restoration activities. Funding is derived from the collection of reimbursements under the
Exxon Valdez settlement as a result of an oil spill.
c. Pesticide Registration Fund: The Pesticide Registration Fund authorized by a 2004
act, "Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)," Treasury fund group 5374, was
authorized in 2004 for the expedited processing of certain registration petitions and
associated establishment of tolerances for pesticides to be used in or on food and animal
feed. Fees covering these activities, as authorized under the FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be
paid by industry and deposited into this fund group.
Deposit Funds (Treasury Fund Group 6000 - 6999)
Deposits include: Fees for Ocean Dumping; Nonconformance Penalties; Clean Air
Allowance Auction and Sale; Advances without Orders; and Suspense and Payroll
Deposits for Savings Bonds, and State, City Income Taxes Withheld, and Other Federal
Payroll Withholding Allotments. These funds are accounted for under Treasury fund
groups 6264, 6265, 6266, 6500, 6050, 6275, and 6276, respectively.
Trust Funds (Treasury Fund Group 8000 - 8999)
a. Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145,
was established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and clean up
hazardous substance emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The
Superfund Trust Fund financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as
industry. The EPA allocates funds from its appropriation to other federal agencies to carry
out CERCLA. Risks to public health and the environment at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites qualifying for the Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) are reduced and addressed
through a process involving site assessment and analysis and the design and
implementation of cleanup remedies. NPL cleanups and removals are conducted and
financed by the EPA, private parties, or other federal agencies. The Superfund Trust Fund
includes Treasury's collections and investment activity.
b. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust Fund,
Treasury fund group 8153, was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990. The LUST appropriation provides funding to respond to releases from leaking
underground petroleum tanks. The Agency oversees cleanup and enforcement programs
which are implemented by the states. Funds are allocated to the states through cooperative
agreements to clean up those sites posing the greatest threat to human health and the
environment. Funds are used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes under
Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The program is financed by
a one cent a gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in 2011.
c. Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury fund
group 8221, was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies were
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 320
-------
appropriated to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for
directing, monitoring and providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response
activities. This involves setting oil prevention and response standards, initiating
enforcement actions for compliance with OPA and Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions when appropriate. The
Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills including research on
the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation. Funding for oil
spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of Transportation under the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other federal agencies.
d. Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds
Trust Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as
amended by (P.L. 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972), Treasury fund group 8741, includes gifts for pollution control programs that are
usually designated for a specific use by donors and/or deposits from pesticide registrants to
cover the costs of petition hearings when such hearings result in unfavorable decisions to
the petitioner.
C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
General Funds
Congress 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 in subsequent years after the loans
were disbursed.
Funds transferred from other federal agencies are funded by a non-expenditure transfer of
funds from the other federal agencies. As the Agency disburses the obligated amounts, the
balance of funding available to the appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov. 321
-------
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 and telecommunication services, financial system services, employee
relocation services, and postage.
Special Funds
The Environmental Services Receipt Account obtains fees associated with environmental
programs that will be appropriated to the S&T and EPM appropriations.
Exxon Valdez uses funding collected from reimbursement from the Exxon Valdez
settlement.
Deposit Funds
Deposit accounts receive no appropriated funds. Amounts are recorded to the deposit
accounts pending further disposition. These are not EPA's funds.
Trust Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropriation amount for the Superfund, LUST and the Oil
Spill Response Trust Funds to remain available until expended. A transfer account for the
Superfund and LUST Trust Fund has been established for purposes of carrying out the
program activities. As the Agency disburses obligated amounts from the transfer account,
the Agency draws down monies from the Superfund and LUST Trust Fund at Treasury to
cover the amounts being disbursed. The Agency draws down all the appropriated monies
from the Principal Fund of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund when Congress adopts the
appropriation amount.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 322
-------
D. Basis of Accounting
GAAP for Federal entities are the standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), which is the official standard-setting body for the
Federal government.
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.
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 in special accounts. Cost recovery settlements that are not placed in special
accounts continue to be deposited in the Trust Fund.
The majority of all other funds receive funding needed to support programs through
appropriations, which may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital
expenditures. However, under Credit Reform provisions, the Asbestos Loan Program
received funding to support the subsidy cost of loans through appropriations which may be
used within statutory limits. The Asbestos Direct Loan Financing fund 4322, an off-budget
fund, receives additional funding to support the outstanding loans through collections from
the Program fund 0118 for the subsidized portion of the loan. The last year Congress
provided appropriations to make new loans was 1993.
The FIFRA and Pesticide Registration funds receive funding through fees collected for
services provided and interest on invested funds. The WCF receives revenue through fees
collected for services provided to Agency program offices. Such revenue is eliminated
with related Agency program expenses upon consolidation of the Agency's financial
statements. The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund receives funding through reimbursements.
Appropriated funds are recognized as Other Financing Sources expended when goods and
services have been rendered without regard to payment of cash. Other revenues are
recognized when earned (i.e., when services have been rendered).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 323
-------
F. Funds with the Treasury
The Agency does not maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Cash receipts and
disbursements are handled by Treasury. The major funds maintained with Treasury are
Appropriated Funds, Revolving Funds, Trust Funds, Special Funds, Deposit Funds, and
Clearing Accounts. These funds have balances available to pay current liabilities and
finance authorized obligations, as applicable.
G. Investments in U.S. Government Securities
Investments in U.S. Government securities are maintained by Treasury and are reported at
amortized cost net of unamortized discounts. Discounts are amortized over the term of the
investments and reported as interest income. No provision is made for unrealized gains or
losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity (see
Note 4).
H. Notes Receivable
The Agency records notes receivable at their face value and any accrued interest as of the
date of receipt.
I. Marketable Securities
The Agency records marketable securities at cost as of the date of receipt. Marketable
securities are held by Treasury and reported at their cost value in the financial statements
until sold (see Note 4).
J. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable
The majority of receivables for non-Superfund funds represent penalties and interest
receivable for general fund receipt accounts, unbilled intragovernmental reimbursements
receivable, allocations receivable from Superfund (eliminated in consolidated totals), and
refunds receivable for the STAG appropriation.
Superfund accounts receivable represent recovery of costs from PRPs as provided under
CERCLA as amended by SARA. However, cost recovery expenditures are expensed when
incurred since there is no assurance that these funds will be recovered (see Note 5).
The Agency records accounts receivable from PRPs for Superfund site response costs
when a consent decree, judgment, administrative order, or settlement is entered. These
agreements are generally negotiated after site response costs have been incurred. It is the
Agency's position that until a consent decree or other form of settlement is obtained, the
amount recoverable should not be recorded.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 324
-------
The Agency also records accounts receivable from states for a percentage of Superfund site
remedial action costs incurred by the Agency within those states. As agreed to under SSCs,
cost sharing arrangements may vary according to whether a site was privately or publicly
operated at the time of hazardous substance disposal and whether the Agency response
action was removal or remedial. SSC agreements are usually for 10 percent or 50 percent
of site remedial action costs, depending on who has the lead for the site (i.e., publicly or
privately owned). States may pay the full amount of their share in advance or
incrementally throughout the remedial action process.
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 contract 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 contract property; detailed records are
maintained and accounted for in contractor systems, not in FAS. All EPA-held personal
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 325
-------
property purchased before the implementation of FAS was assumed to have an estimated
useful life of 5 years. New acquisitions of EPA-held personal property are depreciated
using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life, ranging from 2 to 15
years.
Personal property also consists of capital leases. To be defined as a capital lease, it must,
at its inception, have a lease term of two or more years and the lower of the fair value or
present value of the minimum lease payments must be $75 thousand or more. Capital
leases may also contain real property (therefore considered in the real property category as
well), but these need to meet an $85 thousand capitalization threshold. In addition, the
lease must meet one of the following criteria: transfers ownership to EPA, contains a
bargain purchase option, the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the estimated
service life, or the present value of the lease and other minimum lease payments equal or
exceed 90 percent of the fair value.
Superfund contract property used as part of the remedy for site-specific response actions is
capitalized in accordance with the Agency's capitalization threshold. This property is part
of the remedy at the site and eventually becomes part of the site itself. Once the response
action has been completed and the remedy implemented, EPA retains control of the
property (i.e., pump and treat facility) for 10 years or less, and transfers its interest in the
facility to the respective state for mandatory operation and maintenance - usually 20 years
or more. Consistent with EPA's 10 year retention period, depreciation for this property is
based on a 10 year life. However, if any property is transferred to a state in a year or less,
this property is charged to expense. If any property is sold prior to EPA relinquishing
interest, the proceeds from the sale of that property shall be applied against contract
payments or refunded as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
An exception to the accounting of contract property includes equipment purchased by the
Working Capital Fund (WCF). This property is retained in FAS and depreciated utilizing
the straight-line method based upon the asset's acquisition date and useful life.
Real property consists of land, buildings, capital and leasehold improvements, as well as
capital leases. Real property, other than land, is capitalized when the value is $85 thousand
or more. Land is capitalized regardless of cost. Buildings were valued at an estimated
original cost basis, and land was valued at fair market value if purchased prior to FY 1997.
Real property purchased during and after FY 1997 is valued at actual cost. Depreciation for
real property is calculated using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful
life, ranging from 10 to 102 years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser
of their useful life or the unexpired lease term. Additions to property and improvements
not meeting the capitalization criteria, expenditures for minor alterations, and repairs and
maintenance are expensed as incurred.
Software for the WCF, a revenue generating activity, is capitalized if the purchase price
was $100 thousand or more with an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. All other
funds capitalize software if those investments are considered Capital Planning and
Investment Control (CPIC) or CPIC Lite systems with the provisions of SFFAS No. 10,
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 326
-------
"Accounting for Internal Use Software." Once software enters the production life cycle
phase, it is depreciated using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life
ranging from 2 to 10 years.
O. Liabilities
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by
the Agency as the result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no
liability can be paid by the Agency without an appropriation or other collections.
Liabilities for which an appropriation has not been enacted are classified as unfunded
liabilities and there is no certainty that the appropriations will be enacted. Liabilities of the
Agency arising from other than contracts can be abrogated by the Government acting in its
sovereign capacity.
P. Borrowing Payable to the Treasury
Borrowing payable to Treasury results from loans from Treasury to fund the Asbestos
direct loans described in part B. and C. of this note. Periodic principal payments are made
to Treasury based on the collections of loans receivable.
Q. Interest Payable to Treasury
The Asbestos Loan Program makes periodic interest payments to Treasury based on its
debt. At the end of FY 2007 and FY 2008, there was no outstanding interest payable to
Treasury since payment was made through September 30.
R. Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Annual, sick and other leave is expensed as taken during the fiscal year. Sick leave earned
but not taken is not accrued as a liability. Annual leave earned but not taken as of the end
of the fiscal year is accrued as an unfunded liability. Accrued unfunded annual leave is
included in Note 35 as a component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable."
S. Retirement Plan
There are two primary retirement systems for federal employees. Employees hired prior to
January 1, 1987, may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On
January 1, 1984, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect
pursuant to Public Law 99-335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are
automatically covered by FERS and Social Security. Employees hired prior to January 1,
1984, elected to either join FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS. 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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 327
-------
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal
Government," accounting and reporting standards were established for liabilities relating to
the federal employee benefit programs (Retirement, Health Benefits, and Life Insurance).
SFFAS No. 5 requires that the employing agencies recognize the cost of pensions and
other retirement benefits during their employees' active years of service. SFFAS No. 5
requires that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as administrator of the CSRS
and FERS, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Federal Employees
Group Life Insurance Program, provide federal agencies with the actuarial cost factors to
compute the liability for each program.
T. Prior Period Adjustments
Prior period adjustments will be made in accordance with SFFAS No. 21, "Reporting
Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles." Specifically, prior period
adjustments will only be made for material prior period errors to: (1) the current period
financial statements, and (2) the prior period financial statements presented for
comparison. Adjustments related to changes in accounting principles will only be made to
the current period financial statements, but not to prior period financial statements
presented for comparison.
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, consist of the following:
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill &Msc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFR/VTolerance
\Aforking Capital
Cr. Reform Rnan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
FY2008
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
$
$
45,596$
12,712
3,637
2,371
65,080
399
9,237,455
229,038
9,596,288 $
-$ 45,596 $
12,712
3,637
2,371
65,080
399
9,237,455
9,068 238,106
9,068 $ 9,605,356 $
FY2007
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
51,081 $
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
205,693
10,457,960 $
-$ 51,081
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
8,640 214,333
8,640 $ 10,466,600
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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
328
-------
accounts and deposit funds, which are either awaiting documentation for the determination
of proper disposition or being held by EPA for other entities.
FY 2008 FY 2007
Status of Fund Balances:
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances
Available for Obligation $3,204,800 $3,274,338
Unavailable for Obligation 339,319 267,042
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,861,933) (2,527,186)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 18) 397 14,394
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 8,701,838 9,240,417
Non-Budgetary FBWT 220,935 197,595
Totals $9,605,356 $10,466,600
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 2008 and FY 2007 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's
statements for fund balances with Treasury.
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
For September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, cash consists of an imprest fund of $10
thousand.
Note 4. Investments
For September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 investments related to Superfund and
LUST consist of the following:
Cost
Amortized
(Premium)
Discount
Interest
Receivable
Investments,
Net
Market
Value
Intragovernmental
Non-Marketable FY2008 $ 6,057,258 $ (77,301)$ 40,269 $ 6,174,828 $ 6,174,828
Non-Marketable FY2007 $ 5,680,321 $ (29,431)$ 43,259 $ 5,753,061 $ 5,753,061
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund
sites from responsible parties (RPs). 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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 329
-------
convert them to cash as soon as practicable (see Note 6). All investments in Treasury
securities are earmarked funds (see Note 20).
The Federal Government does not set aside assets to pay future benefits or other
expenditures associated with earmarked funds. The cash receipts collected from the public
for an earmarked fund are deposited in the U.S. Treasury, which uses the cash for general
Government purposes. Treasury securities are issued to EPA as evidence of its receipts.
Treasury securities are an asset to EPA and a liability to the U.S. Treasury. Because EPA
and the U.S. Treasury are both parts of the Government, these assets and liabilities offset
each other from the standpoint of the Government as a whole. For this reason, they do not
represent an asset or liability in the U.S. Government-wide financial statements.
Treasury securities provide EPA with authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury to make
future benefit payments or other expenditures. When EPA requires redemption of these
securities to make expenditures, the Government finances those expenditures out of
accumulated cash balances, by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the
public or repaying less debt, or by curtailing other expenditures. This is the same way that
the Government finances all other expenditures.
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 consist of the
following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable $ 34,636 $ 57,039
Total $ 34,636 $ 57,039
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable $ 113,359 $ 136,779
Accounts & Interest Receivable 1,188,670 992,575
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles (952,290) (770,052)
Total $ 349,739 $ 359,302
The Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts is determined both on a specific identification
basis, as a result of a case-by-case review of receivables, and on a percentage basis for
receivables not specifically identified.
Note 6. Other Assets
Other Assets for September 30, 2008 and 2007 consist of the following:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 330
-------
FY 2008
FY 2007
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies $ 107,327 $ 80,940
Advances for Postage 106 129
Total Intragovernmental Assets $ 107,433 $ 81,069
135 $
88
-
2,934
159
339
-
3,655 $
106
9
116
3,699
160
246
238
4,574
Non-Federal Assets:
Travel Advances $
Letter of Credit Advances
Grant Advances
Other Advances
Operating Materials and Supplies
Inventory for Sale
Securities Received in Settlement of Debt
Total Non-Federal Assets $
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, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:
FY 2008
FY 2007
Direct Loans
Obligated Prior
to FY 1992
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
4,327 $
Allowance*
Value of
Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
Allowance*
4,327 $
7,435 $
Value of
Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
7,435
Direct Loans
Obligated After
FY1991
14,513
(1,752)
12,761
18,440
(2,714)
Total $ 18,840 $ (1,752) $ 17,088 $ 25,875 $ (2,714) $
15,726
23,161
* Allowance for Pre-Credit Reform loans (prior to FY 1992) is the Allowance for
Estimated Uncollectible Loans, and the Allowance for Post Credit Reform Loans (after FY
1991) is the Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
331
-------
The Agency has permanent indefinite borrowing authority to replenish the Asbestos Loan
account. During FY 2008, EPA calculated an Upward Subsidy Reestimate of $33
thousand to utilize this replenishment. Budget authority was recorded and funds were
expended for this. However, as of September 30, 2008 EPA had not received from OMB
the apportionment authorizing this expenditure. The Agency is working with OMB and
Legal Counsel to determine if this is an Anti-Deficiency situation since it has indefinite
borrowing authority. During this review process, the EPA does not expect to receive the
authorizing Apportionment Letter, and the Upward Subsidy Reestimate is unfunded as of
September 30, 2008.
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
Interest
Rate Re-
estimate
Technical
Re-estimate
estimate
Total
U pward Subsidy Reestimate-FY 2008 $ 21 $ 12 $ 33
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2008 $ (22) $ (12) $ (34)
FY 2008 Totals $ (1)$ $ (1)
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2007 $ (17) $ (12) $ (29)
FY 2007 Totals $ (17)$ (12)$ (29)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 332
-------
Schedule for Reconciling Subsidy Cost Allowance Balances
(Post-1991 Direct Loans)
FY 2008
Beginning balance of the subsidy cost allowance
Add: subsidy expense for direct loans disbursed during the
reporting years by component:
(a) Interest rate differential costs
(b) Default costs (net of recoveries)
(c) Fees and other collections
(d) Other subsidy costs
Total of the above subsidy expense components
($2,714)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FY 2007
($3,882)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Adjustments:
(a) Loan Modification:
(b) Fees received
(c) Foreclosed property acquired
(d) Loans written off
(e) Subsidy allowance amortization
(f) Other
Ending balance of the subsidy cost allowance before reestimates
Add or subtract subsidy reestimates by component:
(a) interest rate reestimate
(b) Technical/default reestimate
Total of the above reestimate components
Ending Balance of the subsidy cost allowance
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
981.00
0.00
981.00
(21.00)
2.00
(19.00)
($1,752)
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1,167.00
0.00
1,168.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
($2,714)
1/ There is an immaterial difference that will be researched in FY 2009.
EPA has not disbursed Direct Loans since 1993.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
333
-------
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, 2008 and 2007.
FY 2008
2,811 $
-
77,844
80,655 $
FY 2008
114,712 $
24
7
413,981
184,871
713,595 $
FY 2007
2,611
19,878
99,718
122,207
FY 2007
114,082
16
7
601,034
196,861
912,000
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 Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E)
General property, plant, and equipment consist of software, real property, EPA and
Contractor-Held personal property, and capital leases.
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, General Property, Plant, and Equipment consist of the
following:
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total
FY 2008
Acquisition Accumulated Net Book
Value Depreciation Value
238,051 $
307,883
63,132
595,597
47,505
1,252,168$
(130,045) $
(93,925)
(28,417)
(154,986)
(30,542)
(437,915) $
108,006$
213,958
34,715
440,61 1
16,963
814,253 $
FY 2007
Acquisition Accumulated
Value Depreciation
222,848 $
258,637
64,641
579,880
47,505
1,173,511 $
(119,605)$
(49,407)
(23,486)
(143,594)
(27,546)
(363,638) $
Net Book
Value
103,243
209,230
41,155
436,286
19,959
809,873
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
334
-------
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
The debt due to Treasury consists of borrowings to finance the asbestos loan program. The
debt to Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:
All CHher Funds FY2008 FY2007
Beginning Net Ending Beginning Net Ending
Balance Borrowing Balance Balance Borro/ving Balance
Intragovernmental:
Debt to Treasury $ 16,156$ (2,998)$ 13,158$ 18,896$ (2,740)$ 16,156
Note 11. Stewardship Land
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in
Section 104 (J) CERCLA related to remedial clean-up sites. The land rights are in the
form of easements to allow access to clean-up sites or to restrict usage of remediated sites.
In some instances, the Agency takes title to the land during remediation and returns it to
private ownership upon the completion of clean-up. A site with "land acquired" may have
more than one acquisition property. Sites are not counted as a withdrawal until all
acquired properties have been transferred.
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, the Agency possesses the following land and land
rights:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Superfund Sites with
Easements
Beginning Balance 33 32
Additions 1 2
Withdrawals 2_ 1_
Ending Balance 32 33
Superfund Sites with
Land Acquired
Beginning Balance 32 31
Additions 2 1
Withdrawals 3
Ending Balance 31 32
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 335
-------
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Custodial Liability represents the amount of net accounts receivable that, when collected,
will be deposited to the Treasury General Fund. Included in the custodial liability are
amounts for fines and penalties, interest assessments, repayments of loans, and
miscellaneous other accounts receivable. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, custodial
liability is $48 million and $39 million, respectively.
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2008:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes $
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental $
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal $
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal $
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
17,125
3,166
14,489
41,586
1,089
3
5
77,088
8,810
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
77.463 $
9,914
22,000
31.914 $
230
29,520
Total
17,125
3,166
14,489
41,586
1,089
3
5
9,914
22,000
109.377
77,088
8,810
230
29,520
85.898 $
29.750 $
115.648
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
336
-------
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2007:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes $
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental $
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
9,102
22,000
67.258 $.
31.102 $.
$
72,671
8,453
230
32,385
81.124 $.
32.615 $.
Total
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
9,102
22,000
98.360
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal $
Note 14. Leases
Capital Leases:
The Capital Leases:
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 a base rental charge and escalator clauses
based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs
are adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The real property leases
terminate in FYs 2010, 2013, and 2025.
72,671
8,453
230
32,385
113.739
FY 2008
FY 2007
$
$
$
40,913
155
6,437
47,505
30,542
$
$
$
40,913
155
6,437
47,505
27,546
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov.
337
-------
EPA has a capital lease expended out of the Working Capital Fund for a Microsoft Office
Software Suite. This lease will terminate in FY 2009.
During FY 2005, EPA entered into a capital lease for a Storage Area Network. The lease
terminates in FY 2009, and payments are expended from the EPM appropriation.
The total future minimum capital lease payments are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
Fiscal Year Capital Leases
2009 $ 6,295
2010 6,102
2011 5,714
2012 5,714
After 5 Years 53,487
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 77,312
Less: Imputed Interest (47,792)
Net Capital Lease Liability $ 29,520
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources
(See Note 13) $ 29,520
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 four current direct operating leases for land and buildings housing scientific
laboratories and/or computer facilities. The leases include a base rental charge and
escalator clauses based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base
operating costs are adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The leases expire in FY 2009, FY2010, 2017,
and 2020. These charges are expended from the EPM appropriation.
The total minimum future operating lease costs are listed below.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 338
-------
Operating Leases,
Land and Buildings
Fiscal Year
2009 $ 112
2010 97
2011 89
2012 89
Beyond 2012 600
Payments $ 987
Note 15. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost
protection to covered Federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have
incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose death
is attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease. Annually, EPA is allocated
the portion of the long term FECA actuarial liability attributable to the entity. The liability
is calculated to estimate the expected liability for death, disability, medical and
miscellaneous costs for approved compensation cases. The liability amounts and the
calculation methodologies are provided by the Department of Labor.
The FECA Actuarial Liability at September 30, 2008 and 2007, consists of the following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
FECA Actuarial Liability $ 44,615 $ 39,786
The FY 2008 present value of these estimated outflows is calculated using a discount rate
of 4.368 percent in the first year, and 4.770 percent in the years thereafter. The estimated
future costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.
Note 16. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
Superfund site. Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are
placed in site-specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used
for potential future work at such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement. Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take
responsibility for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance response
actions in lieu of EPA without further appropriation by Congress. As of September 30,
2008 and 2007, cashouts are $287 million and $190 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 339
-------
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the
following:
Unexpended Appropriations: FY 2008 FY 2007
Unobligated
Available $ 1,520,587 $ 1,791,873
Unavailable 94,130 81,753
Undelivered Orders 7,059,994 7,476,965
Total $ 8,674,711 $ 9,350,591
Note 18. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consist of amounts held in
trusteeship by Treasury in the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds.
Superfund (Unaudited)
Superfund is supported primarily by general revenues, cost recoveries of funds spent to
clean up hazardous waste sites, interest income, and fines and penalties.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September
30, 2008 and 2007. The amounts contained in these notes have been provided by Treasury.
As indicated, a portion of the outlays represents amounts received by EPA's Superfund
Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the Superfund Trust Fund
maintained by Treasury.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 340
-------
SUPERFUND FY 2008
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfer from CDC (recovery)
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
Treasury
Combined
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
.
2,749,821
2,749,821
2,749,821
2,749,821
-
-
-
1,301,315
1,301,315
1,301,315
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,894
2,894
11,533
164,878
179,305
179,305
179,305
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
1,192,139
(1,301,315)
1,905
(1,299,410)
(107,271)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,894
2,894
11,533
2,914,699
2,929,126
2,929,126
2,929,126
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
1,192,139
1,905
1,905
1,194,044
In FY 2008, the EPA received an appropriation of $985 million for Superfund. 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, 2008 and 2007, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability
to EPA for previously appropriated funds of $2,749.9 million and $2,466.8 million,
respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
341
-------
SUPERFUNDFY2007
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfers from CDC (recovery)
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
Treasury Combined
- $
1,538 $
1,538
2,466,812
1,538
12,795
272,244
1,538
12,795
2,739,056
$ 2,466,812 $ 286,577 $ 2,753,389
$
$
$
$
2,466,812 $
2,466,812 $
- $
-
-
-
-
-
- $
286
286
2
234
1
237
1,040
141
1,419
,577
,577
,602
,050
,063
,715
,371
,407
,493
$
$
$
$
2
2
1
1
,753
,753
2
234
1
237
,040
141
,389
,389
,602
,050
,063
,715
,371
,407
,419,493
$
$
1,316,114 $
- $
(1,316,114)$
1,370 $
1,370
1,316,114 (1,314,744)
1,370
$ 1,316,114 $ 104,749 $ 1,420,863
LUST (Unaudited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In
FYs 2008 and 2007 there were no fund receipts from cost recoveries. The following
represents the LUST Trust Fund as maintained by Treasury. The amounts contained in
these notes have been provided by Treasury. Outlays represent appropriations received by
EPA's LUST Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUST Trust
Fund maintained by Treasury.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
342
-------
LUST FY 2008
EPA
Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
$
- $
112,068
$ 112,068$
$
$'
112,068$
112,068$
- $
- $
105,816$
105,816
105,816$
(2,497) $
(2,497)
28,735
3,099,871
3,126,109$
3,126,109$'
(105,816)$
(105,816)
(2,497)
(2,497)
28,735
3,211,939
3,126,109$ 3,238,177
3,238,177
3,238,177
154,309$
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
154,309
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
298,108$ 298,108
192,292$ 298,108
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo(8>epa. gov.
343
-------
LUSTFY2007 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance $
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets $
Liabilities & Equity
Equity $
Equity $
Receipts
Highway TF Tax $
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel
Refund Aviation Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts $
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net $
Total Outlays
Net Income $
- $ 12,856$
12,856
30,465
80,252 2,890,497
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
80,252$ 2,933,818$
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
- $ 204,272$
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
- $ 343,773$
72,035 $ (72,035) $
72,035 (72,035)
72,035 $ 271,738 $
12,856
12,856
30,465
2,970,749
3,014,070
3,014,070
3,014,070
204,272
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
343,773
-
-
343,773
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions and claims
brought by or against it. These include:
• Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by
employees and others.
• Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by
vendors, grantees and others.
• The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific
sites, to include the collection of fines and penalties from responsible parties.
• Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be
settled by a reduction of future EPA funding to the grantee or the provision of
additional grantee matching funds.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 344
-------
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, 2008, there are currently two CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative
claims. If the claimants are successful, the total losses on the claims could amount to
approximately $3.3 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. One claimant's chance of success is characterized
as reasonably possible and one ($2.5 million) is characterized as remote chance of success.
Judgment Fund:
In cases that are paid by the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund, EPA must recognize the full
cost of a claim regardless of which entity 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, 2008, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury's
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.
Other Commitments:
EPA has a legal commitment under a non-cancellable agreement with the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP). This agreement enables EPA to provide funding to the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Future payments
totaling $9.5 million are scheduled to be processed in FY 2009 and FY 2010.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 345
-------
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2008
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period
Ended September 30, 2008
Gross Program Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period
Ended September 30, 2008
Net Position, Beginning of Period
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion
Net Position End of Period
Environmental
Services
211,282 $
211,282 $
- $
- $
211,282 $
211,282 $
- $
- $
188,371 $
22,911
22,911 $
LUST
12,711
3,240,674
27
72
3,253,484
8,988
8,988
3,244,496
3,253,484
77,702
32
77,670
3,023,769
127,346
170,762
289
(77,670)
220,727
211,282 $
3,244,496
Superfund
45,596 $
2,926,233
317,773
89,409
3,379,011 $
624,299 $
624,299 $
2,754,712 $
3,379,011 $
1,530,979 $
502,177
1,028,802 $
Other
Earmarked
Funds
Total
Earmarked
Funds
2,670,425 $
114,340
10,442
969,606
18,701
(1,028,802)
84,287" $
2,754,712" $
23,765 $ 293,354
7,921 6,174,828
4,404 322,204
2,487 91,968
38,577 $ 6,882,354
36,588 $
36,588 $
20,859 $
3,662 $
187
17,056
1,943
(20,859)
(1,673) $
669,875
669,875
1,989 $ 6,212,479
38,577 $ 6,882,354
73,284 $ 1,681,965
52,425 554,634
1,127,331
5,886,227
241,873
204,115
986,662
20,933
(1,127,331)
326,252"
1,989 $ 6,212,479
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
346
-------
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2007
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Environmental
Services
LUST
Superfund
Other
Earmarked
Funds
Total
Earmarked
Funds
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Gross Programs Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
76,242 $
(1.414)
1,497,010
377,904
72,308
53,646
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Net Position, Beginning of Period $
Changes in Accounting Principle (Alloc Trans Agency) (Note 38)
Beginning Balance as Adjusted
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue - Other
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion $
Net Position End ofPenod $
165,723 $
165,723
-
22,648
-
-
22,648 $
2,757,325 $
2,757,325
117,579
226,194
-
327
(77,656)
266,444 $
2,606,400 $
20,900
2,627,300
141,407
2,721
998,952
19,151
(1,119,106)
43,125 $
3,577 $
-
3,577
-
585
15,733
2,429
(18,662)
85 $
5,533,025
20,900
5,553,925
258,986
252,148
1,014,685
21,907
(1,215,424)
332,302
188,371 $
3,023,769 $
2,670,425 $
3,662 $
5,886,227
Earmarked funds are as follows:
Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt Account
authorized by a 1990 act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (P.L. 101-549)," Treasury fund
group 5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with environmental
programs, including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training, motor vehicle
engine certifications, and water pollution permits. Receipts in this special fund can only be
appropriated to the S&T and EPM appropriations to meet the expenses of the programs
that generate the receipts as authorized by Congress in the Agency's appropriations bill.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust Fund,
Treasury fund group 8153, was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990. The LUST appropriation provides funding to respond to releases from
leaking underground petroleum tanks. The Agency oversees cleanup and enforcement
programs which are implemented by the states. Funds are allocated to the states through
cooperative agreements to clean up those sites posing the greatest threat to human health
and the environment. Funds are used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
347
-------
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The program is
financed by a one cent per gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in 2011.
Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145,
was established by CERCLA to provide resources to respond to and clean up hazardous
substance emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund
Trust Fund financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The
EPA allocates funds from its appropriation to other Federal agencies to carry out
CERCLA. Risks to public health and the environment at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites qualifying for the Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) are reduced and addressed
through a process involving site assessment and analysis and the design and
implementation of cleanup remedies. NPL cleanups and removals are conducted and
financed by the EPA, private parties, or other Federal agencies. The Superfund Trust Fund
includes Treasury's collections, special account receipts from settlement agreements, and
investment activity.
Other Earmarked Funds:
Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury fund group
8221, was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies were appropriated
to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for directing,
monitoring and providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities.
This involves setting oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions
for compliance with OPA and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements,
and directing response actions when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to
improve response actions to oil spills including research on the use of remediation
techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation. Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is
provided through the Department of Transportation under the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund and reimbursable funding from other Federal agencies.
Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds
Trust Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as
amended P.L. 92-500 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972),
Treasury fund group 8741, includes gifts for pollution control programs that are usually
designated for a specific use by donors and/or deposits from pesticide registrants to cover
the costs of petition hearings when such hearings result in unfavorable decisions to the
petitioner.
Pesticide Registration Fund: The Pesticide Registration Fund authorized by a 2004 Act,
"Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)," Treasury fund group 5374, was
authorized in 2004 for the expedited processing of certain registration petitions and
associated establishment of tolerances for pesticides to be used in or on food and animal
feed. Fees covering these activities, as authorized under the FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be
paid by industry and deposited into this fund group.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 348
-------
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 reregi strati on and
reassessment of tolerances for pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by
law.
Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group 4311,
was authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are paid by industry for
Federal services to set pesticide chemical residue limits in or on food and animal feed. The
fees collected prior to January 2, 1997 were accounted for under this fund. Presently these
fees are being deposited in the FIFRA fund.
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992
Act, "Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389),"
Treasury fund group 5297, has funds available to carry out authorized environmental
restoration activities. Funding is derived from the collection of reimbursements under the
Exxon Valdez settlement as a result of an oil spill.
Note 21. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Exchange revenues on the Statement of Net Cost include income from services provided,
interest revenue (with the exception of interest earned on trust fund investments), and
miscellaneous earned revenue. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, exchange revenues
are $634 million and $550 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 349
-------
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
Clean Air
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Clean & Safe Water
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Land Preservation &
Restoration
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Healthy Communities &
Ecosystems
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Total
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
FY 2008
Intragovern-
mental
$
$
$
$
181,467
18,360
163,107
162,679
7,615
155,064
With the
Public
$ 816,336 $
2,043
$ 814,293 $
3,334,953 $
2,841
$ 3,332,112 $
TOTAL
997,803
20,403
977,400
3,497,632
10,456
3,487,176
FY 2007
Intragovern
mental
185,389 $
15,594
With the
Public
TOTAL
818,753 $ 1,004,142
2,997 18,591
$ 169,795 $ 815,756 $ 985,551
180,571 $ 3,868,428 $ 4,048,999
11,016 2,262 13,278
347,011
73,829
$ 1,654,205 $
460,055
2,001,216
533,884
$ 169,555 $ 3,866,166 $ 4,035,721
396,786 $ 1,607,952 $ 2,004,738
101,036 352,963 453,999
273,182 $ 1,194,150 $ 1,467,332 $ 295,750 $ 1,254,989 $ 1,550,739
281,767
22,710
$ 1,126,764 $
39,407
1,408,531
62,117
275,068 $ 1,144,793 $ 1,419,861
18,450 38,902 57,352
259,057 $ 1,087,357 $ 1,346,414 $ 256,618 $ 1,105,891 $ 1,362,509
176,376
5,540
593,853 $
1,801
770,229
7,341
182,101
5,613
603,463 $
1,265
170,836 $ 592,052 $ 762,888 $ 176,488 $
785,564
6,878
602,198 $ 778,686
$ 1,149,300
128,054
$ 1,021,246 $ 7,019,964 $ 8,041,210 $ 1,068,206 $ 7,645,000 $ 8,713,206
7,526,111 $ 8,675,411 $ 1,219,915 $ 8,043,389 $ 9,263,304
506,147 634,201 151,709 398,389 550,098
Intragovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification
of the related revenue.
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship Land
The costs related to the acquisition of stewardship land was approximately $2 million in
FY 2008 and less than $150 thousand in FY 2007. These costs are included in the
Statement of Net Cost.
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30, 2008, EPA has six sites that require clean up stemming from its
activities. Costs amounting to $269 thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment
Fund. Two claimants' chance of success are characterized as probable and three as
reasonably possible. Additionally, EPA has one site ($80 thousand) characterized as
having a 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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: oc/b/'nfo@epa. qov.
350
-------
Agency could potentially be liable for a portion of the cleanup costs. However, it is
expected that the Department of Defense and General Services Administration will bear all
or most of the cost of remediation. In addition, EPA has two sites that have an unfunded
environmental liability of $230 thousand.
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has 16 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure.
The estimated costs will be approximately $19 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 2008 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs increased by $1.2 million from the FY
2007 estimate.
Note 25. State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related Federal regulations requires
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 it 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, 2008, the total remaining state
credits have been estimated at $15.3 million. The estimated ending credit balance on
September 30, 2007 was $14.5 million.
Note 26. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Under Superfund preauthorized mixed funding agreements, PRPs agree to perform
response actions at their sites with the understanding that EPA will reimburse them 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, 2008,
EPA had 14 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 351
-------
$25 million. A liability is not recognized for these amounts until all work has been
performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for payment. Further, EPA will not
disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's application, claim, and claims
adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
FY 2008
FY 2007
120,657 $
$
$
220,123 $
(171,966)
48,157 $
196,590
(156,401)
40,189
Note 2 7. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other
Miscellaneous Receipts:
Accounts Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
Total
EPA uses the accrual basis of accounting for the collection of fines, penalties and
miscellaneous receipts. Collectibility by EPA of the fines and penalties is based on the
RPs' willingness and ability to pay.
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred and outlays, as presented in the audited
FY 2008 Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in
the FY 2009 Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The
Budget of the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2008 has not yet been
published. We expect it will be published by March 2009, and it will be available on the
OMB website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. The actual amounts published for the year
ended September 30, 2007 are included in EPA's FY 2008 financial statement disclosures.
89,330
FY 2007
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Adjustments to Undelivered Orders and
Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S.
Government
Budgetary
Resources
"$ 13,058,309
3,780
(264,384)
(1,705)
Obligations
9,516,922
1,679
(1,520)
(1,081)
Offsetting
Receipts
1,307,458
Net Outlays
9,564,449
(458)
(1,449)
$ 12,796,000 $ 9,516,000 $ 1,307,000 $ 9,563,000
* 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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
352
-------
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations, Temporarily Not Available, and Permanently Not
Available on the Statement of Budgetary Resources consist of the following amounts:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations-
downward adjustments of prior years'
obligations $ 281,117 $ 387,621
Temporarily Not Available-rescinded authority (6,366) -_
Permanently Not Available:
Payments to Treasury (3,032) (2,769)
Rescinded authority (117,284)
Canceled authority (5,210) (4,564)
Total Permanently Not Available $ (125,526) $ (7,333)
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
The unobligated balances available consist of the following as of September 30, 2008 and
2007. Unobligated balances are a combination of two lines on the Statement of Budgetary
Resources: Apportioned, Unobligated Balances and Unobligated Balances Not Available.
Unexpired unobligated balances are available to be apportioned by the OMB for new
obligations at the beginning of the following fiscal year. The expired unobligated balances
are only available for upward adjustments of existing obligations.
FY 2008 FY 2007
Unexpired Unobligated Balance $ 3,205,306 $ 3,279,240
Expired Unobligated Balance 346,574 262,147
Total $ 3,551,880 $ 3,541,387
Note 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of the September 30, 2008
and 2007 are as follows:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Undelivered Orders $ 8,427,344 $ 8,714,675
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 353
-------
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund
receipt accounts offset gross outlays. For FYs 2008 and 2007, the following receipts were
generated from these activities:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Trust Fund Recoveries $ 89,995 $ 234,171
Special Fund Environmental Service 22,911 22,648
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies - 29
Trust Fund Appropriation 984,974 1,040,372
Special Fund Receipt Account and Treasury
Miscellaneous Receipts and Clearing Accounts 20,549 10,238
Total $ 1,118,429 $ 1,307,458
Note 33. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2008 and 2007, the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources
on the Statement of Changes in Net Position are comprised of nonexpenditure transfers
that affect Unexpended Appropriations for non-invested appropriations. These amounts
are included in the Budget Authority, Net Transfers and Prior Year Unobligated Balance,
Net Transfers lines on the Statement of Budgetary Resources. Detail of the Appropriation
Transfers on the Statement of Changes in Net Position and reconciliation with the
Statement of Budgetary Resources follow:
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
Fund/Type of Account FY 2008 FY 2007
U.S. Navy $ (7,875) $
Total Appropriation Transfers (Other Funds) $ (7,875)
Net Transfers from Invested Funds 1,389,902 1,344,610
Transfer to Another Agency (7,875)
Allocations Rescinded 5,940 -
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
Budgetary Resources $ 1,387,967$ 1,344,610
For FYs 2008 and 2007, 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:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 354
-------
Type of Transfer/Funds
FY 2008
FY 2007
Transfers-in (out)
nonexpenditure, Earmark to
S&T and OIG funds $
Transfer-in nonexpenditure
recovery from CDC
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure,
Oil Spill
Transfer-in (out) cancelled
funds
Adjustment from Prior Year
Total Transfers in (out)
without Reimbursement,
Budgetary $
Earmark
(37,204) $
1,905
17,056
53
(18,190) $
Other
Funds Earmark
37,204 $ (43,491) $
1,370
15,734
(53)
701
37,151 $ (25,686) $
Other
Funds
43,491
-
-
43,491
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2008 and 2007, 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
Transfers-in by allocation transfer
agency $
Transfers-in property
Transfers (out) of prior year negative
subsidy to be paid following year
Total Transfers in (out) without
Reimbursement, Budgetary $
FY 2008
FY 2007
Earmark
Other Funds
Earmark
- $
- $
39 $
28
- $
28 $
39$
Other Funds
530
(5)
525
Note 34. Imputed Financing Sources
In accordance with SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
Federal agencies must recognize the portion of employees' pensions and other retirement
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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov.
355
-------
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 2008 were $130.1 million
($20.9 million from Earmark funds, and $109.2 million from Other Funds). For FY 2007,
the estimates were $133.3 million ($21.9 million from Earmark Funds, and $111.4 million
from Other Funds).
In addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records
imputed costs and financing for Treasury Judgment Fund payments made on behalf of the
Agency. Entries are made in accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 2, "Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions." For
FY 2008 entries for Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.4 million (Other Funds). For FY
2007, entries for Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.3 million (Other Funds).
The combined total of imputed financing costs for FY 2008 is $132.5 million and in FY
2007 was $135.6 million.
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2008
and 2007, consist of the following:
FY 2008 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
Covered by Not Covered
Budgetary by Budgetary
Resources Resources
46,966 $
30,659
2,670
80,295 $
Total
-
-
-
152,663
152,663
$
$
46,966
30,659
2,670
152,663
232,958
FY 2007 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
30
29
2
62
,957
,297
,101
-
,355
$
$
142
142
-
-
-
,843
,843
$
$
30
29
2
142
205
,957
,297
,101
,843
,198
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. gov.
356
-------
Note 36. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Other Adjustments under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes
in Net Position consist of rescissions to appropriated funds and cancellation of funds that
expired 5 years earlier. These amounts affect Unexpended Appropriations.
Other Funds Other Funds
FY2008 FY 2007
Rescissions to General
Appropriations $ 117,284 $
Canceled General Authority 5,157 4,561
Total Other Adjustments $ 122,441 $ 4^561"
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in
Net Position for FYs 2008 and 2007 consists of the following items:
Earmark Funds Earmark Funds
FY 2008 FY 2007
Investments $ 241,873 $ 258,986
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds 170,762 228,796
Fines and Penalties Revenue 10,442 704
Special Receipt Fund Revenue 22,911 22,648
Revenue $ 445,988 $ 511,134
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Beginning in FY 2007, the agency that transfers budget authority to another Federal entity
must report all budgetary and proprietary activity related to these transfers in its financial
statements. The cumulative effect of this activity is reported as a "Change in Accounting
Principle" on the Statement of Net Position ($20.9 million - Earmark Funds) and as an
"Adjustment to Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward" and an "Adjustment to Unpaid
Obligations, Brought Forward" on the Statement of Budgetary Resources. There was no
adjustment necessary for FY 2008.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 357
-------
Statement of Budgetary Resources
FY 2007
Beginning Balance:
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward October 1 $ 3,247,087
Adjustment of Unobligated Balance (Allocation Transfer Agencies) 15,527
Adjusted Total Beginning Balance $ 3,262,614
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the Statement of
Financing)
FY 2008 FY 2007
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred $ 9,656,040 $ 9,516,922
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries (1,142,189) (963,361)
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections $ 8,513,851 $ 8,553,561
Less: Offsetting Receipts (1,118,429) (1,307,458)
Net Obligations $ 7,395,422 $ 7,246,103
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Property $ - $ 530
Imputed Financing Sources 132,524 135,609
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities $ 132,524 $ 136,139
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities $ 7,527,946 $ 7,382,242
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS:
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated $ 415,809 $ 1,229,438
Resources that Fund Prior Periods Expenses (22)
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that
Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations:
Credit Program Collections Increasing Loan Liabilities for
Guarantees or Subsidy Allowances 3,985 3,979
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost 133,455 267,087
Resources that Finance Asset Acquistion (98,715) (113,393)
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations $ 454,512 $ 1,387,111
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 7,982,458 $ 8,769,353
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 358
-------
FY 2008 FY 2007
COMPONENTS OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS THAT WILL
NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN THE CURRENT PERIOD:
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability $ 9,807 $ 7,771
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability 1,197 8,073
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies 44
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense - 33
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables (132,904) (168,330)
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs 5,641 986
Other 59_ 420
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
Generate Resources in Future Periods $ (116,156) $ (151,047)
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization $ 88,586 $ 52,248
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources 86,322 42,652
Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources $ 174,908 $ 94,900
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period $ 58,752 $ (56,147)
Net Cost of Operations $ 8,041,210 $ 8,713,206
Note 40. Other - Statement of Net Position
In FY 2008, EPA identified an error of $20 million in the Payable for Transfers of
Currently Invested Balances account. This balance was related to activity prior to FY
2001 involving the allocation of budgetary authority to other federal agencies (parent/child
relationship). This error resulted in an overstatement of payables on the Balance Sheet
and an understatement of Cumulative Results of Operations. In addition, the budgetary
resources were increased by this amount. Since this amount is immaterial to the financial
statements a prior period adjustment was not recorded. To adjust the Cumulative Results
of Operations, the $20 million was recorded on the "Other" line on the Statement of Net
Position.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 359
-------
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
1.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
As of September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Deferred Maintenance
The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: (1) EPA-Held
Equipment, (2) Contractor-Held Equipment, (3) Land and Buildings, and, (4) Capital
Leases. The condition assessment survey method of measuring deferred maintenance is
utilized. The Agency adopts requirements or standards for acceptable operating condition
in conformance with industry practices. No deferred maintenance was reported for any of
the four categories.
Stewardship Land
Stewardship land is acquired as contaminated sites in need of remediation and clean-up;
thus the quality of the land is far-below the standard for usable and manageable land.
Easements on stewardship lands are in good and usable condition but acquired in order to
gain access to contaminated sites.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 360
-------
2.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCE
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Borrowing Authority
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Collected
Change in receivables from Federal sources
Advance received
Without advance from Federal source
Expenditure Transfers from trust funds
Nonexpenditure transers, net anticipated and actual
Temporarily not available pursuant to Public Law
Permanently not available
Total Budgetary Resources
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unbligated Balances:
Unobligated funds apportioned
Unobligated balance not available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net
Unpaid obligations brought forward, October 1
Less: Uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources brought forward, October 1
Total unpaid obligation balance, net
Obligations incurred, net
Less: Gross outlays
Less: Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual
Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources
Total
Obligated balance, net, end of period:
Unpaid obligations
Less: Uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources
Total, unpaid obligated balance, net, end of period
NET OUTLAYS
Gross outlays
Less: Offsetting collections
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts
Total, Net Outlays
$ 672,087 $
28,536
2,364,854
80,512
(24,331)
(3,311)
23,661
(41,098)
$ 3,100,910 $
$ 2,361,866 $
112,631
2,474,497
320,214
306,199
$ 3,100,910 $
$ 830,336 $
(447,386)
382,950
2,474,498
(2,382,395)
(28,536)
669
447,186
893,903
(446,717)
$ 447,186 $
$ 2,382,395 $
(77,200)
7,015 $
985
20,730
1,429
30,159 $
- $
23,529
23,529
6,630
30,159 $
2,295 $
2,295
23,529
(21,181)
(985)
3,658
3,658
3,658 $
21,181 $
(22,159)
6,272 $
3,424
39
12
107,492
(1,677)
115,562 $
108,231 $
32
108,263
7,299
115,562 $
93,531 $
93,531
108,263
(78,392)
(3,424)
119,978
119,978
119,978 $
78,392 $
(53)
221,937
6,047
772,129
4,844
(129)
3,890
7,838
25,718
(12,935)
1,029,339
793,930
8,908
802,838
191,973
34,528
1,029,339
506,362
(33,960)
472,402
802,838
(829,852)
(6,047)
(2,539)
436,802
473,301
(36,499)
436,802
829,852
(39,621)
$ 1,330,730 $
66,165
2,983,595
5,840
(7,875)
(51,544)
$ 4,326,911 $
$ 3,236,228 $
3,236,228
1,090,683
$ 4,326,911 $
$ 6,930,438 $
6,930,438
3,236,228
(3,767,034)
(66,165)
6,333,467
6,333,467
$ 6,333,467 $
$ 3,767,034 $
(5,840)
1,303,346 $
175,960
1,147,658
34
596,465
2,290
75,860
28,281
11,433
1,288,350
(4,689)
(19,949)
4,605,039 $
2,535,657 $
475,028
3,010,685
1,588,001
6,353
4,605,039 $
1,510,245 $
(151,444)
1,358,801
3,010,684
(2,801,181)
(175,960)
(31,587)
1,360,757
1,543,787
(183,030)
1,360,757 $
2,801,181 $
(682,743)
(1,118,429)
3,541,387
281,117
7,268,236
34
708,430
(22,170)
77,880
59,780
37,151
1,387,967
(6,366)
(125,526)
13,207,920
9,035,912
620,128
9,656,040
3,204,800
347,080
13,207,920
9,873,207
(632,790)
9,240,417
9,656,040
(9,880,035)
(281,117)
(33,457)
8,701,848
9,368,094
(666,246)
8,701,848
9,880,035
(827,616)
(1,118,429)
2,305,195
(978) $
790,231 $ 3,761,194 $ 1,000,009 $ 7,933,990
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
361
-------
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION
(UNAUDITED)
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30, 2008
(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, the framework, and technologies we need to detect, abate, and avoid
environmental problems. Research also provides the crucial underpinning(s) for EPA
decision-making and challenges us to apply the best available science and technical
analysis to our environmental problems and to practice more integrated, efficient and
effective approaches to reducing environmental risks.
Among the Agency's highest priorities are research programs that address: the
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 and effects of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the
environment; the impacts of global change and providing information to policy makers to
help them adapt to a changing climate; the environmental effects on children's health; the
potential risks of unregulated contaminants in drinking water; the development of
recreational water quality criteria; the health effects of air pollutants such as paniculate
matter; and the protection of the nation's ecosystems. EPA also supports regulatory
decision-making with chemical risk assessments.
For FY 2008, the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities totaled
approximately $701 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2007 FY2008
Programmatic Expenses 581,323 628,467 630,438 624,088 597,080
Allocated Expenses 91,675 112,558 104,167 100,553 103,773
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 362
-------
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 NA TION'S INFRASTRUCTURE (Non-Federal Physical
Property):
The Agency makes significant investments in the nation's drinking water and clean water
infrastructure. The investments are the result of three programs: the Construction Grants
Program, which is being phased out and two State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.
Construction Grants Program: During the 1970s and 1980s, the Construction Grants
Program was a source of Federal funds, providing more than $60 billion of direct grants
for the construction of public wastewater treatment projects. These projects, which
constituted a significant contribution to the nation's water infrastructure, included sewage
treatment plants, pumping stations, and collection and intercept sewers, rehabilitation of
sewer systems, and the control of combined sewer overflows. The construction grants led
to the improvement of water quality in thousands of municipalities nationwide.
Congress set 1990 as the last year that funds would be appropriated for Construction
Grants. Projects funded in 1990 and prior will continue until completion. After 1990, EPA
shifted the focus of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that are provided by
State Revolving Funds.
State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state
revolving funds which state governments use to make loans to individuals, businesses, and
governmental entities for the construction of wastewater and drinking water treatment
infrastructure. When the loans are repaid to the state revolving fund, the collections are
used to finance new loans for new construction projects. The capital is reused by the states
and is not returned to the Federal Government.
The Agency also is appropriated funds to finance the construction of infrastructure outside
the Revolving Funds. These are reported below as Other Infrastructure Grants.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the nation's Water Infrastructure are
outlined below (dollars in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Construction Grants 48,948 21,148 39,193 9,975 11,517
Clean Water SRF 1,407,345 1,127,883 1,339,702 1,399,616 1,063,825
Safe Drinking Water SRF 802,629 715,060 910,032 962,903 816,038
Other Infrastructure Grants 341,767 385,226 411,023 381,481 388,555
Allocated Expenses 410,129 402,853 446,113 443,716 396,253
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 363
-------
See the Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water portion in Section II of the PAR for more detailed
information on the results of the Agency's investment in infrastructure.
HUMAN CAPITAL
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of
increasing or maintaining the nation's economic productive capacity. Training, public
awareness, and research fellowships are components of many of the Agency's programs
and are effective in achieving the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the
environment, but the focus is on enhancing the nation's environmental, not economic,
capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below
(dollars in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Training and Awareness Grants 48,416 46,750 43,765 32,845 30,768
Fellowships 7,553 10,195 12,639 12,185 9,650
Allocated Expenses 8,826 10,199 9,320 7,255 7,025
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 364
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND OTHER REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS (UNAUDITED)
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
ASSETS
Intragovern mental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note S1)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
FY 2008
45,596
2,926,233
17,832
21,116
3,010,777 $
299,941
67,542
751
3,379,011
$
$
$
52,639
50,448
103,087
141,049
7,921
286,630
40,902
44,710
624,299
2,754,712
2,754,712
$
3,379,011
FY 2007
51,081
2,751,850
16,955
14,927
2,834,813
312,874
70,601
1,030
3,219,318
89,239
46,182
135,421
139,607
6,889
190,269
35,914
40,793
548,893
2,670,425
2,670,425
3,219,318
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
365
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
COSTS
Gross Costs $ 1,530,979 $ 1,497,010
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5) 69,769 76,452
Total Costs 1,600,748 1,573,462
Less:
Earned Revenue 502,177 377,904
NET COST OF OPERATIONS $ 1,098,571 $ 1,195,558
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 366
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2008
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY 2007
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Adjustment:
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue -Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue-Other
Transfers In/Out
Trust Fund Appropriations
Other (Note 40)
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers in/Out
Imputed Financing Sources
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
2,670,425 $
2,670,425 $
114,340
10,442
(35,246)
984,974
19,878
69,769
1,164,157 $
2,606,400
20,900
2,627,300
141,407
2,721
(41,419)
1,040,371
76,452
1,219,532
-
18,701
18,701 $
(1,098,571)
84,287
39
19,112
19,151
(1,195,558)
43,125
2,754,712 $
2,670,425
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
367
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
FY 2007
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1 $
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agcy) (Note 38)
Adjusted Subtotal
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law
Permanently Not Available
Total Budgetary Resources $
1,245,311 $
1,245,311
168,480
1,088,388
15,527
1,103,915
127,261
37,205
390,753
(1,725)
43,493
227,367
(1,811)
74,038
4,476
467,542
1,288,349
(4,263)
(54)
3,202,570 $
(33,969)
29,999
221,586
1,272,575
-
(2)
2,768,828
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (S6)
1,425,282
264,112
1,689,394
1,512,670
1,512,670
506
1,367,588
155,929
1,523,517
1,240,416
1,240,416
4,895
$ 3,202,570 $ 2,768,828
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
368
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 1,361,335 $ 1,454,495
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 7,215
Adjusted Total 1,361,335 1,461,710
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1 (110,170) (81,983)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 1,251,165 1,379,727
Obligations Incurred 1,689,394 1,523,517
Less: Gross Outlays (1,489,936) (1,496,631)
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (168,480) (127,261)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (2,752) (28,187)
Total, Change in Obligated Balance 1,279,391 1,251,165
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations 1,392,312 1,361,335
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (112,921) (110,170)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period $ 1,279,391 $ 1,251,165
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note S6) $ 1,489,936 $ 1,496,631
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note S6) (464,790) (193,398)
Distributed Offsetting Receipts *(Note S6) (1,074,969) (1,274,542)
Total, Net Outlays (49,823) 28,691
"Offsetting receipts line includes the amount in 68X0250 (payment to trust fund) from Treasury.
The payment cannot be made directly through the trust fund but must go through a "pass-through" fund.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 369
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (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, 2008 and 2007 consist of the following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Fund Balance $ 45,596 $ 51,081
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 2008 FY 2007
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation $ 1,512,670 $ 1,240,417
Unavailable for Obligations 506 4,895
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,749,864) (2,446,934)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund 2,894 1,539
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 1,279,390 1,251,164
Totals $ 45,596 $ 51,081
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at
the beginning of the following fiscal year. Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly
balances in expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing obligations.
Note S2. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
Superfund site. Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are
placed in site-specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used
for potential future work at such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement. Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take
responsibility for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance response
actions in lieu of EPA without further appropriation by Congress. As of September 30,
2008 and 2007, cashouts are $287 million and $190 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov. 370
-------
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, 2008, the total remaining state
credits have been estimated at $15.3 million. The estimated ending credit balance on
September 30, 2007 was $14.5 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 them 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, 2008,
EPA had 14 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling
$25 million. A liability is not recognized for these amounts until all work has been
performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for payment. Further, EPA will not
disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's application, claim, and claims
adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
Note S5. Income and Expenses from other Appropriations; General Support Services
Charged to Superfund
The Statement of Net Cost reports costs that represent the full costs of the program
outputs. These costs consist of the direct costs and all other costs that can be directly
traced, assigned on a cause and effect basis, or reasonably allocated to program outputs.
During FYs 2008 and 2007, 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,
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov. 371
-------
procurement, and contract activities. This distribution is calculated using a combination of
specific identification of expenses to Reporting Entities, and a weighted average that
distributes expenses proportionately to total programmatic expenses. As illustrated below,
this estimate does not impact the consolidated totals of the Statement of Net Cost or the
Statement of Changes in Net Position.
Superfund
All Others
Total
FY 2008
FY 2007
Income from
Other
Appropriations
69,769
(69,769)
- $
Expenses from
Other
Appropriations
(69,769) $
69,769
- $
Income from
Net Other
Effect Appropriations
- $ 76,452
(76,452)
- $
Expenses from
Other Net
Appropriations Effect
$ (76,452) $
76,452
$ - $ -
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust
Fund from the S&T and EPM funds are $0.5 million for FY 2008 and $2.3 million for FY
2007.
Note S6. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY
2007 Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the
Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of the
United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2008 has not yet been published.
We expect it will be published by March 2009, and it will be available on the OMB
website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010. The actual amounts published
for the year ended September 30, 2007 are included in EPA's FY 2008 financial statement
disclosures.
Budgetary Offsetting
Resources Obligations Receipts Outlays
$ 2,768,828 1,523,517 1,274,542 $ 1,303,233
FY2007
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Rounding Differences*
(828)
483
(542)
(1,233)
Reported in Budget of the U.S. Government $ 2,768,000 S 1,524,000 S 1,274,000 S 1,302,000
* Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa. qov.
372
-------
09-1-0026
Note S'7. Superfund Eliminations
The Superfund Trust Fund has intra-agency activities with other EPA funds which are eliminated
on the consolidated Balance Sheet and the Statement of Net Cost. These are listed below:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Advances $9,716 $5,817
Expenditure Transfers Payable $26,794 $30,948
Accrued Liabilities $3,704 $6,001
Expenses $28,718 $21,418
Transfers $37,151 $43,491
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.go v. 373
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit Report
Audit of EPA's
Fiscal 2008 and 2007
Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 09-1-0026
November 14, 2008
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov.
374
-------
Abbreviations
CFC Cincinnati Finance Center
DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
FFMSR Federal Financial Management System Requirements
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
GAO Government Accountability Office
IFMS Integrated Financial Management System
LVFC Las Vegas Finance Center
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OFM Office of Financial Management
OGD Office of Grants and Debarment
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OTOP Office of Technology Operations and Planning
READ Registry of EPA Applications and Databases
RSSI Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
RTF Research Triangle Park
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa. gov.
375
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
09-1-0026
November 14, 2008
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Audit
We performed this audit in
accordance with the
Government Management
Reform Act, which requires the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to prepare, and
the Office of Inspector General
to audit, the Agency's financial
statements each year. Our
primary objectives were to
determine whether:
• EPA's consolidated financial
statements were fairly stated
in all material respects.
• EPA's internal controls over
financial reporting were in
place.
• EPA management complied
with applicable laws and
regulations.
Background
.
The requirement for audited
financial statements was
enacted to help bring about
improvements in agencies'
financial management
practices, systems, and controls
so that timely, reliable
information is available for
managing federal programs.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2009/
20081114-09-1-0026.pdf
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007
Consolidated Financial Statements
EPA Receives Unqualified Opinion
We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial
Statements for fiscal 2008 and 2007, meaning that they were fairly presented and
free of material misstatement.
Significant Deficiencies Noted
We noted the following eight significant deficiencies:
• EPA's oversight of payroll reconciliation needs improvement.
• Accrual was not properly calculated for federal unbilled receivables.
• EPA needs to reconcile Superfund State Contract funds and credits in the
general ledger to subsidiary accounts.
• EPA's review of unliquidated obligations for interagency agreements and
Headquarters-funded grants was incomplete.
• The Integrated Financial Management System Vendor Table was susceptible
to unauthorized changes and changes were not adequately documented.
• Improvement was needed in monitoring Superfund Special Account balances.
• The lack of a system implementation process contributed to financial
applications not complying with requirements.
• EPA did not properly account for capitalized software and related
accumulated depreciation.
Noncompliances With Laws and Regulations Noted
EPA was in noncompliance with regulations relating to:
• The Asbestos Loan Program (related to the Anti-Deficiency Act).
• Prompt payment of invoices (related to the Prompt Payment Act).
• Reconciling intragovernmental transactions (related to Treasury policy).
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Evaluation
In a memorandum received on November 12, 2008, from the Chief Financial
Officer, the Agency generally agreed with our findings and has implemented
some of our recommendations. The Agency also stated it does not agree with our
findings regarding the Asbestos Loan Anti-Deficiency Act violation, Prompt
Payment Act violation, or systems implementation process. The Agency also
believes it does adequate payroll reconciliations but agreed to work with the
Office of Inspector General to develop reconciliations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.qov.
376
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
November 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 09-1-0026
FROM: Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Statement Audits
TO: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
Attached is our audit report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) fiscal 2008
and 2007 consolidated financial statements. We are reporting eight significant deficiencies.
We also identified an instance of noncompliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act, and a violation of
the Prompt Payment Act. Further, we identified a noncompliance with laws and regulations
related to reporting intragovernmental transactions. Attachment 3 contains the status of
recommendations related to significant deficiencies and noncompliances with laws and
regulations reported in prior years' reports. The significant deficiencies and noncompliances
included in Attachment 3 also apply for fiscal 2008.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $2,174,361.
This audit report represents the opinion of the Office of Inspector General, and the findings in
this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers, in accordance
with established EPA audit resolution procedures, will make final determinations on the findings
in this audit report. Accordingly, the findings described in this audit report are not binding upon
EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice. We have no
objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at
http://epa.gov/oig/.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Process, you are required to provide
us with a written response to the final audit report within 90 days of the final report date. The
response should address all issues and recommendations contained in Attachments 1 and 2. For
corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone
dates will assist us in deciding whether or not to close this report in our audit tracking system.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. QOV. 377
-------
Should you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me at
(202) 566-2523; or Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (202) 566-0899.
Attachments
cc: See Appendix III, Distribution
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 378
-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 09-1 -0026
Consolidated Financial Statements
Table of Contents
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2008
and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements 381
Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information,
Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and
Management's Discussion and Analysis 382
Evaluation of Internal Controls 382
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations 387
Prior Audit Coverage 389
Noteworthy Achievements 389
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 390
Attachments 391
1. Significant Deficiencies 391
EPA's Oversight of DFAS Payroll Reconciliation Needs Improvement 392
Accrual Not Properly Calculated for Federal Unbilled Receivables 395
EPA Needs to Reconcile Superfund State Contract Funds
and Credits in the General Ledger to Subsidiary Accounts 396
EPA's Review of Unliquidated Obligations for Interagency Agreements
and Headquarters-Funded Grants Was Incomplete 398
IFMS Vendor Table Susceptible to Unauthorized Changes and
Changes Were Not Adequately Documented 401
Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances 403
Lack of System Implementation Process Contributed to
Financial Applications Not Complying with Requirements 404
EPA Did Not Properly Account for Capitalized Software and
Related Accumulated Depreciation 407
2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations 409
EPA's Asbestos Loan Program Violated the Anti-Deficiency Act 410
EPA Violated the Prompt Payment Act by Not Paying
Telecommunications Invoices Promptly 412
EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intragovernmental Transactions.... 414
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 379
-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 09-1 -0026
Consolidated Financial Statements
3. Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations 416
4. Status of Current Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 418
Appendices 422
I. EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements 422
II. Agency's Response to Draft Report 491
III. Distribution 500
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfot&epa.gov. 380
-------
09-1-0026
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2008
and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, or the Agency) as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of net cost, net cost by goal, changes in net position, and custodial activity; and the
combined statement of budgetary resources for the years then ended. These financial statements
are the responsibility of EPA's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based upon our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards; the
standards applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other federal agencies.
Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. Audits of grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements performed at a later date may disclose questioned costs of
an amount undeterminable at this time. The U.S. Treasury collects and accounts for excise taxes
that are deposited into the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds. The
U.S. Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not needed for current disbursements and
transferring funds to EPA as authorized in legislation. Since the U.S. Treasury, and not EPA, is
responsible for these activities, our audit work did not cover these activities.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is not independent with respect to amounts pertaining to
OIG operations that are presented in the financial statements. The amounts included for the OIG
are not material to EPA's financial statements. The OIG is organizationally independent with
respect to all other aspects of the Agency's activities.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, including the accompanying
notes, in all material respects, the consolidated assets, liabilities, net position, net cost, net cost
by goal, changes in net position, custodial activity, and combined budgetary resources of EPA as
of and for the years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo(&epa. gov. 381
-------
09-1-0026
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 2008 and 2007, which are being presented
for additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Our audit
was not designed to express an opinion and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on EPA's
RSSI, Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and Management's
Discussion and Analysis.
We did not identify any material inconsistencies between the information presented in EPA's
consolidated financial statements and the information presented in EPA's RSSI, Required
Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and Management's Discussion and
Analysis.
Evaluation of Internal Controls
As defined by OMB, internal control, as it relates to the financial statements, is a process,
affected by the Agency's management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the following objectives are met:
Reliability of financial reporting - Transactions are properly recorded, processed, and
summarized to permit the preparation of the financial statements and RSSI in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss
from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.
Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and government-wide policies -
Transactions are executed in accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority,
government-wide policies, laws identified by OMB, and other laws and regulations that
could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.
In planning and performing our audit, we considered EPA's internal controls over financial
reporting by obtaining an understanding of the Agency's internal controls, determining whether
internal controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of
controls. We did this as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the financial statements and to comply with OMB audit guidance, not
to express an opinion on internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal
control over financial reporting nor on management's assertion on internal controls included in
Management's Discussion and Analysis. We limited our internal control testing to those controls
necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements
for Federal Financial Statements. We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating
objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfo/nfo@epa. gov. 382
-------
09-1-0026
(FMFIA), such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our
audit was not to provide assurance on internal controls and, accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on internal controls.
Our consideration of the internal controls over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose
all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies.
Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a significant
deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects
the Agency's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. A material weakness is a significant
deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or
detected. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses, or
noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted certain matters discussed
below involving the internal control and its operation that we consider to be significant
deficiencies. None of the issues presented are considered by us 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. 07-04. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on these internal controls
and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.
Significant Deficiencies
Significant deficiencies noted are summarized below and detailed in Attachment 1.
EPA's Oversight of Payroll Reconciliation Needs Improvement
EPA's Washington Finance Center performs bi-weekly and monthly reconciliations of
EPA's payroll and SF-224 transactions between PeoplePlus and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS), EPA's payroll service provider. However, the Agency does
not reconcile EPA's payroll to the amounts reported to Treasury on Form 941,
Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return. As a result, EPA did not detect errors in
wages and tax amounts DFAS reported to the Department of Treasury (Treasury). The
Treasury Financial Manual requires agencies to perform timely reconciliations, and
implement effective and efficient reconciliation processes. In addition to the
misreporting of wages and taxes, which could adversely impact EPA employees,
inadequate oversight, including not reconciling EPA's payroll with the amounts reported
to Treasury, could increase the risks of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds, and
impact the financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 383
-------
09-1-0026
Accrual Not Properly Calculated for Federal Unbilled Receivables
EPA did not properly calculate the third quarter fiscal 2008 accrual for federal unbilled
receivables (unbilled accrual). Using EPA's third quarter unbilled accrual spreadsheet,
we calculated the accrual to be $28,542,223, which is $4,021,487 less than the
$32,563,710 amount entered in the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).
OMB Circular A-127, Policies and Standards for Financial Management Systems,
requires financial management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent, timely
and useful financial management information on federal government operations. EPA
did not properly review the accrual to identify problems within the accrual calculation.
As a result, the $4 million error lead to a misstatement of the related assets and revenue in
the financial statements. The Agency determined not to make an adjustment for the error.
EPA Needs to Reconcile Superfund State Contract Funds and Credits in the
General Ledger to Subsidiary Accounts
EPA's Superfund State Contract Credits and unearned revenue did not agree with
supporting spreadsheets by significant amounts. The credits differed from supporting
spreadsheets by $5,383,760, and we found multiple errors in the unearned revenue
spreadsheets. Guidance from EPA's Office of Financial Management requires a
quarterly calculation and reconciliation of the Superfund State Contract spreadsheets to
the general ledger. However, Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC) finance personnel did not
reconcile the spreadsheets to the general ledger because they were not familiar with the
process, and they were not aware they needed to do the reconciliation. As a result, CFC
could not ensure the accuracy of the Superfund State Contract credit and unearned
revenue general ledger accounts or the amount reported in the financial statements, which
totaled approximately $14 million and $44 million, respectively, as of September 30,
2008.
EPA's Review of Unliquidated Obligations for Interagency Agreements and
Headquarters-Funded Grants Was Incomplete
EPA Office of Grants and Debarment's (OGD's) review of unliquidated obligations for
inactive Interagency Agreements and Headquarters-funded regional grants was
incomplete. OGD did not review all Interagency Agreements and Headquarters-funded
regional grants in the inactive obligations reports provided by the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's (OCFO's) Office of Financial Management. Federal and Agency
guidance require unliquidated obligations to be reviewed annually. However, OGD did
not follow Agency guidance and use the inactive Interagency Agreements unliquidated
obligations report provided by the Office of Financial Management; instead, OGD
generated its own report based on the project period end date. In addition, OGD did not
review Headquarters-funded regional grants assigned to them because it believed these
grants were the responsibility of EPA's Regional Grant Management Offices. As a
result, the Agency had no assurance that the unliquidated obligations for Interagency
Agreements and grants were accurate and represented valid and viable obligations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 384
-------
09-1-0026
IFMS Vendor Table Susceptible to Unauthorized Changes and Changes
Were Not Adequately Documented
The IFMS Vendor Table was susceptible to employees making changes to vendor
payment information without detection. Further, CFC did not retain supporting
documentation for numerous Vendor Table changes made for 13 different vendors in
fiscal 2008. FMFIA specifies that agency heads must establish internal controls that
reasonably ensure that funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against waste,
loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation. Also, Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Standards for Internal Controls state that all transactions are to be clearly
documented, and that documentation should be properly managed, maintained, and
readily available for examination. The Vendor Table contains critical information (e.g.,
bank routing and account numbers) used to distribute payments to vendors, including
grantees. An individual exploiting this system weakness could divert vendor payments to
an unauthorized banking account without a supervisor or management official being
notified that the vendor payment information changed. As such, having internal control
processes to prevent or detect unauthorized changes, as well as documentation to support
changes, is essential to protecting EPA funds from possible misappropriation.
Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances
CFC did not adequately monitor Superfund Special Account balances. EPA's Office of
Financial Management policy requires CFC to track all Special Account transactions and
balances. Because CFC did not adequately monitor the financial condition of special
accounts, we found $1,370,087 in special account drawdowns recorded in excess of the
balance of interest earned plus principal for some sites.
Lack of System Implementation Process Contributed to Financial
Applications Not Complying with Requirements
Ongoing instances of financial applications noncompliance with federal and EPA system
requirements persist at EPA finance centers. Reviews at EPA's three main finance
centers disclosed that financial applications were placed into operation without required
security controls implemented, key security documents developed, or the systems
assessed for compliance with Federal Financial Management System Requirements.
OMB stresses the importance of these required security tasks and documents because
they provide management with needed information to plan, budget, and put into service
risk mitigation strategies. The deficiencies occurred because OCFO system owners and
project managers had not completed an internal compliance review over this area and the
senior information official had not put into place an ongoing oversight process to ensure
implemented applications comply with prescribed systems requirements. Without such a
process, EPA cannot reasonably assure that these same types of problems will not persist.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 385
-------
09-1-0026
EPA Did Not Properly Account for Capitalized Software and Related
Accumulated Depreciation
EPA did not properly account for Capitalized Software and the related depreciation,
resulting in misstatements of Capitalized Software (net of accumulated depreciation) and
depreciation expense. EPA accumulates software development costs until the software is
placed into service. For financial statement reporting purposes, accumulated software
development costs are reported on the same line as Capitalized Software costs. EPA
policy states that capitalized software is depreciated beginning when the software is
placed into service. During fiscal 2008, EPA had accumulated software development
costs of $212 million, of which $78 million was for software put into service in fiscal
2008. Of the $78 million, $61 million should have been placed in service in fiscal 2007
or earlier. We found that the Office of Environmental Information does not have
effective controls to determine when capitalized software is moved from the development
phase into service. As a result, depreciation expense for fiscal years 2007 and prior were
understated by amounts ranging from less than $1 million to over $5 million a year. The
impact for correcting the previous year's depreciation results in an overstatement of fiscal
2008 depreciation expense by $26 million.
Attachment 3 contains the status of recommendations related to significant deficiencies reported
in prior years' reports. The significant deficiencies included in Attachment 3 also apply for
fiscal 2008. We reported less significant matters regarding internal controls in the form of point
sheets during the course of the audit. We will not issue a separate management letter.
Comparison of EPA's FMFIA Report with Our Evaluation of Internal Controls
OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, requires us to
compare material weaknesses disclosed during the audit with those material weaknesses reported
in the Agency's FMFIA report that relate to the financial statements and identify material
weaknesses disclosed by the audit that were not reported in the Agency's FMFIA report.
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 Bulletin 07-04 defines material weaknesses in
internal control as a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that result
in a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not
be prevented or detected.
The Agency did not report, and our audit did not detect, any material weaknesses for fiscal 2008.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 386
-------
09-1-0026
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations
EPA management is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the
Agency. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Agency's financial
statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material
effect on the determination of financial statement amounts, and certain other laws and
regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial
Statements. The OMB guidance requires that we evaluate compliance with federal financial
management system requirements, including the requirements referred to in the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). We limited our tests of compliance to these
provisions and did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an
objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. A number of
ongoing investigations involving EPA's grantees and contractors could disclose violations of
laws and regulations, but a determination about these cases has not been made.
Our tests of laws and regulations disclosed the following noncompliance issues, which are
discussed in further detail in Attachment 2.
EPA Asbestos Loan Program Violated the Anti-Deficiency Act
EPA violated the Anti-Deficiency Act when it recorded the upward subsidy re-estimate
for the Asbestos Loan Program without an approved apportionment letter from OMB.
According to the Anti-Deficiency Act, "an officer or employee of the United States
Government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an
amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation." OCFO's
Office of Budget authorized $32,530 to be entered into IFMS by the Las Vegas Finance
Center without the required apportionment letter. OCFO's Reporting and Analysis Staff
notified the Las Vegas Finance Center prior to the fiscal year end that an apportionment
letter would be needed. OCFO's Office of Budget did not get the apportionment letter or
an exemption from OMB prior to recording the upward subsidy estimate in IFMS. As a
result, the Agency incurred $32,530 before the amount was authorized and available. By
obligating funds in excess of appropriated amounts, the Agency created an anti-
deficiency situation in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
EPA Violated the Prompt Payment Act by Not Paying Telecommunications
Invoices Promptly
EPA violated the Prompt Payment Act by not paying 20 fiscal 2008 telecommunications
invoices timely. EPA's Contracts Management Manual requires that obligating
documents be provided to the finance center timely. The Prompt Payment Act requires
payment of a properly received invoice within the payment terms of the invoice and/or
contract. If invoices are not paid by the due date, interest payments are to be paid starting
on the day after the due date and calculated through the payment date. According to the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 387
-------
09-1-0026
Research Triangle Park (RTF) Finance Center and the Office of Technology Operations
and Planning (OTOP), several factors caused the late payments: (1) RTF Finance Center
returned 3 invoices in April 2008 because OTOP did not process funding allocations;
(2) OTOP did not allocate funds and timely forward obligating documents for the
20 invoices to the RTF Finance Center; (3) the Project Officer did not promptly approve
and forward the 20 invoices for payment; and (4) RTF Finance Center did not follow up
with OTOP after it returned the invoices to determine when they should be paid. The late
payment of these 20 invoices, totaling $2,469,147, resulted in an estimated interest
charge of $42,509 due to the vendor.
EPA Should Continue Effort to Reconcile Intragovernmental Transactions
As of September 30, 2008, EPA reported $192 million in unreconciled differences with
46 trading partners for intragovernmental transactions. Of that amount, $55 million was
reported by Treasury to be material differences. The remaining $137 million represented
amounts reported for non-verifying agencies, accruals, timing differences, and other
agencies whose differences were not reported as material. According to the Treasury
Financial Manual, verifying agencies are those that are required to report in the
Governmentwide Financial Report System. These include the 24 major Chief Financial
Officers Act agencies and 11 other agencies material to the Financial Report of the
United States Government. Treasury policy requires verifying agencies to confirm and
reconcile intragovernmental transactions with their trading partners. Based on our review
of correspondence with other agencies, EPA had difficulty reconciling these differences
primarily because of differing accounting treatments and accrual methodologies between
federal agencies. EPA's inability to reconcile its intragovernmental transactions
contributes to a long-standing governmentwide problem that hinders the ability of GAO
to render an opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Federal
Government.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Noncompliance
Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Agency's financial management
systems substantially comply with the federal financial management systems
requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the United States Government
Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. An OMB memorandum dated
January 4, 2001, Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act, lists the specific requirements of FFMIA, as well as
factors to consider in reviewing systems and for determining substantial compliance with
FFMIA. It also provides guidance to agency heads for developing corrective action plans
to bring an agency into compliance with FFMIA. To meet the FFMIA requirement, we
performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements and used the
OMB guidance, revised on January 4, 2001, for determining substantial noncompliance
with FFMIA.
The results of our tests did not disclose any instances where the Agency's financial
management systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA requirements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 388
-------
09-1-0026
We reported other less significant matters involving compliance with laws and regulations in
point sheets during the course of our audit. We will not be issuing a separate management letter.
Our audit work was also performed to meet the requirements in Title 42, U.S. Code, Section
961 l(k), with respect to the Hazardous Substance Superfund to conduct an annual audit of
payments, obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Fund. The significant deficiencies
reported above also relate to Superfund.
Prior Audit Coverage
During previous financial or financial-related audits, we reported weaknesses that impacted our
audit objectives in the following areas:
• Implementation of accounting processes for reclassification of receivables.
• Allowance for doubtful accounts calculation.
• Recording and accounting for accounts receivable.
• Federal and EPA information security applications for key applications.
• Access and security practices over critical information technology assets.
• Controls over the IFMS suspense table.
• Maintaining adequate documentation for obligation accounting adjustments.
• Payroll internal controls.
• Reconciling and reporting intragovernmental transactions, assets, and liabilities by
federal trading partner.
• Recording marketable securities.
• Assessing automated application processing controls for IFMS.
Attachment 3 summarizes the current status of corrective actions taken on prior audit report
recommendations.
Noteworthy Achievements
We identified the following noteworthy achievements during our audit of EPA's fiscal 2008
financial statements:
• EPA has made significant progress in reconciling intragovernmental reconciliations.
As of September 30, 2006, EPA's non treasury general fund differences had totaled
$826,697,883. This had been reduced by $634,067,380 as of September 30, 2008,
resulting in a difference of $192,630,503 as of September 30, 2008.
• EPA rescinded the Currently Not Collectable policy that was identified as a material
weakness in the fiscal 2007 financial statement audit report. EPA is now properly
reporting accounts receivable at their net realizable value.
• EPA consolidated its fiscal 2008 FMFIA guidance documents into a single,
comprehensive package with information and tools for reviewing internal controls over
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 389
-------
09-1-0026
programmatic and financial operations and reporting the results. The guidance enabled
EPA to consolidate its OMB Circular A-123 review of internal controls over financial
reporting and the Quality Assurance Reviews of financial operations in the regions and
finance centers into one coordinated effort.
• EPA has made progress on liquidating obligations on grants where the period of
performance has expired. The Agency stated that it freed up $32 million in funds in
expired grants and contracts for other high priority work in the Agency. In addition, the
Agency stated that more than $83 million has been redeployed within the Agency to date,
including $13 million liquidated during fiscal 2008. We also commend EPA for the
immediate action taken to complete the review of all Headquarters-funded regional grants
and Interagency Agreements based on our review of fiscal 2008 obligations.
• EPA has significantly improved maintaining adequate documentation for accounting
adjustments. During the fiscal 2007 audit, we found that EPA made adjustments to
transactions in IFMS without adequate and proper documentation. We did not identify
any unsupported accounting adjustment entries during the fiscal 2008 audit.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In a memorandum dated November 12, 2008, OCFO responded to our draft report.
The rationale for our conclusions and a summary of the Agency comments are included in
the appropriate sections of this report, and the Agency's complete response is included as
Appendix II to this report.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of EPA, OMB, and
Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.
Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Statement Audits
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 14, 2008
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 390
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 1
Significant Deficiencies
Table of Contents
1 - EPA's Oversight of DFAS Payroll Reconciliation Needs Improvement 392
2 - Accrual Not Properly Calculated for Federal Unbilled Receivables 395
3 - EPA Needs to Reconcile Superfund State Contract Funds
and Credits in the General Ledger to Subsidiary Accounts 396
4 - EPA's Review of Unliquidated Obligations for Interagency Agreements
and Headquarters-Funded Grants Was Incomplete 398
5 - IFMS Vendor Table Susceptible to Unauthorized Changes and
Changes Were Not Adequately Documented 401
6 - Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances 403
7 - Lack of System Implementation Process Contributed to
Financial Applications Not Complying with Requirements 404
8 - EPA Did Not Properly Account for Capitalized Software and
Related Accumulated Depreciation 408
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 391
-------
09-1-0026
1 - EPA's Oversight of DFAS Payroll Reconciliation
Needs Improvement
EPA does not perform reconciliations of its records to the Form 941s, Employer's Quarterly
Federal Tax Return, or annual Form W-3, TrammittalofWage and Tax Statements, filed on
EPA's behalf by DFAS. EPA's Washington Finance Center performs bi-weekly and monthly
reconciliations of EPA's payroll and SF-224 transactions between PeoplePlus and DFAS, EPA's
payroll service provider. However, the Agency does not reconcile EPA's payroll to the amounts
reported to the Department of Treasury on Form 941. As a result, EPA did not detect errors in
wages and tax amounts DFAS reported to the Treasury. The Treasury Financial Manual requires
agencies to perform timely reconciliations, and implement effective and efficient reconciliation
processes. Internal Revenue Service Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide,
requires employers to reconcile Form W-3 with the quarterly Form 941s to reduce discrepancies.
In addition to the misreporting of wages and taxes, which could adversely impact EPA
employees, inadequate reconciling could increase the risks of fraud, waste, and mismanagement
of funds, and impact the financial statements.
According to Internal Revenue Service Publication 15 (Circular E), all employers who pay
wages subject to income tax withholding or Social Security and Medicare taxes are required to
file quarterly a Form 941. To help reduce discrepancies, employers are responsible for
reconciling Form W-3 with the quarterly Form 941s. DFAS prepares its Form 941 to include
EPA and other federal agencies' payroll activities reported to Treasury.
We found that EPA wages and tax liabilities reported to the Internal Revenue Service during
calendar 2007 were inaccurate. EPA's tax liabilities were underpaid by $337,982. The Agency
did not perform a reconciliation of its records to the DFAS-prepared Form 941 for the first two
quarters of calendar 2008. We attempted reconciliations for the first two quarters of calendar
2008, and found differences that EPA could not readily explain.
Treasury Financial Manual, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 5100, Reconciling Fund Balance with
Treasury Accounts, discusses Treasury's reliance on monthly financial report data from all
federal agencies in order to meet its congressionally mandated central accounting and reporting
responsibilities. Reconciling accounts is a key internal control process; it assures the reliability
of EPA's receipt and disbursement data reported by agencies. Therefore, agencies must perform
timely reconciliations and implement effective and efficient reconciliation processes.
In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (Subpart 37.5-Management Oversight of
Service Contracts) state that contracting officials should seek "best practices" techniques in
contract management and administration within their own contracting activities. Best practices
could include oversight or monthly progress reports to inform EPA management of potential
problems (differences).
EPA does perform bi-weekly and monthly reconciliations of EPA's payroll and SF-224
transactions between PeoplePlus and DFAS, but the Agency does not reconcile its payroll to the
amounts DFAS reports to the Department of Treasury on Form 941. DFAS personnel
acknowledged that they did not send the Internal Revenue Service enough funds for EPA and the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 392
-------
09-1-0026
information reported to Treasury for 2007 was inaccurate. DFAS may act as EPA's agent or
contractor serving as EPA's payroll provider, but fiduciary responsibility to ensure that payroll is
accurately reported rests with EPA. EPA is ultimately responsible for its payroll, the payment of
income tax withheld, and both the employer and employee portions of Social Security and
Medicare taxes. Good management practices and contract administration techniques should be
used regardless of the contracting method.
Inadequate oversight, including not reconciling EPA's payroll with the amounts reported to
Treasury, could:
• increase the risks of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds;
• impact the financial statements (i.e., payroll expenses not being properly stated); and
• affect EPA's ability to effectively monitor budget execution.
We believe oversight of DFAS' payroll reconciliation activities could lead to earlier detection of
differences between amounts reported to Treasury and EPA's general ledger. Because EPA does
not reconcile payroll records to DFAS' quarterly 941 submissions and the annual W-3, EPA has
no assurance that EPA's payroll and tax liabilities reported to the Treasury were accurate and
properly reflected in EPA's general ledger. EPA has expressed a willingness to perform the
reconciliations with OIG and DFAS assistance.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
1. Establish better oversight for payroll support services by:
a. Performing quarterly Form 941 reconciliations of payroll amounts recorded in
EPA's general ledger to wage and tax amounts reported by DFAS to ensure the
payroll amounts are properly reported to Treasury and properly recorded in EPA's
general ledger.
b. Reconciling the annual Form W-3 and related Form 941s to ensure consistency of
amounts with EPA's general ledger.
2. Reconcile EPA's 2007 and 2008 wage and tax liabilities to amounts reported by DFAS
on the quarterly Form 941s and the 2007 Form W-3, and ensure that any differences have
been resolved by corrected Forms 941s and W-3, including the posting of amounts in
EPA's general ledger.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency did not agree with our findings or recommendations. The Agency disagreed that the
2007 data was incorrect by $337,000 and instead stated the difference was $2,800 for one
employee. The Agency did agree to work with DFAS and OIG to jointly develop a quarterly
taxable wage reconciliation report.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 393
-------
09-1-0026
As previously stated, we compared the 2007 W-2 data provided by DFAS to the quarterly
Form 941s and found a difference of $337,000 in taxes. This amount included not only federal
withholdings, but also Social Security and Medicare withholding amounts. The Agency's
amount of $2,800 reflects only a portion of the difference we found. The Agency did not include
in its analysis Social Security, Medicare, or a reconciliation to DFAS's list of W-2s amounts.
The OIG is willing to assist the Agency in arriving at a workable solution to ensure that payroll
records are properly reconciled and reported in the Agency's general ledger.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 394
-------
09-1-0026
2 - Accrual Not Properly Calculated for Federal Unbilled Receivables
EPA did not properly calculate the third quarter fiscal 2008 accrual for federal unbilled receivables
(unbilled accrual). Using EPA's third quarter unbilled accrual spreadsheet, we calculated the
accrual to be $28,542,223, which is $4,021,487 less than the $32,563,710 amount entered in IFMS.
OMB Circular A-127, Policies and Standards for Financial Management Systems, requires
financial management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent, timely, and useful financial
management information on federal government operations. EPA did not properly review the
accrual to identify problems within the accrual calculation. As a result, the $4 million error led to a
misstatement of the related assets and revenue in the third quarter financial statements. The Agency
made the appropriate adjustments in the fourth quarter.
The following problems led to the inaccuracy of the third quarter unbilled accrual calculation:
• Site identification numbers were positioned in the wrong column (expenditure column)
on some lines of accounting.
• The formula used to summarize the accrual total was not mathematically correct because
it did not include all lines of accounting.
• The accrual amounts for each line were not summed correctly using the accrual
methodology (cumulative expenses, less billed amount, less stand alone collections, plus
accrued liabilities, equals unbilled accrual).
• Data on some accounting lines was misaligned. Difficulties in converting from Financial
Data Warehouse, to text, and then to Excel, and problems with sorting the spreadsheet
data may have contributed to the misalignment.
• Accrual calculations for some individual organization codes included credit balances
where the billed amount was greater than the expenses resulting in credit accrual balances.
Had EPA properly reviewed the accrual, it could have identified the problems within the accrual
calculation before entry of the third quarter unbilled accrual into IFMS.
Recommendation
3. We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer implement a review process
to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of each quarterly unbilled accrual before it is
entered into IFMS. Steps should include:
(a) Verifying that column amounts are properly calculated.
(b) Ensuring that the unbilled accrual column totals properly.
(c) Verifying that all data elements and fields are properly captured and aligned when
converting data from one application (e.g., text) to another (e.g., Excel).
(d) Researching those lines of accounting with unbilled accrual credit balances to determine
if the credit amounts should be excluded from the overall unbilled accrual calculation.
(e) Documenting evidence of the items reviewed.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendation.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 395
-------
09-1-0026
3 - EPA Needs to Reconcile Superfund State Contract Funds and
Credits in the General Ledger to Subsidiary Accounts
EPA's Superfund State Contract (SSC) credits and unearned revenue did not agree with
supporting spreadsheets by significant amounts. The credits differed from supporting
spreadsheets by $5,383,760, and we found multiple errors in the unearned revenue spreadsheets.
Guidance from EPA's Office of Financial Management requires a quarterly calculation and
reconciliation of the SSC spreadsheets to the general ledger. However, CFC finance personnel
did not reconcile the spreadsheets to the general ledger because they were not familiar with the
process, and they were not aware they needed to do the reconciliation. As a result, CFC could
not ensure the accuracy of the SSC credit and unearned revenue general ledger accounts or the
amount reported in the financial statements, which totaled approximately $14 million and $44
million, respectively, as of September 30, 2008.
Each region inputs its State credits in the SSC spreadsheet. The credits on the spreadsheet
totaled $19,717,360. The combination of the SSC general ledger accounts totaled $14,333,600.
CFC has not yet found the reason for the $5,383,760 variance.
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. EPA recognizes
earned revenue as costs are incurred on the site.
CFC did not properly reconcile the calculated unearned revenue from SSCs to the general ledger.
Several factors contributed to the difficulty in completing the reconciliation:
• CFC prepared the fourth quarter SSC calculation spreadsheet with data recorded as of
August 31, 2008, instead of September 30, 2008 as required.
• The OIG identified an $879,484 variance between the amount of reimbursable expenses
in EPA Fund 5R1/TR1 included in the SSC calculation spreadsheet and those recorded in
the general ledger. However, CFC has not made corrections for the variances.
• CFC did not reconcile the billings from the SSC spreadsheet to the billings for SSCs
recorded in the general ledger.
The general ledger activity for SSC activity may include invalid transactions. We identified at
least $5.8 million in the general ledger in older EPA funds that could relate to billings that were
not collected or payments that were not billed, or may not be related to SSCs and thus distort the
general ledger balance.
According to Comptroller Policy Announcement No. 99-01, Recording and Tracking Work
Performed- Superfund State Credits, all State credits must be approved by the responsible
Financial Management Office and all State credits are subject to verification by audit by the
OIG. By accurately tracking and recording all approved credits site-specifically, the Agency is
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 396
-------
09-1-0026
able to track the status of credit balances and accurately record the credit balances available in
the financial statements.
The Monthly/Quarterly Adjustment Guidance, issued on February 23, 2004, by OCFO's Office
of Financial Management (OFM), requires a quarterly review and reconciliation to verify the
SSC calculation spreadsheet detail totals to IFMS. The guidance also requires the fourth quarter
SSC revenue accrual to capture SSC agreements, billings, expenditures, and credits as of
September 30.
The Chief Financial Officers Act requires the Agency's Chief Financial Officer to develop and
maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial management system, including financial
reporting and internal controls, that provides for complete, reliable, consistent, and timely
information. EPA should have adequate internal controls to ensure that it performs annual
reconciliations of the SSC unearned revenue accounts. Without performing a proper
reconciliation, CFC could not ensure the accuracy of the SSC unearned revenue accounts. The
Agency also identified Superfund State Cost Shares as a significant deficiency during its review
of internal controls over financial reporting.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
4. Complete quarterly reconciliations of the SSC credits and unearned revenue to the
general ledger according to OFM guidance.
5. Research transactions in older funds, and eliminate invalid transactions.
6. Confer with regions to verify the regions' manual entries to the SSC spreadsheet agree
with the supporting documentation by site.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 397
-------
09-1-0026
4 - EPA's Review of Unliquidated Obligations for Interagency
Agreements and Headquarters-Funded Grants Was Incomplete
EPA's OGD review of unliquidated obligations for inactive Interagency Agreements and
Headquarters-funded regional grants was incomplete. OGD did not review all Interagency
Agreements and Headquarters-funded regional grants in the inactive obligations reports provided
by OCFO's OFM. Federal and Agency guidance require unliquidated obligations to be reviewed
annually. However, OGD did not follow Agency guidance and use the inactive Interagency
Agreements unliquidated obligations report provided by OFM; instead, OGD generated its own
report based on the project period end date. In addition, OGD did not review Headquarters-funded
regional grants assigned to them because it believed these grants were the responsibility of EPA's
Regional Grant Management Offices. As a result, the Agency had no assurance that the
unliquidated obligations for Interagency Agreements and grants were accurate and represented
valid and viable obligations.
GAO's Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, Title 7, Chapter 3,
requires each agency to review its unliquidated obligations at least once a year to reasonably
assure itself that all transactions meeting the criteria of legally valid obligations have been
included. In addition, EPA Comptroller Policy Announcement No. 96-04, Review of
Unliquidated Obligations, requires all responsible parties to conduct complete annual reviews of
all current and prior year unliquidated obligations to ensure that all recorded obligations are still
valid and viable. EPA's OFM is responsible for providing the reports of inactive unliquidated
obligations, which form the basis on which the unliquidated obligation reviews are conducted.
According to Policy Announcement No. 96-04:
• An inactive obligation is one in which there has been no activity for 6 months or more
(180 days).
• A valid obligation is one for which appropriated funds are still available for the purpose
and time period specified, and for which an actual need still exists within the life of the
appropriation.
• A viable obligation is one for which there still exists the means to meet the need.
We found that the Agency's fiscal 2008 annual review of unliquidated obligations for inactive
Interagency Agreements and grants was incomplete. Specifically:
• OGD did not complete its review of all 121 unliquidated obligation balances of inactive
Interagency Agreements from the inactive Interagency Agreements unliquidated
obligations report provided by OFM, which was based on inactive obligations (i.e.,
obligations with no activity for 180 days or more). Instead, OGD generated its own
report consisting of 79 Interagency Agreements based on the Interagency Agreements'
project period end dates.
• Of the 79 Interagency Agreements reviewed by OGD, only 33 were also on the report
provided by OFM, meaning 88 Interagency Agreements (totaling $5.6 million) assigned
to OGD by OFM were not reviewed.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 398
-------
09-1-0026
• Of the 79 Interagency Agreements reviewed, OGD did not follow up timely with Project
Officers on the status of 17 inactive Interagency Agreements, totaling $1.2 million, to
determine their validity before certifying completion of its annual unliquidated
obligation review.
• OGD did not review 86 Headquarters-funded regional grants, totaling $5.2 million, from
the report provided by OFM. OGD did not review the Headquarters-funded regional
grants because it believed these grants were the responsibility of EPA's Regional Grant
Management Offices. However, OGD did not inform either the Regional Grant
Management Offices or OFM that it was not reviewing these grants, and it did not
reassign these grants to the Regional Grant Management Offices to review during the
annual unliquidated obligation review.
EPA's Procedures and Technical Guidance for FY 2008 Unliquidated Obligations Review
names the responsible officials for reviewing inactive obligations. The annual guidance provides
specific procedures for OGD to follow during its review of grants and Interagency Agreements.
The reviewing official and Project Officers must analyze and discuss unliquidated obligations
that have been inactive for 6 months or more (180 days) and identify those which are not valid or
viable. Inactive Headquarters unliquidated grant and Interagency Agreement obligations must be
reviewed and certified by a responsible official. Two certifications are required - the FMFIA
Assurance Letter, due July 31, 2008; and the Review of Unliquidated Obligations Year-end
Certification, due October 9, 2008. The FMFIA Assurance Letter must include certification that
a review of unliquidated balances in grants and Interagency Agreements has been completed, and
appropriate actions taken to deobligate unneeded funds.
By not completing reviews of all inactive Interagency Agreements and grants, EPA has no
assurance that the unliquidated obligation balances for Interagency Agreements and grants,
which include Headquarters-funded regional grants, are accurate and represent valid and viable
obligations. Further, inadequate unliquidated obligation reviews could impact the financial
statements by not identifying unneeded funds that should be deobligated.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director, Office of Grants and Debarment:
7. Complete the review of inactive Interagency Agreements and Headquarters-funded
regional grants that were not reviewed during the annual unliquidated obligations review,
to determine whether they are valid and viable obligations that should remain open.
8. Follow up with Project Officers on the status of the inactive Interagency Agreements that
were not resolved during the annual unliquidated obligation review process to determine
their validity.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 399
-------
09-1-0026
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
9. Have OFM work with OGD to determine how to identify Headquarters-funded regional
grants for assignment to the Regional Grant Management Offices as part of the annual
unliquidated obligation review process.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
We acknowledge EPA's noteworthy accomplishments in liquidating dollars on those grants
where the period of performance expired. However, we also stress the importance of reviewing
timely all inactive unliquidated obligations, not just those whose period of performance has
expired. This could increase the likelihood to identify obligations, which are not valid and
viable, and whose funds can be deobligated and put to better use. We commend the Agency for
the immediate action taken to complete the review of all Headquarters-funded regional grants
and Interagency Agreements, including following up with Project Officers on the status of
Interagency Agreements that were not resolved during the fiscal 2008 annual review of
unliquidated obligations. Because OGD has addressed Recommendations 7 and 8, no further
response or action is required
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 400
-------
09-1-0026
5 - IFMS Vendor Table Susceptible to Unauthorized Changes and
Changes Were Not Adequately Documented
The IFMS Vendor Table was susceptible to employees making changes to vendor payment
information without detection. Further, CFC did not retain supporting documentation for
numerous Vendor Table changes made for 13 different vendors in fiscal 2008. FMFIA specifies
that agency heads must establish internal controls that reasonably ensure that funds, property,
and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation.
Further, GAO Standards for Internal Controls state that all transactions are to be clearly
documented, and that documentation should be properly managed, maintained, and readily
available for examination. The Vendor Table contains critical information (e.g., bank routing
and account numbers) used to distribute payments to vendors, including grantees. An individual
exploiting this system weakness could divert vendor payments to an unauthorized banking
account without a supervisor or management official being notified that the vendor payment
information changed. As such, having internal control processes to prevent or detect
unauthorized changes, as well as documentation to support changes, is essential to protecting
EPA funds from possible misappropriation.
Our review disclosed that personnel with change authorization privileges to the Vendor Table
could make changes to this critical vendor payment information. When personnel made these
changes, the system did not notify the funds-certifying officer (the person approving the payment
to a vendor) or the worker's supervisor that this information was updated. This can result in
wrong or illegitimate changes being made. Upon bringing this matter to OCFO attention during
our review, OCFO took immediate action to address this system control weakness. OCFO put
into practice an automated system control and related standard operating procedures that
automatically notify a worker's supervisor of the worker's changes to the IFMS Vendor Table.
The standard operating procedures assign responsibility to supervisors to verify that changes
made to the Vendor Table are valid and necessary. Because OCFO took appropriate actions
during the course of our review, no recommendations are being made regarding this issue.
Regarding documentation, in our examination of 45 sample Vendor Table changes, we found
that CFC had made changes for 13 vendors but did not have or maintain supporting
documentation for the changes. The remaining 32 sample items, made by other finance centers,
had proper supporting documentation. The 13 unsupported changes included changes in vendor
names, addresses, and banking information. In some cases, the changes were made based on a
phone call. We believe that CFC should have created or maintained documentation as an
internal control to support the changes to the system. CFC stated that several sample items did
not have hard copy documentation because the accountant typically made changes while in
contact with a traveler/vendor to notify them that the bank rejected their payment. In addition,
the accountant made changes at the time of a call with the traveler/vendor and no paperwork was
involved. Some changes may have had supporting documentation, but since the documentation
contained personal identifiable information the accountant destroyed it after input into IFMS.
We believe that even though OCFO's OFM implemented an automated system control and
related Standard Operating Procedures to ensure all changes to the Vendor Table are legitimate,
Finance Centers should maintain documentation for changes to the vendor table information.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 401
-------
09-1-0026
Failure to document changes to the IFMS Vendor Table may raise questions about the validity
and integrity of the related information contained in IFMS.
Recommendation
10. We recommend that the Director, Cincinnati Finance Center, implement and maintain a
process to ensure that changes to IFMS Vendor Table information have supporting
documentation as an internal control and audit trail to ensure that vendor information is
verifiable.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and has already implemented the recommendation. The
Agency indicated the finance centers no longer accept changes to a vendor's information over
the telephone, and now requires and maintains written documentation for all revisions.
Regarding the Vendor Table being susceptible to unauthorized changes, OCFO indicated that it
took further actions to review a sample of changes made to the vendor table between October
2007 and when OCFO put the new procedures in place, to ensure all Vendor Table changes are
valid and necessary. We believe the automated system control and related standard operating
procedures address the identified system control weakness. Because the Agency has already
implemented our recommendation, no further action or response is required.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 402
-------
09-1-0026
6 - Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund
Special Account Balances
CFC did not adequately monitor Superfund Special Account balances. EPA's OFM policy
requires CFC to track all Special Account transactions and balances. Because CFC did not
adequately monitor the financial condition of special accounts, we found $1,370,087 in special
account drawdowns recorded in excess of the balance of interest earned plus principal for some
sites.
Superfund authorizes EPA to retain and use funds received from Potentially Responsible Parties
in an agreement to carry out the response actions contemplated by those agreements. Interest
earned on Special Account balances accrues directly to the Special Account and may be used for
the response action at the site for which the Special Account was established. Interest earned by
a Special Account is used after the principal has been fully expended.
Resources Management Directives System, Chapter 15, Financial Management of Special
Accounts, requires CFC to monitor the cumulative status of special accounts receipts, accrued
interest, disbursements, unliquidated obligations, and available balances. However, CFC did not
adequately monitor the account balances in the Special Accounts Database. We identified
$1,370,087 in interest drawdowns recorded in IFMS that exceeded a site's balance of interest
earned, receipts, and disbursements in the Special Accounts Database.
The Chief Financial Officers Act requires the Agency's Chief Financial Officer to develop and
maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial management system, including financial
reporting and internal controls, that provides for complete, reliable, consistent, and timely
information. EPA should have adequate internal controls to ensure the accuracy of the Special
Account transactions and balances. Without verifying the accuracy of the Special Account
balances and interest drawdowns, CFC could not ensure the accuracy of the Special Account
Interest amount and could unintentionally use funds that were intended for use on other sites.
Recommendation
11. We recommend that Office of the Chief Financial Officer implement controls to monitor
and ensure the accuracy of Special Account balances and interest amounts recorded in
IFMS.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendation. The Agency corrected the
$1.3 million in overstated interest for the fiscal 2008 financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 403
-------
09-1-0026
7 - Lack of System Implementation Process Contributed to
Financial Applications Not Complying with Requirements
Ongoing instances of financial applications noncompliance with federal and EPA system
requirements persist at EPA finance centers. Reviews at EPA's three main finance centers
disclosed that financial applications were placed into operation without required security controls
implemented, key security documents developed, or the systems assessed for compliance with
Federal Financial Management System Requirements (FFMSR). OMB stresses the importance
of these required security tasks and documents because they provide management with needed
information to plan, budget, and put into service risk mitigation strategies. The deficiencies
occurred because OCFO system owners and project managers had not completed an internal
compliance review over this area and the senior information official had not put into place an
ongoing oversight process to ensure implemented applications comply with prescribed systems
requirements. Without such a process, EPA cannot reasonably assure that these same types of
problems will not persist.
OCFO indicated that it relies on EPA System Development Life Cycle Management policies and
procedures for ensuring an OCFO system complies with federal standards prior to putting the
system into service. As noted in Table 1, noncompliance with prescribed system requirements
continued to exist at each EPA finance center, even though a material weakness in this area was
disclosed during the fiscal 2007 audit cycle and other significant deficiencies were disclosed
previously.
Table 1: Summary of Financial Application Weaknesses at EPA Finance Centers
Finance Center
Las Vegas
Reporting
Period
2008
Cincinnati
Research Triangle Park
Source: OIG data analysis
2007
2004
Weakness Identified
Finance center internal review disclosed system
lacked a current security plan. System was not
assessed for compliance with FFMSR. The finance
center created Plans of Action and Milestones to
correct the weaknesses. (Significant Deficiency)
Systems lacked contingency and security plans,
authorization to operate, continuous monitoring, and
assessment for compliance with FFMSR. Server
room lacked physical security and environmental
controls. (Material Weakness)
Systems lacked contingency and security plans,
authorization to operate, continuous monitoring, patch
management processes, and assessment for
compliance with FFMSR. (Significant Deficiency)
Our research disclosed that within the past 5 years, OCFO only had one internal compliance
review of this area, which OCFO started in March 2008 and plans to complete in December
2008. However, OCFO could not provide us with a formal approved plan that outlines how the
review will be conducted, what tasks will be reviewed, or how the tasks will be reviewed.
Further, discussions with OCFO representatives disclosed that OCFO does not have an ongoing
oversight process to ensure that OCFO financial systems comply with all federal and EPA
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
404
-------
09-1-0026
system requirements prior to putting a system into production or that they maintain compliance
throughout the system's product life cycle.
Subsequent to audit field work, OCFO indicated a planned reorganization would create the
Office of Technology Solutions, a central accountable unit over most of OCFO's financial
management systems. Management indicated that until the reorganization is finalized, the
functions for the unit would be included within the Office of Enterprise, Technology, and
Innovation. As such, we believe that OCFO should take additional steps to formally appoint
system development responsibilities to the Office of Enterprise, Technology, and Innovation and
limit which other OCFO organizational elements can perform system development duties. This
would help OCFO start to place more structure and consistency of compliance over its system
development activities.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
12. Complete a review of OCFO financial systems compliance with prescribed federal and
EPA system requirements and document the results.
13. Create and put into practice formal standard operating procedures to ensure that all
current and future financial management systems meet all federal and EPA system
requirements prior to being put into service and continue to meet these requirements
throughout their lifecycle.
14. Develop and implement a formal oversight process to ensure that all current and future
financial management systems meet all federal and EPA system requirements prior to
being put into service and continue to meet these requirements throughout their lifecycle.
The oversight process should be documented as a formal OCFO policy, assign
responsibility to Office of Program Management staff for conducting oversight reviews at
least annually, outline standards to be followed, and specify when the oversight process
will be reviewed to ensure that it is effective and achieving the desired results.
15. Formally assign the Office of Enterprise, Technology, and Innovation the specific
responsibilities for developing, implementing, and maintaining financial systems until the
Office of Technology Solutions is formed.
16. Formally prohibit any other organizational element within the OCFO from developing,
implementing, or maintaining OCFO financial or mixed financial systems.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OCFO generally agreed with our findings and recommendations and indicated that management
has approved a comprehensive list of areas to evaluate for compliance with systems
requirements. OCFO did not agree that the underlying cause of this weakness is due to the lack
of management reviews. We believe that compliance reviews are an integral part of a
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 405
-------
09-1-0026
management control system that (1) informs management of areas that require more emphasis
and (2) creates a mechanism for holding personnel accountable for meeting prescribed
requirements. Although OCFO was aware of system compliance issues during previous audit
cycles, current audit work disclosed that OFCO did not complete a review to provide
management the necessary information to hold OCFO personnel accountable for meeting
requirements. Therefore, until management implements its review processes, OCFO will
continue to experience difficulties in ensuring that developed financial systems comply with
federal requirements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 406
-------
09-1-0026
8 - EPA Did Not Properly Account for Capitalized Software and
Related Accumulated Depreciation
EPA did not properly account for Capitalized Software and the related depreciation, resulting in
misstatements of Capitalized Software (net of accumulated depreciation) and depreciation
expense. EPA accumulates software development costs until the software is placed into service.
For financial statement reporting purposes, accumulated software development costs are reported
on the same line as Capitalized Software costs. EPA policy states that capitalized software is
depreciated beginning when the software is placed into service. During fiscal 2008, EPA had
accumulated software development costs of $212 million, of which $78 million was for software
put into service in fiscal 2008. Of the $78 million, $61 million should have been placed in
service in fiscal 2007 or earlier. We found that the Office of Environmental Information does
not have effective controls to determine when capitalized software is moved from the
development phase into service. As a result, depreciation expense for fiscal years 2007 and prior
were understated by amounts ranging from less than $1 million to over $5 million a year. The
impact for correcting the previous year's depreciation results in an overstatement of fiscal 2008
depreciation expense by $26 million.
EPA amortizes capitalized software using the straight-line method over the asset's useful life.
Depreciation of capitalized software begins the day the software is moved from the development
stage to production. The Office of Environmental Information maintains information on Agency
software in its Registry of EPA Applications and Databases (READ). Information technology
system owners are responsible for updating READ. System owners updated READ in April
2008 and moved $48 million of software development costs into service. OCFO inadvertently
used the software acquisition date as the starting point for accumulating depreciation instead of
the date the software was placed into services. We found that $31 million of the $48 million
should have been placed in service prior to fiscal 2008. After bringing the misstatement to the
OCFO's attention, OCFO examined the remaining software development costs and identified an
additional $30 million that should have been placed in service. Of the $30 million identified by
OCFO, $26 million should have been placed in service prior to fiscal 2008. OCFO worked with
individual system owners to determine the proper capitalized software in service dates. The
OCFO properly adjusted the 2008 financial statements to reflect the net book value of
Capitalized Software.
Recommendations
We recommend that:
17. The Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, direct staff to develop
and implement a control process that will accurately and timely update the program and
regional records in READ.
18. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer use the READ production date as the date
software was placed in service, correct the date placed in service in the fixed assets
system, and implement internal controls to ensure the accuracy of its data entry.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 407
-------
09-1-0026
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 408
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 2
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Table of Contents
9 - EPA's Asbestos Loan Program Violated the Anti-Deficiency Act 410
10 - EPA Violated the Prompt Payment Act by Not Paying
Telecommunications Invoices Promptly 412
11 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intragovernmental Transactions 414
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 409
-------
09-1-0026
9 - EPA's Asbestos Loan Program Violated
the Anti-Deficiency Act
EPA violated the Anti-Deficiency Act when it recorded the upward subsidy re-estimate for the
Asbestos Loan Program without an approved apportionment letter from OMB. According to the
Anti-Deficiency Act, "an officer or employee of the United States Government may not make or
authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund
for the expenditure or obligation." OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 185.17, states that an upward
reestimate needs to be apportioned immediately after the end of each fiscal year as long as any
loans are outstanding, unless a different plan is approved by OMB. OCFO's Office of Budget
authorized $32,530 to be entered into IFMS by the Las Vegas Finance Center (LVFC) without
the required apportionment letter. OCFO's Reporting and Analysis Staff notified LVFC prior to
the fiscal year end that an apportionment letter would be needed. OCFO's Office of Budget did
not get the apportionment letter or an exemption from OMB prior to recording the upward
subsidy estimate in IFMS. As a result, the Agency incurred $32,530 before the amount was
authorized and available. By obligating funds in excess of appropriated amounts, the Agency
created an anti-deficiency situation in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
The Credit Reform Act of 1990 and federal accounting standards require that the subsidy cost
allowance for direct loans be re-estimated each year as of the date of the financial statements.
The subsidy cost allowance is the estimated long-term cost to the government of a loan
calculated on a net present value basis, excluding administrative costs. Any increase or decrease
in the subsidy cost allowance is recognized as a subsidy expense (or a reduction in subsidy
expense). The amount of a re-estimate for a particular fiscal year is to be recognized in its
succeeding fiscal year (e.g., the fiscal 2007 re-estimate is to be recognized in fiscal 2008). The
LVFC starts the re-estimate process by computing the re-estimate and then notifying the Office
of Budget of the amount needed for the apportionment. The Office of Budget prepares and sends
the apportionment letter to OMB and, upon receipt of OMB's approval, enters program codes
into IFMS that allow LVFC to enter the re-estimate. The Office of Budget stated that OMB
needs at least 1 month to prepare the apportionment letter.
LVFC did not initiate the fiscal 2007 re-estimate recognition until September 29, 2008, one day
before the end of the fiscal year. This did not leave enough time for OMB to prepare the
required apportionment letter. LVFC asked the Office of Budget to enter the authorization codes
even though OMB had not yet issued the apportionment letter. The Office of Budget then
entered the authorization codes and LVFC entered the re-estimate recognition. According to
OMB, "reestimates of the Asbestos Loan balance are not exempt from submitting an
apportionment as per OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 120.38. OMB made a conscious decision that
the Asbestos Loan Program would not be included under the automatic apportionment waiver.
OMB believes EPA needs to submit a reapportionment request to authorize this reestimate and
not back date it..."
According to OMB Circular A-l 1, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, the
incurring of obligations in excess of apportioned budgetary resources in a revolving fund is a
violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, whether or not a fund has unapportioned budgetary
resources or non-budgetary assets greater than the amount apportioned. Further, once it is
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 410
-------
09-1-0026
determined that there has been a violation of Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 1341(a), 1342, or
1517(a), the agency head "shall report immediately to the President and Congress all relevant
facts and a statement of actions taken."
Recommendations
We recommend that the EPA Administrator:
19. Report the Anti-Deficiency Act violation to the President through the OMB Director,
and to Congress and the Comptroller General as required.
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
20. Obtain an apportionment letter for the $32,530 upward subsidy re-estimate from OMB.
21. Instruct the Program Offices and Office of Budget to develop operating procedures
defining roles and responsibilities for completing the estimating process to ensure EPA
has the proper authorization before entering information into IFMS.
22. Instruct the Office of Budget, LVFC, and Reporting and Analysis Staff to establish
milestones to ensure the subsidy re-estimate is completed and apportionment requested
from OMB at least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency does not agree that an Anti-Deficiency Act violation took place. The Agency
believes that the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 and OMB Circular A-l 1 allow for
permanent indefinite authority and automatic apportionment of re-estimates in credit financing
accounts.
The Agency is conducting an internal investigation and working with OMB to determine
whether a violation has occurred. Feedback from these sources will influence the Agency's
future course of action. The Agency did agree that proper procedures were not followed and
additional controls and training will be initiated.
We maintain that EPA violated the Anti-Deficiency Act when it recorded the upward subsidy
re-estimate for the Asbestos Loan Program without an approved apportionment letter from
OMB. In our opinion, re-estimates of the Asbestos Loan Program balance are not exempt from
submitting an apportionment as per OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 120.38, and that the Asbestos
Loan Program is not included in the automatic apportionment waiver.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 411
-------
09-1-0026
10 - EPA Violated the Prompt Payment Act
by Not Paying Telecommunications Invoices Promptly
EPA violated the Prompt Payment Act by not paying 20 fiscal 2008 invoices timely. EPA's
Contracts Management Manual requires that obligating documents be provided to the finance
center timely. The Prompt Payment Act requires payment of a properly received invoice within
the payment terms of the invoice and/or contract. If invoices are not paid by the due date,
interest payments are to be paid starting on the day after the due date and calculated through the
payment date. According to the RTF Finance Center and OTOP, several factors caused the late
payments: (1) RTF Finance Center returned 3 invoices in April 2008 because OTOP did not
process funding allocations; (2) OTOP did not allocate funds and timely forward obligating
documents for the 20 invoices to the RTF Finance Center; (3) the Project Officer did not
promptly approve and forward the 20 invoices for payment; and (4) RTF Finance Center did not
follow up with OTOP after it returned the invoices to determine when they should be paid. The
late payment of these 20 invoices, totaling $2,469,147, resulted in an estimated interest charge of
$42,509 due to the vendor.
OTOP acknowledged that the invoices should have been paid timely. OTOP did not submit the
obligating documents timely due to OTOP's allocation processes and priorities. OTOP allocates
funds to Working Capital Fund contracts as revenues are earned. The EPA Contracts
Management Manual requires obligating documents be provided to the finance center by the end
of the month in which expenses are incurred. OTOP did not process the obligating documents
for all 20 fiscal 2008 invoices according to policy. Our testing found that the RTF Finance
Center did not pay 11 out of the 20 payments until fiscal 2009.
The Prompt Payment Act states, "For the purpose of determining a payment due date and the
date on which interest will begin to accrue if a payment is late, an invoice shall be deemed to be
received ... for invoices electronically transmitted, the date a readable transmission is received."
RTF Finance Center did not pay these invoices for up to 8 months even though OTOP had them
electronically available on the bill date. That was a violation of the Prompt Payment Act, and
these invoices accrued interest penalties.
The RTF Finance Center does not consider invoices as being subject to the Prompt Payment Act
until they have reviewed and processed the invoices. Because the invoices were sent to the
Project Officer first and not the Finance Center, RTF Finance Center did not accrue or pay
interest because it did not believe the invoices met this criteria and therefore were not late. A
verbal agreement existed between the Working Capital Fund and the RTF Finance Center that
the invoices would first be sent to the Project Officer. RTF Finance Center management
acknowledged they made this agreement because the invoices could be up to 3,000 pages of
detailed billing information.
While the RTF Finance Center did not originally receive the invoices, the Prompt Payment Act
requires the Agency to calculate and pay interest on invoices paid late unless the invoices are
returned for not being proper. The Prompt Payment Act states, "When an invoice is determined
to be improper, the agency shall return the invoice as soon as practicable after receipt, but no
later than 7 days after receipt." None of the invoices were returned to the vendor or in any way
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 412
-------
09-1-0026
marked as improper. In addition, there was no correspondence or documentation to the vendor
that the invoices were not sent to the correct address. By entering into a verbal agreement that
the invoice would be provided to the project officer, the Agency is causing harm to the
contractor when payments are not made timely. There is added harm because the verbal
agreement would also deprive the contractor of interest even though the contractor complied
with the Agency's directions on to who to direct the invoice.
After the Agency paid the aforementioned invoices, we noted an $18,000 overpayment on one
invoice due to a transposition error. After bringing this to the Agency's attention, EPA set up a
receivable for the difference.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning:
23. Develop a control process that will timely allocate funding for all OTOP contracts.
24. Direct all OTOP Project Officers to promptly approve each invoice when received or
return the invoice to the vendor within 7 days of receipt through the finance center,
documenting why the invoice was deemed improper.
We recommend that the Director, RTF Finance Center:
25. Calculate and pay the interest due resulting from the late payments.
26. Direct all finance center personnel to review and obtain an understanding of the Prompt
Payment Act. RTF should establish a process to follow up on any invoices returned to
program offices for whatever reason so that issues on nonpaid invoices can be resolved
promptly.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency believes that only 3 invoices were late and agreed to pay interest on those invoices.
The Agency does not agree that the other 17 invoices were late because the vendor did not
submit the invoices to the address in the contract. The Agency agreed to forward the matter to
the Office of General Counsel for its determination.
Our position is that the Agency violated the terms of the contract by instructing the contractors to
provide the invoices directly to the Project Officer. By following those directions, payments to
the contractors were significantly delayed. The Agency is further compounding the issue by
denying interest when the delay was caused by the Agency's actions.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 413
-------
09-1-0026
11 - EPA Should Continue Effort to Reconcile
Intragovernmental Transactions
As of September 30, 2008, EPA reported $192 million in unreconciled differences with 46
trading partners for intragovernmental transactions. Of that amount, $55 million was reported by
Treasury to be material differences. The remaining $137 million represented amounts reported
for non-verifying agencies, accruals, timing differences, and other agencies whose differences
were not reported as material. According to the Treasury Financial Manual, verifying agencies
are those that are required to report in the Governmentwide Financial Report System. These
include the 24 major Chief Financial Officers Act agencies and 11 other agencies material to the
Financial Report of the United States Government. Treasury policy requires verifying agencies
to confirm and reconcile intragovernmental transactions with their trading partners. Based on
our review of correspondence with other agencies, EPA had difficulty reconciling these
differences primarily because of differing accounting treatments and accrual methodologies
between federal agencies. EPA's inability to reconcile its intragovernmental transactions
contributes to a long-standing government-wide problem that hinders the ability of GAO to
render an opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Federal Government.
Treasury's fiscal 2008 fourth quarter Intragovernmental Activity Detail Report and Material
Differences Report showed the following material differences for EPA:
Table 2: Material Differences for Intragovernmental Transactions
Federal Agency
General Services Administration
General Services Administration
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Energy
Total
Difference
$9,237,753
$26,340,506
$12,216,493
$7,662,072
$55,456,824
Category of Difference
Advances to/From Other Agencies
Buy/Sell Costs/Revenue
Buy/Sell Costs/Revenue
Advances to/From Other Agencies
Source: OIG analysis
While the Agency has actively worked with its trading partners to reduce differences,
$55,456,824 in material differences continued to exist. Many of the differences resulted from
different accounting treatments and accrual methodologies used by EPA's trading partners.
According to EPA, other situations that contributed to the differences included (1) timing
differences in accruals with the General Services Administration, (2) difference in advances with
the Department of Homeland Security, and (3) differences in advances accounting with the
Department of Energy.
During fiscal 2008, EPA made significant efforts to reconcile its intragovernmental activity on a
quarterly basis with its partners and has been able to identify the causes of several differences.
However, unreconciled differences persist. According to GAO's Report on the Fiscal Year 2007
U.S. Government Financial Statements, the federal government's inability to adequately account
for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies is a major
impediment preventing GAO from rendering an opinion on the federal government's accrual
basis consolidated financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
414
-------
09-1-0026
Recommendation
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, though its Office of Financial
Services, continue to:
27. Work with other federal trading partners to help reconcile the Agency's
intragovernmental transactions and make appropriate adjustments to comply with federal
financial reporting requirements.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendation.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 415
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 3
Status of Prior
Audit Report Recommendations
EPA's position is that "audit follow-up is an integral part of good management," and "corrective
action taken by management on resolved findings and recommendations is essential to improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations." The Chief Financial Officer is the
Agency Follow-up Official and is responsible for ensuring that corrective actions are
implemented. Beginning in the fourth quarter 2006 and continuing in subsequent second and
fourth quarters, OCFO includes a metric on audit follow-up actions in the Agency EPAStat
report. OCFO management regularly reviews these measures during OCFO's monthly Budget
and Performance Review meetings. In fiscal 2008, the Agency continued to strengthen its audit
follow-up process by developing a quality assurance plan to improve data quality in EPA's
Management Audit Tracking System.
The Agency has continued to make progress in completing corrective actions from prior years.
The status of issues from prior financial statement audits and other audits whose findings and
recommendations could have a material effect on financial statements and have corrective
actions in process are listed in the following tables.
Table 3: Significant Deficiencies - Corrective Actions in Process
Automated Application Processing Controls for IFMS
EPA has taken steps toward correcting this long-standing open issue. EPA awarded a new contract
to replace IFMS. The proposal calls for two releases over the next two-and-a-half years, with the first
release occurring in the last quarter of calendar 2009. However, until the new system is in place, a
significant deficiency will exist concerning the lack of system documentation that inhibits our ability to
audit IFMS application controls.
• EPA Needs to Strengthen Financial Database Security Oversight and Monitor Compliance
EPA did not complete all of the corrective actions related to reviewing the effectiveness of its
follow-up procedures. EPA plans to complete this recommendation by the second quarter of fiscal
2009. We will plan to conduct follow-up during next year's audit.
Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA Information Security Requirements
The Agency has made significant progress in completing the agreed-to corrective actions but it still
needs to finalize the independent reviews and updated security plans. In addition, the Agency needs
to test the approved contingency plans.
Access and Security Practices Over Critical Information Technology Assets Need
Improvement
EPA established controls over visitor and general access to the server room and enhanced security
and environmental monitoring with improved technology. Additionally, the Agency developed
procedures to enhance its security practices. However, EPA needs to ensure these procedures are
fully implemented. In addition, EPA needs to complete an annual review of these procedures to
ensure they are effective and consistent with federal guidance.
EPA Needs to Improve Controls Over the IFMS Suspense Table
EPA completed all the recommendations made in the fiscal 2007 financial statement audit report.
However, we will follow up during the next fiscal year's Financial Statement Audit to test that the new
procedures enforce compliance with the established policy.
Source: OIG analysis
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 416
-------
09-1-0026
Table 4: Compliance with Laws and Regulations - Corrective Actions in Process
EPA Needs to Improve Reconciliation of Differences with Trading Partners:
During fiscal 2008, EPA made significant efforts to reconcile its intragovernmental activity on a
quarterly basis with its partners and has been able to identify the causes of several differences.
However, as described in Attachment 2, Compliance with Laws and Regulations, there remain
significant amounts not reconciled with trading partners.
Source: OIG analysis
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 417
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 4
Status of Current Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official Date
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
13 Establish better oversight for payroll support
services by:
a. Performing quarterly Form 941 reconciliations
of payroll amounts recorded in EPA's general
ledger to wage and tax amounts reported by
DFAS to ensure the payroll amounts are
properly reported to Treasury and properly
recorded in EPA's general ledger.
b. Reconciling the annual Form W-3 and related
Form 941 s to ensure consistency of amounts
with EPA's general ledger.
13 Reconcile EPA's 2007 and 2008 wage and tax
liabilities to amounts reported by DFAS on the
quarterly Form 941s and the 2007 Form W-3, and
ensure that any differences have been resolved by
corrected Forms 941s and W-3, including the
posting of amounts in EPA's general ledger.
15 Implement a review process to verify the accuracy
and reasonableness of each quarterly unbilled
accrual before it is entered into IFMS. Steps
should include:
(a) Verifying that column amounts are properly
calculated.
(b) Ensuring that the unbilled accrual column
totals properly.
(c) Verifying that all data elements and fields are
properly captured and aligned when
converting data from one application
(e.g., text) to another (e.g., Excel).
(d) Researching those lines of accounting with
unbilled accrual credit balances to determine
if the credit amounts should be excluded
from the overall unbilled accrual calculation.
(e) Documenting evidence of the items reviewed.
17 Complete quarterly reconciliations of the SSC
credits and unearned revenue to the general ledger
according to OFM guidance.
17
Research transactions in older funds, and eliminate
invalid transactions.
17 Confer with regions to verify the regions' manual
entries to the SSC spreadsheet agree with the
supporting documentation by site.
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
418
-------
09-1-0026
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Rec.
No.
7
Page
No.
19
Subject Status1
Complete the review of inactive Interagency C
Agreements and Headquarters-funded regional
grants that were not reviewed during the annual
unliquidated obligations review, to determine
whether they are valid and viable obligations that
should remain open.
Planned
Completion
Action Official Date
Director, Office of 11/12/08
Grants and Debarment
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
$1,110.5 $1,110.5
8 19 Follow up with Project Officers on the status of the
inactive Interagency Agreements that were not
resolved during the annual unliquidated obligation
review process to determine their validity.
9 20 Have OFM work with OGD to determine how to
identify Headquarters-funded regional grants for
assignment to the Regional Grant Management
Offices as part of the annual unliquidated obligation
review process.
10 22 Implement and maintain a process to ensure that
changes to IFMS Vendor Table information have
supporting documentation as an internal control
and audit trail to ensure that vendor information is
verifiable.
11 23 Implement controls to monitor and ensure the
accuracy of Special Account balances and interest
amounts recorded in IFMS.
12 25 Complete a review of OCFO financial systems
compliance with prescribed federal and EPA
system requirements and document the results.
13 25 Create and put into practice formal standard
operating procedures to ensure that all current and
future financial management systems meet all
federal and EPA system requirements prior to
being put into service and continue to meet these
requirements throughout their lifecycle.
14 25 Develop and implement a formal oversight process
to ensure that all current and future financial
management systems meet all federal and EPA
system requirements prior to being put into service
and continue to meet these requirements
throughout their lifecycle. The oversight process
should be documented as a formal OCFO policy,
assign responsibility to Office of Program
Management staff for conducting oversight reviews
at least annually, outline standards to be followed,
and specify when the oversight process will be
reviewed to ensure that it is effective and achieving
the desired results.
15 25 Formally assign the Office of Enterprise,
Technology, and Innovation the specific
responsibilities for developing, implementing, and
maintaining financial systems until the Office of
Technology Solutions is formed.
Director, Office of
Grants and Debarment
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Director,
Cincinnati Finance Center
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
419
-------
09-1-0026
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
16 25 Formally prohibit any other organizational element
within the OCFO from developing, implementing, or
maintaining OCFO financial or mixed financial
systems.
17 27 Direct staff to develop and implement a control
process that will accurately and timely update the
program and regional records in READ.
18 27 Use the READ production date as the date
software was placed in service, correct the date
placed in service in the fixed assets system, and
implement internal controls to ensure the accuracy
of their data entry.
19 31 Report the Anti-Deficiency Act violation to the
President through the OMB Director, and to
Congress and the Comptroller General as required.
20 31 Obtain an apportionment letter for the $32,530
upward subsidy re-estimate from OMB.
21 31 Instruct the Program Offices and Office of Budget
to develop operating procedures defining roles and
responsibilities for completing the estimating
process to ensure EPA has the proper
authorization before entering information into IFMS.
22 31 Instruct the Office of Budget, LVFC, and Reporting
and Analysis Staff to establish milestones to
ensure the subsidy re-estimate is completed and
apportionment requested from OMB at least
30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
23 33 Develop a control process that will timely allocate
funding for all OTOP contracts.
24 33 Direct all OTOP Project Officers to promptly approve U
each invoice when received or return the invoice to
the vendor within 7 days of receipt through the
finance center, documenting why the invoice was
deemed improper.
25 33 Calculate and pay the interest due resulting from U
the late payments.
26 33 Direct all finance center personnel to review and U
obtain an understanding of the Prompt Payment
Act. RTP should establish a process to follow up
on any invoices returned to program offices for
whatever reason so that issues on nonpaid
invoices can be resolved promptly.
27 35 Through its Office of Financial Services, continue to 0
work with other federal trading partners to help
reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental
transactions and make appropriate adjustments to
comply with federal financial reporting requirements.
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Environmental
Information
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
EPA Administrator
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of
Technology Operations
and Planning
Director, Office of
Technology Operations
and Planning
Director,
RTP Finance Center
Director,
RTP Finance Center
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
420
-------
09-1-0026
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
Other potential monetary benefits achieved based
on adjustments made as a result of our audit:
. Unrecorded Accounts Receivable $2,870.6 $2,870.6
. Reduction in Allocation Transfer Payable $19,877.7 $19,877.7
• Receivable Issued for Overpayment $18.0 $18.0
Total Potential Monetary Benefits $23,876.8 $23,876.8
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 421
-------
09-1-0026
Appendix I
EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007
Consolidated Financial Statements
SECTION III
ANNUAL FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
422
-------
09-1-0026
Principal Financial Statements
Financial Statements
1. Consolidated Balance Sheet
2. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
3. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
4. Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
5. Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
6. Statement of Custodial Activity
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
Note 4. Investments
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
Note 6. Other Assets
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net - Non-Federal
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment (PP& E)
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
Note 11. Stewardship Land
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Note 14. Leases
Note 15. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Note 16. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
Note 18. Amounts Held by Treasury
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
Note 21. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship Land
Note 24 Environmental Cleanup Costs
Note 25. State Credits
Note 26. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 27. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 423
-------
09-1-0026
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Note 33. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 34. Imputed Financing Sources
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 36. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the
Statement of Financing)
Note 40. Other - Statement of Net Position
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
1. Deferred Maintenance and Stewardship Land
2. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 424
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Notes 4 and 18)
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
Stewardship PP& E (Note 11 )
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 12)
Other (Note 13)
Total Intragovernmental
9,605,356 $
6,174,828
34,636
107,433
15,922,253
10
349,739
17,088
814,253
3,655
17,106,998 S
FY 2007
10,466,600
5,753,061
57,039
81,069
16,357,769
10
359,302
23,161
809,873
4,574
17,554,689
80,655
13,158
47,951
109,377
251,141 $
122,207
16,156
39,369
98,360
276,092
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 24)
Cashout Advances, SuperrUnd (Note 16)
Commitments & Contingencies (Notes 19 and 24)
Payroll & Benefits Payable (Note 35)
Other (Note 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 20)
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
713,595
44,615
19,411
286,630
44
232,958
115,648
1,664,042
8,674,711
6,212,479
555,766
15,442,956
912,000
39,786
18,214
190,269
205,198
113,739
1,755,298
9,350,591
5,886,227
562,573
15,799,391
17,106,998 S
17,554,689
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
425
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
FY 2007
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Notes 21, 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 22)
8,675,411 $
634,201
9,263,304
550,098
8,041,210 $
8,713,206
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
426
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air
Costs:
Intragovemmental $ 181,467
With the Public $ 816,336
Total Costs (Note 22) 997,803
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal $ 18,360
Earned Revenue, non-Federal _$ 2,043
Total Earned Revenue
(Notes 21 and 22) 20,403
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS (Note 22) $ 977,400
Clean & Safe
Water
$ 162,679
$ 3,334,953
3,497,632
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
$ 347,011
$ 1,654,205
2,001,216
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
7,615 $ 73,829
2,841 $ 460,055
10,456
533,884
281,767
1,126,764
1,408,531
22,710
39,407
62,117
176,376
593,853
770,229
5,540
1,801
7,341
3,487,176 S 1,467,332 S 1,346,414
762,888
Costs:
Intragovemmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
(Notes2land 22)
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS (Note 22)
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,149,300
$ 7,526,111
8,675,411
$ 128,054
$ 506,147
634,201
S 8,041,210
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
427
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
09-1-0026
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Land Healthy
Clean & Safe Preservation Communities &
Clean Air Water & Restoration Ecosystems
$ 185,389 $ 180,571 $ 396,786 $ 275,068
818,753 3,868,428 1,607,952 1,144,793
1,004,142 4,048,999 2,004,738 1,419,861
15,594 11,016 101,036 18,450
2,997 2,262 352,963 38,902
18,591 13,278 453,999 57,352
S 985,551 S 4,035,721 S 1,550,739 S 1,362,509
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,219,915
$ 8,043,389
$ 9,263,304
$ 151,709
$ 398,389
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
$ 182,101
603,463
785,564
5,613
1,265
6,878
S 778,686
$ 550,098
S 8,713,206
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
428
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Other (Note 40)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 33)
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
FY2008
Earmarked
Funds
5,886,227
5,886,227 3
241,873
204,115
(18,190)
984,974
19,878
1,432,650 3
20,933
20,933 3
(1,127,331)
326,252
6,212,479 3
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,212,479 S
FY 2008 All
Other Funds
562,573
! 562,573 3
7,743,276
-
-
37,151
(984,974)
-
! 6,795,453 3
28
111,591
! 111,619 3
(6,913,879)
(6,807)
! 555,766 3
9,350,591
9,350,591
7,197,712
(7,875)
(122,441)
(7,743,276)
(675,880)
8,674,711
9,230,477 S
FY2008
Consolidated
Total
6,448,800
i 6,448,800
7,743,276
241,873
204,115
18,961
-
19,878
i 8,228,103
28
132,524
i 132,552
(8,041,210)
319,445
i 6,768,245
9,350,591
9,350,591
7,197,712
(7,875)
(122,441)
(7,743,276)
(675,880)
8,674,711
15,442,956
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
429
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Adjustment:
Change in Accounting Principle (Note 38)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
FY2007
Earmarked
Funds
5,533,025
20,900
5,553,925 $
258,986
252,148
(25,686)
1,040,371
1,525,819 $
39
21,868
21,907 $
(1,215,424)
332,302
5,886,227 $
-
-
5,886,227 S
FY2007 All
Other Funds
575,846
; 575,846 $
8,367,123
43,491
(1,040,371)
; 7,370,243 $
525
113,741
; 114,266 $
(7,497,782)
(13,273)
; 562,573 $
10,299,640
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
9,913,164 S
FY 2007
Consolidated
Total
6,108,871
20,900
6,129,771
8,367,123
258,986
252,148
17,805
8,896,062
564
135,609
136,173
(8,713,206)
319,029
6,448,800
10,299,640
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
15,799,391
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
430
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1: $ 3,541,387 $ 3,247,087
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 15,527
Adjusted Subtotal 3,541,387 3,262,614
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (Note 29) 281,117 387,621
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation 7,268,236 7,495,028
Borrowing Authority 34 29
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected 708,430 640,354
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (22,170) (72,546)
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received 77,880 (34,934)
Without Advance from Federal Sources 59,780 (625)
Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds 37,151 43,491
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 861,071 575,740
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 33) 1,387,967 1,344,610
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 29) (6,366)
Permanently Not Available (Note 29) (125,526) (7,333)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 28) $ 13,207,920 $ 13,058,309
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $ 9,035,912 $ 9,027,170
Reimbursable 620,128 489,752
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 28) 9,656,040 9,516,922
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 30) 3,204,800 3,274,344
Total Unobligated Balances 3,204,800 3,274,344
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 30) 347,080 267,043
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 13,207,920 $ 13,058,309
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 431
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 9,873,207 $ 10,956,328
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 7,215
Adjusted Total 9,873,207 10,963,543
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1 (632,790) (712,239)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 9,240,417 10,251,304
Obligations Incurred, Net (Note 28) 9,656,040 9,516,922
Less: Gross Outlays (Note 28) (9,880,035) (10,219,637)
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (Note 29) (281,117) (387,621)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (33,457) 79,449
Total, Change in Obligated Balance 8,701,848 9,240,417
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations 9,368,094 9,873,207
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (666,246) (632,790)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period $ 8,701,848 $ 9,240,417
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note 28) $ 9,880,035 $ 10,219,637
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note 28) (827,616) (655,188)
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Notes 28 and 32) (1,118,429) (1,307,458)
Total, Net Outlays $ 7,933,990 $ 8,256,991
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 432
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Cash Collections:
Fines and Penalties $ 126,283 $ 86,409
Other (13,733) (4,171)
Total Cash Collections $ 112,550 $ 82,238
Accrual Adjustment 8,107 7,092
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 27) $ 120,657 $ 89,330
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund) $ 112,695 $ 90,774
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred 7,962 (1,444)
Total Disposition of Collections $ 120,657 $ 89,330
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 27)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 433
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Notes to Financial Statements
(Dollars in Thousands)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A. Basis of Presentation
These accompanying financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and
results of operations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) as required
by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of
1994. The reports have been prepared from the financial system and records of the Agency in
accordance with OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, and the EPA's
accounting policies which are summarized in this note. In addition to the reports required by
OMB Circular No. A-136, the Statement of Net Cost has been prepared with cost segregated 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 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 2008, the accompanying financial statements are grouped and presented in a consolidated
basis for the Balance Sheet, and Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position and Custodial
Activity and a combined basis for the Statement of Budgetary Resources. These financial
statements include the accounts of all funds described in this note by their respective Treasury
fund group.
General Fund Appropriations (Treasury Fund Groups 0000 - 3999)
a. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Appropriation: The STAG appropriation,
Treasury fund group 0103, provides funds for environmental programs and infrastructure
assistance including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and performance partnership
grants. Environmental programs and infrastructure supported are: Clean and Safe Water;
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Clean Air; direct grants for
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure needs, partnership grants to meet Health Standards, Protect
Watersheds, Decrease Wetland Loss, and Address Agricultural and Urban Runoff and Storm
Water; Better Waste Management; Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities,
Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems; and Reduction of Global and Cross Border Environmental
Risks.
b. Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation: The S&T appropriation, Treasury fund
group 0107, finances salaries, travel, science, technology, research and development activities
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 434
-------
09-1-0026
including laboratory supplies, certain operating expenses, grants, contracts, intergovernmental
agreements, and purchases of scientific equipment. These activities provide the scientific basis
for the Agency's regulatory actions. In FY 2008, Superfund research costs were appropriated in
Superfund and transferred to S&T to allow for proper accounting of the costs. Environmental
scientific and technological activities and programs include Clean Air; Clean and Safe Water;
Americans Right to Know about Their Environment; Better Waste Management; Preventing
Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems; and Safe
Food.
c. Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriation: The EPM
appropriation, Treasury fund group 0108, includes funds for salaries, travel, contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements for pollution abatement, control, and compliance activities and
administrative activities of the Agency's operating programs. Areas supported from this
appropriation include: Clean Air, Clean and Safe Water, Land Preservation and Restoration,
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.
d. Buildings and Facilities Appropriation (B&F): The B&F appropriation, Treasury fund
group 0110, provides for the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment or facilities that are owned or used by the EPA.
e. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Appropriation: The OIG appropriation, Treasury fund
group 0112, provides funds for audit and investigative functions to identify and recommend
corrective actions on management and administrative deficiencies that create the conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. Additional funds for audit
and investigative activities associated with the Superfund and the LUST Trust Funds are
appropriated under those Trust Fund accounts and transferred to the Office of Inspector General
account. The audit function provides contract, internal controls and performance, and financial
and grant audit services. The appropriation includes expenses incurred and reimbursed from the
appropriated trust funds accounted for under Treasury fund group 8145 and 8153.
/ Payments to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Appropriation: The Payment to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriation, Treasury fund group 0250, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted through the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Program.
g. Payments to Leaking Underground Storage Tank Appropriation: The Payment to the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank appropriation, Treasury fund group 0251, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted through the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank program.
h. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury fund
group 0118, Program Account, for interest subsidy and administrative support; under Treasury
fund group 4322, Financing Account, for loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan
collections on post-FY 1991 loans; and under Treasury fund group 2917 for pre-FY 1992 loans
receivable and loan collections.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 435
-------
09-1-0026
The Asbestos Loan Program was authorized by the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of
1986 to finance control of asbestos building materials in schools. Funds have not been
appropriated for this Program since FY 1993. For FY 1993 and FY1992, the program was
funded by a subsidy appropriated from the General Fund for the actual cost of financing the
loans, and by borrowing from Treasury for the unsubsidized portion of the loan. The Program
Account 0118 disburses the subsidy to the Financing Fund for increases in the subsidy. The
Financing Account 4322 receives the subsidy payment, borrows from Treasury and collects the
asbestos loans.
i. Allocations and Appropriations Transferred to the Agency: The EPA receives allocations
or appropriations transferred from other federal agencies.
j. Treasury Clearing Accounts: The EPA Department of the Treasury Clearing Accounts
include: (1) the Budgetary Suspense Account, (2) the Unavailable Check Cancellations and
Overpayments Account, and (3) the Undistributed Intra-agency Payments and Collections
(IPAC) Account. These are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 3875, 3880 and 3885,
respectively.
k. General Fund Receipt Accounts: General Fund Receipt Accounts include: Hazardous Waste
Permits; Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures; General Fund Interest; Interest from
Credit Reform Financing Accounts; Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies; Fees and Other
Charges for Administrative and Professional Services; and Miscellaneous Recoveries and
Refunds. These accounts are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 0895, 1099, 1435, 1499,
2753.3, 3200 and 3220, respectively.
/. Allocation of Budget Authority: EPA is an allocation budget transfer parent to five federal
agencies: Department of Interior, Department of Labor, Center for Disease Control, Department
of Commerce, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. EPA has an Interagency
Agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each child agency to provide an
annual work plan and quarterly progress report containing an accounting of funds obligated in
each budget category within 15 days after the end of each quarter. This allows EPA to properly
report the financial activity. The allocation transfers are reported in the net cost of operations,
changes in net position, balance sheet and budgetary resources where activity is being performed
by the receiving Federal entity. In addition, EPA receives allocation transfers, as a child, from
the Bureau of Land Management.
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 re-registration and reassessment of tolerances for
pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by law.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 436
-------
09-1-0026
b. Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group 4311, was
authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are paid by industry for federal services
to set pesticide chemical residue limits in or on food and animal feed. The fees collected prior to
January 2, 1997 were accounted for under this fund. Presently these fees are being deposited in
the FIFRA fund (see above).
c. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury fund
group 4322, Financing Account for loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan collections on
post-FY 1991 loans. Refer to General Fund Appropriations paragraph h. for details.
d. Working Capital Fund (WCF): The WCF, Treasury fund group, 4565, includes four
activities: computer support services, financial system services, employee relocation services,
and postage. The WCF derives revenue from these activities based upon a fee for services. The
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 of the
financial statements.
Special Funds (Treasury Fund Group 5000 - 5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt Account
authorized by a 1990 act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (P.L. 101-549)," Treasury fund group
5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with environmental programs,
including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training, motor vehicle engine
certifications, and water pollution permits. Receipts in this special fund can only be appropriated
to the S&T and EPM appropriations to meet the expenses of the programs that generate the
receipts as authorized by Congress in the agency's appropriations bill.
b. Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992
act, "Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389)," Treasury fund group
5297, has funds available to carry out authorized environmental restoration activities. Funding is
derived from the collection of reimbursements under the Exxon Valdez settlement as a result of
an oil spill.
c. Pesticide Registration Fund: The Pesticide Registration Fund authorized by a 2004 act,
"Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)," Treasury fund group 5374, was authorized in
2004 for the expedited processing of certain registration petitions and associated establishment of
tolerances for pesticides to be used in or on food and animal feed. Fees covering these activities,
as authorized under the FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be paid by industry and deposited into this
fund group.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 437
-------
09-1-0026
Deposit Funds (Treasury Fund Group 6000 - 6999)
Deposits 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, City Income Taxes Withheld, and Other Federal Payroll Withholding
Allotments. These funds are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 6264, 6265, 6266, 6500,
6050, 6275, and 6276, respectively.
Trust Funds (Treasury Fund Group 8000 - 8999)
a. Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145, was
established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and clean up hazardous substance
emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Trust Fund
financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The EPA allocates
funds from its appropriation to other federal agencies to carry out CERCLA. Risks to public
health and the environment at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites qualifying for the Agency's
National Priorities List (NPL) are reduced and addressed through a process involving site
assessment and analysis and the design and implementation of cleanup remedies. NPL cleanups
and removals are conducted and financed by the EPA, private parties, or other federal agencies.
The Superfund Trust Fund includes Treasury's collections and investment activity.
b. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust Fund, Treasury
fund group 8153, was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The LUST
appropriation provides funding to respond to releases from leaking underground petroleum tanks.
The Agency oversees cleanup and enforcement programs which are implemented by the states.
Funds are allocated to the states through cooperative agreements to clean up those sites posing
the greatest threat to human health and the environment. Funds are used for grants to non-state
entities including Indian tribes under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. The program is financed by a one cent a gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in
2011.
c. Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury fund group
8221, was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies were appropriated to the
Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for directing, monitoring and
providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities. This involves setting
oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA
and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions
when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills
including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation.
Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of Transportation under
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other federal agencies.
d. Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust
Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended by
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 438
-------
09-1-0026
(P.L. 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972), Treasury fund
group 8741, includes gifts for pollution control programs that are usually designated for a
specific use by donors and/or deposits from pesticide registrants to cover the costs of petition
hearings when such hearings result in unfavorable decisions to the petitioner.
C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
General Funds
Congress 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 in subsequent years after the loans were disbursed.
Funds transferred from other federal agencies are funded by a non-expenditure transfer of funds
from the other federal agencies. As the Agency disburses the obligated amounts, the balance of
funding available to the appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
Clearing accounts 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 and telecommunication services, financial system services, employee relocation
services, and postage.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 439
-------
09-1-0026
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. These are not EPA's funds.
Trust Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropriation amount for the Superfund, LUST and the Oil Spill
Response Trust Funds to remain available until expended. A transfer account for the Superfund
and LUST Trust Fund has been established for purposes of carrying out the program activities.
As the Agency disburses obligated amounts from the transfer account, the Agency draws down
monies from the Superfund and LUST Trust Fund at Treasury to cover the amounts being
disbursed. The Agency draws down all the appropriated monies from the Principal Fund of the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund when Congress adopts the appropriation amount.
D. Basis of Accounting
GAAP for Federal entities are the standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB), which is the official standard-setting body for the Federal
government.
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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 440
-------
09-1-0026
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 in special accounts. Cost recovery
settlements that are not placed in special accounts continue to be deposited in the Trust Fund.
The majority of all other funds receive funding needed to support programs through
appropriations, which may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital
expenditures. However, under Credit Reform provisions, the Asbestos Loan Program received
funding to support the subsidy cost of loans through appropriations which may be used within
statutory limits. The Asbestos Direct Loan Financing fund 4322, an off-budget fund, receives
additional funding to support the outstanding loans through collections from the Program fund
0118 for the subsidized portion of the loan. The last year Congress provided appropriations to
make new loans was 1993.
The FIFRA and Pesticide Registration funds receive funding through fees collected for services
provided and interest on invested funds. The WCF receives revenue through fees collected for
services provided to Agency program offices. Such revenue is eliminated with related Agency
program expenses upon consolidation of the Agency's financial statements. The Exxon Valdez
Settlement Fund receives funding through reimbursements.
Appropriated funds are recognized as Other Financing Sources expended when goods and
services have been rendered without regard to payment of cash. Other revenues are recognized
when earned (i.e., when services have been rendered).
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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 441
-------
09-1-0026
G. Investments in U.S. Government Securities
Investments in U.S. Government securities are maintained by Treasury and are reported at
amortized cost net of unamortized discounts. Discounts are amortized over the term of the
investments and reported as interest income. No provision is made for unrealized gains or losses
on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity (see Note 4).
H. Notes Receivable
The Agency records notes receivable at their face value and any accrued interest as of the date of
receipt.
I. Marketable Securities
The Agency records marketable securities at cost as of the date of receipt. Marketable securities
are held by Treasury and reported at their cost value in the financial statements until sold (see
Note 4).
J. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable
The majority of receivables for non-Superfund funds represent penalties and interest receivable
for general fund receipt accounts, unbilled intragovernmental reimbursements receivable,
allocations receivable from Superfund (eliminated in consolidated totals), and refunds receivable
for the STAG appropriation.
Superfund accounts receivable represent recovery of costs from PRPs as provided under
CERCLA as amended by SARA. However, cost recovery expenditures are expensed when
incurred since there is no assurance that these funds will be recovered (see Note 5).
The Agency records accounts receivable from PRPs for Superfund site response costs when a
consent decree, judgment, administrative order, or settlement is entered. These agreements are
generally negotiated after site response costs have been incurred. It is the Agency's position that
until a consent decree or other form of settlement is obtained, the amount recoverable should not
be recorded.
The Agency also records accounts receivable from states for a percentage of Superfund site
remedial action costs incurred by the Agency within those states. As agreed to under SSCs, cost
sharing arrangements may vary according to whether a site was privately or publicly operated at
the time of hazardous substance disposal and whether the Agency response action was removal
or remedial. SSC agreements are usually for 10 percent or 50 percent of site remedial action
costs, depending on who has the lead for the site (i.e., publicly or privately owned). States may
pay the full amount of their share in advance or incrementally throughout the remedial action
process.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 442
-------
09-1-0026
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 contract 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 contract property; detailed records are maintained and accounted for in
contractor systems, not in FAS. All EPA-held personal property purchased before the
implementation of FAS was assumed to have an estimated useful life of 5 years. New
acquisitions of EPA-held personal property are depreciated using the straight-line method over
the specific asset's useful life, ranging from 2 to 15 years.
Personal property also consists of capital leases. To be defined as a capital lease, it must, at its
inception, have a lease term of two or more years and the lower of the fair value or present value
of the minimum lease payments must be $75 thousand or more. Capital leases may also contain
real property (therefore considered in the real property category as well), but these need to meet
an $85 thousand capitalization threshold. In addition, the lease must meet one of the following
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 443
-------
09-1-0026
criteria: transfers ownership to EPA, contains a bargain purchase option, the lease term is equal
to 75 percent or more of the estimated service life, or the present value of the lease and other
minimum lease payments equal or exceed 90 percent of the fair value.
Superfund contract property used as part of the remedy for site-specific response actions is
capitalized in accordance with the Agency's capitalization threshold. This property is part of the
remedy at the site and eventually becomes part of the site itself. Once the response action has
been completed and the remedy implemented, EPA retains control of the property (i.e., pump
and treat facility) for 10 years or less, and transfers its interest in the facility to the respective
state for mandatory operation and maintenance - usually 20 years or more. Consistent with
EPA's 10 year retention period, depreciation for this property is based on a 10 year life.
However, if any property is transferred to a state in a year or less, this property is charged to
expense. If any property is sold prior to EPA relinquishing interest, the proceeds from the sale of
that property shall be applied against contract payments or refunded as required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
An exception to the accounting of contract property includes equipment purchased by the
Working Capital Fund (WCF). This property is retained in FAS and depreciated utilizing the
straight-line method based upon the asset's acquisition date and useful life.
Real property consists of land, buildings, capital and leasehold improvements, as well as capital
leases. Real property, other than land, is capitalized when the value is $85 thousand or more.
Land is capitalized regardless of cost. Buildings were valued at an estimated original cost basis,
and land was valued at fair market value if purchased prior to FY 1997. Real property purchased
during and after FY 1997 is valued at actual cost. Depreciation for real property is calculated
using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life, ranging from 10 to 102 years.
Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of their useful life or the unexpired lease
term. Additions to property and improvements not meeting the capitalization criteria,
expenditures for minor alterations, and repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred.
Software for the WCF, a revenue generating activity, is capitalized if the purchase price was
$100 thousand or more with an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. All other funds
capitalize software if those investments are considered Capital Planning and Investment Control
(CPIC) or CPIC Lite systems with the provisions of SFFAS No. 10, "Accounting for Internal
Use Software." Once software enters the production life cycle phase, it is depreciated using the
straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life ranging from 2 to 10 years.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 444
-------
09-1-0026
O. Liabilities
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the
Agency as the result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can
be paid by the Agency without an appropriation or other collections. Liabilities for which an
appropriation has not been enacted are classified as unfunded liabilities and there is no certainty
that the appropriations will be enacted. Liabilities of the Agency arising from other than
contracts can be abrogated by the Government acting in its sovereign capacity.
P. Borrowing Payable to the Treasury
Borrowing payable to Treasury results from loans from Treasury to fund the Asbestos direct
loans described in part B. and C. of this note. Periodic principal payments are made to Treasury
based on the collections of loans receivable.
Q. Interest Payable to Treasury
The Asbestos Loan Program makes periodic interest payments to Treasury based on its debt. At
the end of FY 2007 and FY 2008, there was no outstanding interest payable to Treasury since
payment was made through September 30.
R. Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Annual, sick and other leave is expensed as taken during the fiscal year. Sick leave earned but
not taken is not accrued as a liability. Annual leave earned but not taken as of the end of the
fiscal year is accrued as an unfunded liability. Accrued unfunded annual leave is included in
Note 35 as a component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable."
S. Retirement Plan
There are two primary retirement systems for federal employees. Employees hired prior to
January 1, 1987, may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On January 1,
1984, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect pursuant to Public Law
99-335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by FERS and
Social Security. Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, elected to either join FERS and Social
Security or remain in CSRS. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan to which
the Agency automatically contributes one percent of pay and matches any employee
contributions up to an additional four percent of pay. The Agency also contributes the
employer's matching share for Social Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
accounting and reporting standards were established for liabilities relating to the federal
employee benefit programs (Retirement, Health Benefits, and Life Insurance). SFFAS No. 5
requires that the employing agencies recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement benefits
during their employees' active years of service. SFFAS No. 5 requires that the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), as administrator of the CSRS and FERS, the Federal Employees
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 445
-------
09-1-0026
Health Benefits Program, and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program, provide
federal agencies with the actuarial cost factors to compute the liability for each program.
T. Prior Period Adjustments
Prior period adjustments will be made in accordance with SFFAS No. 21, "Reporting
Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles." Specifically, prior period
adjustments will only be made for material prior period errors to: (1) the current period financial
statements, and (2) the prior period financial statements presented for comparison. Adjustments
related to changes in accounting principles will only be made to the current period financial
statements, but not to prior period financial statements presented for comparison.
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, consist of the following:
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill &Msc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Tolerance
\Aforking Capital
Cr. Reform Rnan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
Entity
Assets
45,596$
12,712
3,637
2,371
65,080
399
9,237,455
229,038
9,596,288 $
FY2008
Non-Entity
Assets
-$
-
-
_
-
-
-
9,068
9,068 $
Total
45,596 $
12,712
3,637
2,371
65,080
399
9,237,455
238,106
9,605,356 $
Entity
Assets
51,081 $
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
205,693
10,457,960 $
FY2007
Non-Entity
Assets
-$
-
-
_
-
-
-
8,640
8,640$
Total
51,081
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
214,333
10,466,600
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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
446
-------
09-1-0026
Status of Fund Balances:
FY 2008
FY 2007
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances
Available for Obligation $3,204,800 $3,274,338
Unavailable for Obligation 339,319 267,042
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,861,933) (2,527,186)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 18) 397 14,394
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 8,701,838 9,240,417
Non-Budgetary FBWT 220,935 197,595
Totals $9,605,356 $10,466,600
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 2008 and
FY 2007 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund
balances with Treasury.
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
For September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, cash consists of an imprest fund of $10
thousand.
Note 4. Investments
For September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 investments related to Superfund and LUST
consist of the following:
Cost
Amortized
(Premium)
Discount
Interest
Receivable
Investments,
Net
Market
Value
Intragovernmental
Non-Marketable FY2008 $ 6,057,258 $ (77,301)$ 40,269 $ 6,174,828 $ 6,174,828
Non-Marketable FY2007 $ 5,680,321 $ (29,431)$ 43,259 $ 5,753,061 $ 5,753,061
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund sites
from responsible parties (RPs). Some RPs file for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code.
In bankruptcy settlements, EPA is an unsecured creditor and is entitled to receive a percentage of
the assets remaining after secured creditors have been satisfied. Some RPs satisfy their debts by
issuing securities of the reorganized company. The Agency does not intend to exercise
ownership rights to these securities, and instead will convert them to cash as soon as practicable
(see Note 6). All investments in Treasury securities are earmarked funds (see Note 20).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
447
-------
09-1-0026
The Federal Government does not set aside assets to pay future benefits or other expenditures
associated with earmarked funds. The cash receipts collected from the public for an earmarked
fund are deposited in the U.S. Treasury, which uses the cash for general Government purposes.
Treasury securities are issued to EPA as evidence of its receipts. Treasury securities are an asset
to EPA and a liability to the U.S. Treasury. Because EPA and the U.S. Treasury are both parts
of the Government, these assets and liabilities offset each other from the standpoint of the
Government as a whole. For this reason, they do not represent an asset or liability in the U.S.
Government-wide financial statements.
Treasury securities provide EPA with authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury to make future
benefit payments or other expenditures. When EPA requires redemption of these securities to
make expenditures, the Government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash
balances, by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public or repaying less debt,
or by curtailing other expenditures. This is the same way that the Government finances all other
expenditures.
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 consist of the
following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable $ 34,636 $ 57,039
Total $ 34,636 $ 57,039
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable $ 113,359 $ 136,779
Accounts & Interest Receivable 1,188,670 992,575
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles (952,290) (770,052)
Total $ 349,739 $ 359,302
The Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts is determined both on a specific identification basis,
as a result of a case-by-case review of receivables, and on a percentage basis for receivables not
specifically identified.
Note 6. Other Assets
Other Assets for September 30, 2008 and 2007 consist of the following:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 448
-------
09-1-0026
FY 2008
FY 2007
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies $ 107,327 $ 80,940
Advances for Postage 106 129
Total Intragovernmental Assets $ 107,433 $ 81,069
135 $
88
-
2,934
159
339
-
3,655 $
106
9
116
3,699
160
246
238
4,574
Non-Federal Assets:
Travel Advances $
Letter of Credit Advances
Grant Advances
Other Advances
Operating Materials and Supplies
Inventory for Sale
Securities Received in Settlement of Debt
Total Non-Federal Assets $
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, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:
FY 2008
FY 2007
Direct Loans
Obligated Prior
to FY 1992
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
4,327 $
Allowance*
Value of
Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
Allowance*
4,327 $
7,435 $
Value of
Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
7,435
Direct Loans
Obligated After
FY1991
14,513
(1,752)
12,761
18,440
(2,714)
Total $ 18,840 $ (1,752) $ 17,088 $ 25,875 $ (2,714) $
15,726
23,161
* Allowance for Pre-Credit Reform loans (prior to FY 1992) is the Allowance for Estimated
Uncollectible Loans, and the Allowance for Post Credit Reform Loans (after FY 1991) is the
Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
449
-------
09-1-0026
The Agency has permanent indefinite borrowing authority to replenish the Asbestos Loan
account. During FY 2008, EPA calculated an Upward Subsidy Reestimate of $33 thousand to
utilize this replenishment. Budget authority was recorded and funds were expended for this.
However, as of September 30, 2008 EPA had not received from OMB the apportionment
authorizing this expenditure. The Agency is working with OMB and Legal Counsel to determine
if this is an Anti-Deficiency situation since it has indefinite borrowing authority. During this
review process, the EPA does not expect to receive the authorizing Apportionment Letter, and
the Upward Subsidy Reestimate is unfunded as of September 30, 2008.
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
Upward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2008
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2008
FY 2008 Totals
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2007
FY 2007 Totals
$
$
$
$
$
Interest
Rate Re-
estimate
21 $
(22) $
(1) $
(17) $
(17)$
Technical Total
Re-estimate
estimate
12 $
(12) $
- $
(12) $
(12)$
33
(34)
(1)
(29)
(29)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
450
-------
09-1-0026
Schedule for Reconciling Subsidy Cost Allowance Balances
(Post-1991 Direct Loans)
FY 2008 FY 2007
Beginning balance of the subsidy cost allowance ($2,714) ($3,882)
Add: subsidy expense for direct loans disbursed during the
reporting years by component:
(a) Interest rate differential costs 0.00 0.00
(b) Default costs (net of recoveries) 0.00 0.00
(c) Fees and other collections 0.00 0.00
(d) Other subsidy costs 0.00 0.00
Total of the above subsidy expense components 0.00 0.00
Adjustments:
(a) Loan Modification: 0.00 0.00
(b) Fees received 0.00 0.00
(c) Foreclosed property acquired 0.00 0.00
(d) Loans written off 0.00 1.00
(e) Subsidy allowance amortization 981.00 1,167.00
(f) Other 0.00 0.00
Ending balance of the subsidy cost allowance before reestimates 981.00 1,168.00
Add or subtract subsidy reestimates by component:
(a) interest rate reestimate (21.00) 0.00 1/
(b) Technical/default reestimate 2.00 0.00 1/
Total of the above reestimate components (19.00) 0.00
Ending Balance of the subsidy cost allowance ($1,752) ($2,714)
1/ There is an immaterial difference that will be researched in FY 2009.
EPA has not disbursed Direct Loans since 1993.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 451
-------
09-1-0026
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, 2008 and 2007.
FY 2008
2,811 $
-
77,844
80,655 $
FY 2008
114,712 $
24
7
413,981
184,871
713,595 $
FY 2007
2,611
19,878
99,718
122,207
FY 2007
114,082
16
7
601,034
196,861
912,000
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 Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E)
General property, plant, and equipment consist of software, real property, EPA and Contractor-
Held personal property, and capital leases.
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, General Property, Plant, and Equipment consist of the
following:
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total
Acquisition
Value
238,051 $
307,883
63,132
595,597
47,505
1,252,168$
FY 2008
Accumulated
Depreciation
(130,045) $
(93,925)
(28,417)
(154,986)
(30,542)
(437,915) $
Net Book
Value
108,006$
213,958
34,715
440,61 1
16,963
814,253 $
Acquisition
Value
222,848 $
258,637
64,641
579,880
47,505
1,173,511 $
FY 2007
Accumulated
Depreciation
(119,605)$
(49,407)
(23,486)
(143,594)
(27,546)
(363,638) $
Net Book
Value
103,243
209,230
41,155
436,286
19,959
809,873
To submit comments or questions on the FY2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
452
-------
09-1-0026
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
The debt due to Treasury consists of borrowings to finance the asbestos loan program. The debt
to Treasury as of September 30, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:
All CHher Funds FY2008 FY2007
Beginning Net Ending Beginning Net Ending
Balance Borrowing Balance Balance Borrcwing Balance
Intragovernmental:
Debt to Treasury $ 16,156$ (2,998)$ 13,158$ 18,896$ (2,740)$ 16,156
Note 11. Stewardship Land
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in
Section 104 (J) CERCLA related to remedial clean-up sites. The land rights are in the form of
easements to allow access to clean-up sites or to restrict usage of remediated sites. In some
instances, the Agency takes title to the land during remediation and returns it to private
ownership upon the completion of clean-up. A site with "land acquired" may have more than one
acquisition property. Sites are not counted as a withdrawal until all acquired properties have
been transferred.
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Superfund Sites with
Easements
Beginning Balance 33 32
Additions 1 2
Withdrawals 2_ 1_
Ending Balance 32 33
Superfund Sites with
Land Acquired
Beginning Balance 32 31
Additions 2 1
Withdrawals 3
Ending Balance 31 32
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 453
-------
09-1-0026
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Custodial Liability represents the amount of net accounts receivable that, when collected, will be
deposited to the Treasury General Fund. Included in the custodial liability are amounts for fines
and penalties, interest assessments, repayments of loans, and miscellaneous other accounts
receivable. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, custodial liability is $48 million and $39
million, respectively.
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2008:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes $
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental $
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal $
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal $
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
17,125
3,166
14,489
41,586
1,089
3
5
77,088
8,810
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
77.463 $
9,914
22,000
31.914 $
230
29,520
Total
17,125
3,166
14,489
41,586
1,089
3
5
9,914
22,000
109.377
77,088
8,810
230
29,520
85.898 $
29.750 $
115.648
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
454
-------
09-1-0026
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2007:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes $
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental $
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
9,102
22,000
67.258 $.
31.102 $.
$
72,671
8,453
230
32,385
81.124 $.
32.615 $.
Total
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
9,102
22,000
98.360
72,671
8,453
230
32,385
113.739
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal $
Note 14. Leases
Capital Leases:
The Capital Leases:
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 a base rental charge and escalator clauses based
upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs are adjusted
annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The real property leases terminate in FYs 2010, 2013, and
2025.
FY 2008
FY 2007
$
$
$
40,913
155
6,437
47,505
30,542
$
$
$
40,913
155
6,437
47,505
27,546
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
455
-------
09-1-0026
EPA has a capital lease expended out of the Working Capital Fund for a Microsoft Office
Software Suite. This lease will terminate in FY 2009.
During FY 2005, EPA entered into a capital lease for a Storage Area Network. The lease
terminates in FY 2009, and payments are expended from the EPM appropriation.
The total future minimum capital lease payments are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
Fiscal Year Capital Leases
2009 $ 6,295
2010 6,102
2011 5,714
2012 5,714
After 5 Years 53,487
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 77,312
Less: Imputed Interest (47,792)
Net Capital Lease Liability $ 29,520
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources
(See Note 13) $ 29,520
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 four current direct operating leases for land and buildings housing scientific
laboratories and/or computer facilities. The leases include a base rental charge and escalator
clauses based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs
are adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The leases expire in FY 2009, FY2010, 2017, and 2020. These
charges are expended from the EPM appropriation.
The total minimum future operating lease costs are listed below.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 456
-------
09-1-0026
Operating Leases,
Land and Buildings
Fiscal Year
2009 $ 112
2010 97
2011 89
2012 89
Beyond 2012 600
Payments $ 987
Note 15. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost
protection to covered Federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have
incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose death is
attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease. Annually, EPA is allocated the
portion of the long term FECA actuarial liability attributable to the entity. The liability is
calculated to estimate the expected liability for death, disability, medical and miscellaneous costs
for approved compensation cases. The liability amounts and the calculation methodologies are
provided by the Department of Labor.
The FECA Actuarial Liability at September 30, 2008 and 2007, consists of the following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
FECA Actuarial Liability $ 44,615 $ 39,786
The FY 2008 present value of these estimated outflows is calculated using a discount rate of
4.368 percent in the first year, and 4.770 percent in the years thereafter. The estimated future
costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.
Note 16. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a settlement
agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified Superfund site.
Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are placed in site-specific,
interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used for potential future work at
such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Funds placed in special
accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take responsibility for the site, or to other
Federal agencies to conduct or finance response actions in lieu of EPA without further
appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, cashouts are $287 million and
$190 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 457
-------
09-1-0026
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following:
Unexpended Appropriations: FY 2008 FY 2007
Unobligated
Available $ 1,520,587 $ 1,791,873
Unavailable 94,130 81,753
Undelivered Orders 7,059,994 7,476,965
Total $ 8,674,711 $ 9,350,591
Note 18. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consist of amounts held in trusteeship by
Treasury in the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds.
Superfund (Unaudited)
Superfund is supported primarily by general revenues, cost recoveries of funds spent to clean up
hazardous waste sites, interest income, and fines and penalties.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September 30,
2008 and 2007. The amounts contained in these notes have been provided by Treasury. As
indicated, a portion of the outlays represents amounts received by EPA's Superfund Trust Fund;
such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by
Treasury.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 458
-------
09-1-0026
SUPERFUND FY 2008
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfer from CDC (recovery)
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
2,749,821
$ 2,749,821
$
$
$
2,749,821
2,749,821
$ 1,301,315
1,301,315
$ 1.301.315"
Treasury
$
2,894
2,894
11,533
164,878
$
$
$
$
$
179,305
179,305
179,305
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
$
$
1,192,139
(1,301,315)
1,905
(1,299,410)
$
(107,271)
Combined
$
2,894
2,894
11,533
2,914,699
$
$
$
$
$
2,929,126
2,929,126
2,929,126
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
$
$
1,192,139
1,905
1,905
$
1,194,044
In FY 2008, the EPA received an appropriation of $985 million for Superfund. 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, 2008 and 2007, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability to EPA for previously appropriated
funds of $2,749.9 million and $2,466.8 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
459
-------
SUPERFUNDFY2007
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfers from CDC (recovery)
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
09-1-0026
Treasury Combined
- $
1,538 $
1,538
2,466,812
1,538
12,795
272,244
1,538
12,795
2,739,056
$ 2,466,812 $ 286,577 $ 2,753,389
$
$
$
$
2,466,812 $
2,466,812 $
- $
-
-
-
-
-
- $
286
286
2
234
1
237
1,040
141
1,419
,577
,577
,602
,050
,063
,715
,371
,407
,493
$
$
$
$
2
2
1
1
,753
,753
2
234
1
237
,040
141
,389
,389
,602
,050
,063
,715
,371
,407
,419,493
$
$
1,316,114 $
- $
(1,316,114)$
1,370 $
1,370
1,316,114 (1,314,744)
1,370
$ 1,316,114 $ 104,749 $ 1,420,863
LUST (Unaudited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In FYs
2008 and 2007 there were no fund receipts from cost recoveries. The following represents the
LUST Trust Fund as maintained by Treasury. The amounts contained in these notes have been
provided by Treasury. Outlays represent appropriations received by EPA's LUST Trust Fund;
such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUST Trust Fund maintained by Treasury.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
460
-------
09-1-0026
LUST FY 2008
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
$
- $
112,068
$ 112,068$
$
$'
112,068$
112,068$
- $
- $
105,816$
105,816
105,816$
Treasury Combined
(2,497) $
(2,497)
28,735
3,099,871
3,126,109$
3,126,109$'
(105,816)$
(105,816)
(2,497)
(2,497)
28,735
3,211,939
3,126,109$ 3,238,177
3,238,177
3,238,177
154,309$
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
154,309
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
298,108$ 298,108
192,292$ 298,108
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
461
-------
09-1-0026
LUSTFY2007 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel
Refund Aviation Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
- $ 12,856$
12,856
30,465
80,252 2,890,497
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
- $ 204,272$
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
- $ 343,773$
72,035 $ (72,035) $
72,035 (72,035)
72,035 $ 271,738 $
12,856
12,856
30,465
2,970,749
3,014,070
3,014,070
3,014,070
204,272
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
343,773
-
-
343,773
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions and claims brought by
or against it. These include:
• Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by employees and
others.
• Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by vendors,
grantees and others.
• The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific sites, to
include the collection of fines and penalties from responsible parties.
• Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be settled by a
reduction of future EPA funding to the grantee or the provision of additional grantee
matching funds.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 462
-------
09-1-0026
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, 2008, there are currently two CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative
claims. If the claimants are successful, the total losses on the claims could amount to
approximately $3.3 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. One claimant's chance of success is characterized as reasonably
possible and one ($2.5 million) is characterized as remote chance of success.
Judgment Fund:
In cases that are paid by the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund, EPA must recognize the full cost of a
claim regardless of which entity 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, 2008, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury's 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.
Other Commitments:
EPA has a legal commitment under a non-cancellable agreement with the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP). This agreement enables EPA to provide funding to the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Future payments totaling
$9.5 million are scheduled to be processed in FY 2009 and FY 2010.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 463
-------
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
09-1-0026
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2008
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period
Ended September 30, 2008
Gross Program Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period
Ended September 30, 2008
Net Position, Beginning of Period
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion
Net Position End of Period
Environmental
Services
211,282 $
211,282 $
- $
- $
211,282 $
211,282 $
- $
- $
188,371 $
22,911
22,911 $
LUST
12,711
3,240,674
27
72
3,253,484
8,988
8,988
3,244,496
3,253,484
77,702
32
77,670
3,023,769
127,346
170,762
289
(77,670)
220,727
211,282 $
3,244,496
Other Total
Earmarked Earmarked
Superfund Funds Funds
45,596 $ 23,765 $ 293,354
2,926,233 7,921 6,174,828
317,773 4,404 322,204
89,409 2,487 91,968
3,379,011 $
624,299 $
624,299 $
2,754,712 $
3,379,011 $
1,530,979 $
502,177
38,577 $ 6,882,354
36,588 $ 669,875
36,588 $ 669,875
1,989 $ 6,212,479
38,577 $ 6,882,354
73,284 $ 1,681,965
52,425 554,634
1,028,802 $
2,670,425 $
114,340
10,442
969,606
18,701
(1,028,802)
84,287" $
2,754,712" $
20,859 $
3,662 $
187
17,056
1,943
(20,859)
(1,673) $
1,127,331
5,886,227
241,873
204,115
986,662
20,933
(1,127,331)
326,252"
1,989 $ 6,212,479
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
464
-------
09-1-0026
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2007
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Environmental
Services
LUST
Superfund
Other
Earmarked
Funds
Total
Earmarked
Funds
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Gross Programs Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
76,242 $
(1.414)
1,497,010 $
377,904
77,656 $ 1,119,106 $
18,662 $
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Net Position, Beginning of Period $
Changes in Accounting Principle (Alloc Trans Agency) (Note 38)
Beginning Balance as Adjusted
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue - Other
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion $
Net Position End of Period
165,723 $ 2,757,325
165,723
22,648
22,648 $
2,757,325
117,579
226,194
327
(77,656)
266,444
2,627,300
141,407
2,721
998,952
19,151
(1,119,106)
43,125 ' $
3,577
3,577
85 $
5,533,025
20,900
5,553,925
258,986
252,148
1,014,685
21,907
(1,215,424)
332,302 '
Earmarked funds are as follows:
Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt Account
authorized by a 1990 act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (P.L. 101-549)," Treasury fund group
5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with environmental programs,
including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training, motor vehicle engine
certifications, and water pollution permits. Receipts in this special fund can only be appropriated
to the S&T and EPM appropriations to meet the expenses of the programs that generate the
receipts as authorized by Congress in the Agency's appropriations bill.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust Fund, Treasury
fund group 8153, was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The LUST
appropriation provides funding to respond to releases from leaking underground petroleum tanks.
The Agency oversees cleanup and enforcement programs which are implemented by the states.
Funds are allocated to the states through cooperative agreements to clean up those sites posing
the greatest threat to human health and the environment. Funds are used for grants to non-state
entities including Indian tribes under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
465
-------
09-1-0026
Act. The program is financed by a one cent per gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in
2011.
Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145, was
established by CERCLA to provide resources to respond to and clean up hazardous substance
emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Trust Fund
financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The EPA allocates
funds from its appropriation to other Federal agencies to carry out CERCLA. Risks to public
health and the environment at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites qualifying for the Agency's
National Priorities List (NPL) are reduced and addressed through a process involving site
assessment and analysis and the design and implementation of cleanup remedies. NPL cleanups
and removals are conducted and financed by the EPA, private parties, or other Federal agencies.
The Superfund Trust Fund includes Treasury's collections, special account receipts from
settlement agreements, and investment activity.
Other Earmarked Funds:
Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8221,
was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies were appropriated to the Oil
Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for directing, monitoring and
providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities. This involves setting
oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA
and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions
when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills
including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation.
Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of Transportation under
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other Federal agencies.
Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust
Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended P.L.
92-500 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972), Treasury fund group
8741, includes gifts for pollution control programs that are usually designated for a specific use
by donors and/or deposits from pesticide registrants to cover the costs of petition hearings when
such hearings result in unfavorable decisions to the petitioner.
Pesticide Registration Fund: The Pesticide Registration Fund authorized by a 2004 Act,
"Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)," Treasury fund group 5374, was authorized in
2004 for the expedited processing of certain registration petitions and associated establishment of
tolerances for pesticides to be used in or on food and animal feed. Fees covering these activities,
as authorized under the FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be paid by industry and deposited into this
fund group.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 466
-------
09-1-0026
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 reregi strati on and reassessment of tolerances for
pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by law.
Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group 4311, was
authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are paid by industry for Federal
services to set pesticide chemical residue limits in or on food and animal feed. The fees collected
prior to January 2, 1997 were accounted for under this fund. Presently these fees are being
deposited in the FIFRA fund.
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992 Act,
"Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389)," Treasury fund group
5297, has funds available to carry out authorized environmental restoration activities. Funding is
derived from the collection of reimbursements under the Exxon Valdez settlement as a result of
an oil spill.
Note 21. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Exchange revenues on the Statement of Net Cost include income from services provided, interest
revenue (with the exception of interest earned on trust fund investments), and miscellaneous
earned revenue. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, exchange revenues are $634 million and
$550 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 467
-------
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
09-1-0026
FY 2008
Clean Air
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Clean & Safe Water
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Land Preservation &
Restoration
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Healthy Communities &
Ecosystems
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Total
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Intragovern-
mental
181,467
18,360
162,679
7,615
347,011
73,829
281,767
22,710
176,376
5,540
With the
Public
$ 816,336
2,043
TOTAL
997,803
20,403
163,107 $ 814,293 $ 977,400 $
FY 2007
Intragovern
mental
185,389 $
15,594
169,795 $
With the
Public
818,753 $
2,997
815,756 $
TOTAL
1,004,142
18,591
985,551
3,334,953
2,841
3,497,632
10,456
180,571 $ 3,868,428 $ 4,048,999
11,016 2,262 13,278
155,064 $ 3,332,112 $ 3,487,176 $ 169,555 $ 3,866,166 $ 4,035,721
$ 1,654,205
460,055
2,001,216
533,884
396,786 $ 1,607,952 $ 2,004,738
101,036 352,963 453,999
273,182 $ 1,194,150 $ 1,467,332 $ 295,750 $ 1,254,989 $ 1,550,739
$ 1,126,764
39,407
1,408,531
62,117
275,068 $ 1,144,793 $ 1,419,861
18,450 38,902 57,352
259,057 $ 1,087,357 $ 1,346,414 $ 256,618 $ 1,105,891 $ 1,362,509
593,853
1,801
770,229
7,341
182,101
5,613
603,463
1,265
785,564
6,878
170,836 $ 592,052 $ 762,888 $ 176,488 $ 602,198 $ 778,686
$ 1,149,300 $ 7,526,111 $ 8,675,411 $ 1,219,915 $ 8,043,389 $ 9,263,304
128,054 506,147 634,201 151,709 398,389 550,098
$ 7,645,000 $ 8,713,206
$ 1,021,246 $ 7,019,964 $ 8,041,210 $ 1,068,206
Intragovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification of the
related revenue.
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship Land
The costs related to the acquisition of stewardship land was approximately $2 million in FY
2008 and less than $150 thousand in FY 2007. These costs are included in the Statement of Net
Cost.
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30, 2008, EPA has six sites that require clean up stemming from its activities.
Costs amounting to $269 thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment Fund. Two
claimants' chance of success are characterized as probable and three as reasonably possible.
Additionally, EPA has one site ($80 thousand) characterized as having a 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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
468
-------
09-1-0026
of the cleanup costs. However, it is expected that the Department of Defense and General
Services Administration will bear all or most of the cost of remediation. In addition, EPA has
two sites that have an unfunded environmental liability of $230 thousand.
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has 16 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure. The
estimated costs will be approximately $19 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 2008 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs increased by $1.2 million from the FY 2007
estimate.
Note 25. State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related Federal regulations requires 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 it 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, 2008, the total remaining state credits
have been estimated at $15.3 million. The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2007 was $14.5 million.
Note 26. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Under Superfund preauthorized mixed funding agreements, PRPs agree to perform response
actions at their sites with the understanding that EPA will reimburse them 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, 2008, EPA had 14 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding
agreements with obligations totaling $25 million. A liability is not recognized for these amounts
until all work has been performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for payment.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 469
-------
09-1-0026
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 2 7. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other
Miscellaneous Receipts:
Accounts Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
Total
$
FY 2008
120,657
220,123
(171,966)
48,157
$
$
$
FY 2007
89,330
196,590
(156,401)
40,189
EPA uses the accrual basis of accounting for the collection of fines, penalties and miscellaneous
receipts. Collectibility by EPA of the fines and penalties is based on the RPs' willingness and
ability to pay.
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred and outlays, as presented in the audited
FY 2008 Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the
FY 2009 Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of
the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2008 has not yet been published. We
expect it will be published by March 2009, and it will be available on the OMB website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/. The actual amounts published for the year ended September 30,
2007 are included in EPA's FY 2008 financial statement disclosures.
FY 2007
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Adjustments to Undelivered Orders and
Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S.
Government
Budgetary
Resources
"$ 13,058,309
3,780
(264,384)
(1,705)
Obligations
9,516,922
1,679
(1,520)
(1,081)
Offsetting
Receipts
1,307,458
Net Outlays
9,564,449
(458)
(1,449)
$ 12,796,000 $ 9,516,000 $ 1,307,000 $ 9,563,000
* 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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
470
-------
09-1-0026
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations, Temporarily Not Available, and Permanently Not
Available on the Statement of Budgetary Resources consist of the following amounts:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations-
downward adjustments of prior years'
obligations $ 281,117 $ 387,621
Temporarily Not Available-rescinded authority (6,366) -_
Permanently Not Available:
Payments to Treasury (3,032) (2,769)
Rescinded authority (117,284)
Canceled authority (5,210) (4,564)
Total Permanently Not Available $ (125,526) $ (7,333)
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
The unobligated balances available consist of the following as of September 30, 2008 and 2007.
Unobligated balances are a combination of two lines on the Statement of Budgetary Resources:
Apportioned, Unobligated Balances and Unobligated Balances Not Available. Unexpired
unobligated balances are available to be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. The expired unobligated balances are only available for
upward adjustments of existing obligations.
FY 2008 FY 2007
Unexpired Unobligated Balance $ 3,205,306 $ 3,279,240
Expired Unobligated Balance 346,574 262,147
Total $ 3,551,880 $ 3,541,387
Note 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of the September 30, 2008 and
2007 are as follows:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Undelivered Orders $ 8,427,344 $ 8,714,675
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 471
-------
09-1-0026
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt
accounts offset gross outlays. For FYs 2008 and 2007, the following receipts were generated
from these activities:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Trust Fund Recoveries $ 89,995 $ 234,171
Special Fund Environmental Service 22,911 22,648
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies - 29
Trust Fund Appropriation 984,974 1,040,372
Special Fund Receipt Account and Treasury
Miscellaneous Receipts and Clearing Accounts 20,549 10,238
Total $ 1,118,429 $ 1,307,458
Note 33. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2008 and 2007, the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources on the
Statement of Changes in Net Position are comprised of nonexpenditure transfers that affect
Unexpended Appropriations for non-invested appropriations. These amounts are included in the
Budget Authority, Net Transfers and Prior Year Unobligated Balance, Net Transfers lines on the
Statement of Budgetary Resources. Detail of the Appropriation Transfers on the Statement of
Changes in Net Position and reconciliation with the Statement of Budgetary Resources follow:
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
Fund/Type of Account FY 2008 FY 2007
U.S. Navy $ (7,875) $ -_
Total Appropriation Transfers (Other Funds) $ (7,875) -
Net Transfers from Invested Funds 1,389,902 1,344,610
Transfer to Another Agency (7,875)
Allocations Rescinded 5,940 -
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
Budgetary Resources $ 1,387,967$ 1,344,610
For FYs 2008 and 2007, 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:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 472
-------
09-1-0026
Type of Transfer/Funds
FY 2008
FY 2007
Earmark
Other
Funds
Earmark
Other
Funds
Transfers-in (out)
nonexpenditure, Earmark to
S&T and OIG funds $
Transfer-in nonexpenditure
recovery from CDC
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure,
Oil Spill
Transfer-in (out) cancelled
funds
Adjustment from Prior Year
Total Transfers in (out)
without Reimbursement,
Budgetary
(37,204) $
1,905
17,056
53
37,204
-
-
(53)
1,370
15,734
701
43,491
$ (18,190) $ 37,151 $ (25,686) $
43,491
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2008 and 2007, 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
Transfers-in by allocation transfer
agency $
Transfers-in property
Transfers (out) of prior year negative
subsidy to be paid following year
Total Transfers in (out) without
Reimbursement, Budgetary $
FY 2008
FY 2007
Earmark
Other Funds
Earmark
- $
- $
39 $
28
- $
28 $
39$
Other Funds
530
(5)
525
Note 34. Imputed Financing Sources
In accordance with SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
Federal agencies must recognize the portion of employees' pensions and other retirement
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
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
473
-------
09-1-0026
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 2008 were $130.1 million ($20.9 million from Earmark funds, and
$109.2 million from Other Funds). For FY 2007, the estimates were $133.3 million ($21.9
million from Earmark Funds, and $111.4 million from Other Funds).
In addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records imputed
costs and financing for Treasury Judgment Fund payments made on behalf of the Agency.
Entries are made in accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards No. 2, "Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions." For FY 2008 entries
for Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.4 million (Other Funds). For FY 2007, entries for
Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.3 million (Other Funds).
The combined total of imputed financing costs for FY 2008 is $132.5 million and in FY 2007
was $135.6 million.
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2008 and
2007, consist of the following:
FY 2008 Payroll & Benefits Payable Covered b* Not Covered Total
Budgetary by Budgetary
Resources Resources
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits $ 46,966 $ - $ 46,966
Withholdings Payable 30,659 - 30,659
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP 2,670 - 2,670
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave -_ 152,663 152,663
Total - Current $ 80,295 $ 152,663 $ 232,958
FY 2007 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits $ 30,957 $ - $ 30,957
Withholdings Payable 29,297 - 29,297
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP 2,101 - 2,101
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave -_ 142,843 142,843
Total - Current $ 62,355 $ 142,843 $ 205,198
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 474
-------
09-1-0026
Note 36. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Other Adjustments under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position consist of rescissions to appropriated funds and cancellation of funds that expired 5
years earlier. These amounts affect Unexpended Appropriations.
Other Funds Other Funds
FY2008 FY 2007
Rescissions to General
Appropriations $ 117,284 $
Canceled General Authority 5,157 4,561
Total Other Adjustments $ 122,441 $ 4^561"
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position for FYs 2008 and 2007 consists of the following items:
Earmark Funds Earmark Funds
FY 2008 FY 2007
Investments $ 241,873 $ 258,986
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds 170,762 228,796
Fines and Penalties Revenue 10,442 704
Special Receipt Fund Revenue 22,911 22,648
Revenue $ 445,988 $ 511,134
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Beginning in FY 2007, the agency that transfers budget authority to another Federal entity must
report all budgetary and proprietary activity related to these transfers in its financial statements.
The cumulative effect of this activity is reported as a "Change in Accounting Principle" on the
Statement of Net Position ($20.9 million - Earmark Funds) and as an "Adjustment to
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward" and an "Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations, Brought
Forward" on the Statement of Budgetary Resources. There was no adjustment necessary for FY
2008.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 475
-------
09-1-0026
Statement of Budgetary Resources
FY 2007
Beginning Balance:
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward October 1 $ 3,247,087
Adjustment of Unobligated Balance (Allocation Transfer Agencies) 15,527
Adjusted Total Beginning Balance $ 3,262,614
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the Statement of
Financing)
FY 2008 FY 2007
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred $ 9,656,040 $ 9,516,922
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries (1,142,189) (963,361)
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections $ 8,513,851 $ 8,553,561
Less: Offsetting Receipts (1,118,429) (1,307,458)
Net Obligations $ 7,395,422 $ 7,246,103
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Property $ - $ 530
Imputed Financing Sources 132,524 135,609
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities $ 132,524 $ 136,139
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities $ 7,527,946 $ 7,382,242
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS:
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated $ 415,809 $ 1,229,438
Resources that Fund Prior Periods Expenses (22)
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that
Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations:
Credit Program Collections Increasing Loan Liabilities for
Guarantees or Subsidy Allowances 3,985 3,979
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost 133,455 267,087
Resources that Finance Asset Acquistion (98,715) (113,393)
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations $ 454,512 $ 1,387,111
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 7,982,458 $ 8,769,353
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 476
-------
09-1-0026
FY 2008 FY 2007
COMPONENTS OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS THAT WILL
NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN THE CURRENT PERIOD:
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability $ 9,807 $ 7,771
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability 1,197 8,073
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies 44
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense - 33
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables (132,904) (168,330)
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs 5,641 986
Other 59_ 420
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
Generate Resources in Future Periods $ (116,156) $ (151,047)
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization $ 88,586 $ 52,248
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources 86,322 42,652
Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources $ 174,908 $ 94,900
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period $ 58,752 $ (56,147)
Net Cost of Operations $ 8,041,210 $ 8,713,206
Note 40. Other - Statement of Net Position
In FY 2008, EPA identified an error of $20 million in the Payable for Transfers of Currently
Invested Balances account. This balance was related to activity prior to FY 2001 involving the
allocation of budgetary authority to other federal agencies (parent/child relationship). This error
resulted in an overstatement of payables on the Balance Sheet and an understatement of
Cumulative Results of Operations. In addition, the budgetary resources were increased by this
amount. Since this amount is immaterial to the financial statements a prior period adjustment
was not recorded. To adjust the Cumulative Results of Operations, the $20 million was
recorded on the "Other" line on the Statement of Net Position.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 477
-------
09-1-0026
1.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
As of September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Deferred Maintenance
The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: (1) EPA-Held Equipment,
(2) Contractor-Held Equipment, (3) Land and Buildings, and, (4) Capital Leases. The condition
assessment survey method of measuring deferred maintenance is utilized. The Agency adopts
requirements or standards for acceptable operating condition in conformance with industry
practices. No deferred maintenance was reported for any of the four categories.
Stewardship Land
Stewardship land is acquired as contaminated sites in need of remediation and clean-up; thus the
quality of the land is far-below the standard for usable and manageable land. Easements on
stewardship lands are in good and usable condition but acquired in order to gain access to
contaminated sites.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 478
-------
09-1-0026
2.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2008
(Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCE
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Borrowing Authority
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Collected
Change in receivables from Federal sources
Advance received
Without advance from Federal source
Expenditure Transfers from trust funds
Nonexpenditure transers, net anticipated and actual
Temporarily not available pursuant to Public Law
Permanently not available
Total Budgetary Resources
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unbligated Balances:
Unobligated funds apportioned
Unobligated balance not available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net
Unpaid obligations brought forward, October 1
Less: Uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources brought forward, October 1
Total unpaid obligation balance, net
Obligations incurred, net
Less: Gross outlays
Less: Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual
Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources
Total
Obligated balance, net, end of period:
Unpaid obligations
Less: Uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources
Total, unpaid obligated balance, net, end of period
NET OUTLAYS
Gross outlays
Less: Offsetting collections
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts
Total, Net Outlays
$ 672,087 $
28,536
2,364,854
80,512
(24,331)
(3,311)
23,661
(41,098)
$ 3,100,910 $
$ 2,361,866 $
112,631
2,474,497
320,214
306,199
$ 3,100,910 $
$ 830,336 $
(447,386)
382,950
2,474,498
(2,382,395)
(28,536)
669
447,186
893,903
(446,717)
$ 447,186 $
$ 2,382,395 $
(77,200)
7,015 $
985
20,730
1,429
30,159 $
- $
23,529
23,529
6,630
30,159 $
2,295 $
2,295
23,529
(21,181)
(985)
3,658
3,658
3,658 $
21,181 $
(22,159)
6,272 $
3,424
39
12
107,492
(1,677)
115,562 $
108,231 $
32
108,263
7,299
115,562 $
93,531 $
93,531
108,263
(78,392)
(3,424)
119,978
119,978
119,978 $
78,392 $
(53)
221,937
6,047
772,129
4,844
(129)
3,890
7,838
25,718
(12,935)
1,029,339
793,930
8,908
802,838
191,973
34,528
1,029,339
506,362
(33,960)
472,402
802,838
(829,852)
(6,047)
(2,539)
436,802
473,301
(36,499)
436,802
829,852
(39,621)
$ 1,330,730 $
66,165
2,983,595
5,840
(7,875)
(51,544)
$ 4,326,911 $
$ 3,236,228 $
3,236,228
1,090,683
$ 4,326,911 $
$ 6,930,438 $
6,930,438
3,236,228
(3,767,034)
(66,165)
6,333,467
6,333,467
$ 6,333,467 $
$ 3,767,034 $
(5,840)
1,303,346 $
175,960
1,147,658
34
596,465
2,290
75,860
28,281
11,433
1,288,350
(4,689)
(19,949)
4,605,039 $
2,535,657 $
475,028
3,010,685
1,588,001
6,353
4,605,039 $
1,510,245 $
(151,444)
1,358,801
3,010,684
(2,801,181)
(175,960)
(31,587)
1,360,757
1,543,787
(183,030)
1,360,757 $
2,801,181 $
(682,743)
(1,118,429)
3,541,387
281,117
7,268,236
34
708,430
(22,170)
77,880
59,780
37,151
1,387,967
(6,366)
(125,526)
13,207,920
9,035,912
620,128
9,656,040
3,204,800
347,080
13,207,920
9,873,207
(632,790)
9,240,417
9,656,040
(9,880,035)
(281,117)
(33,457)
8,701,848
9,368,094
(666,246)
8,701,848
9,880,035
(827,616)
(1,118,429)
2,305,195 $
(978) $
790,231 $ 3,761,194 $ 1,000,009 $ 7,933,990
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
479
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30, 2008
(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, the framework, and technologies we need
to detect, abate, and avoid environmental problems. Research also provides the crucial
underpinning(s) for EPA decision-making and challenges us to apply the best available science
and technical analysis to our environmental problems and to practice more integrated, efficient
and effective approaches to reducing environmental risks.
Among the Agency's highest priorities are research programs that address: the 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 and
effects of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment; the impacts of
global change and providing information to policy makers to help them adapt to a changing
climate; the environmental effects on children's health; the potential risks of unregulated
contaminants in drinking water; the development of recreational water quality criteria; the health
effects of air pollutants such as parti culate matter; and the protection of the nation's ecosystems.
EPA also supports regulatory decision-making with chemical risk assessments.
For FY 2008, the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities totaled
approximately $701 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2007 FY2008
Programmatic Expenses 581,323 628,467 630,438 624,088 597,080
Allocated Expenses 91,675 112,558 104,167 100,553 103,773
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.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 480
-------
09-1-0026
INVESTMENT IN THE NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE (Non-Federal Physical Property)
The Agency makes significant investments in the nation's drinking water and clean water
infrastructure. The investments are the result of three programs: the Construction Grants
Program, which is being phased out and two State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.
Construction Grants Program: During the 1970s and 1980s, the Construction Grants Program
was a source of Federal funds, providing more than $60 billion of direct grants for the
construction of public wastewater treatment projects. These projects, which constituted a
significant contribution to the nation's water infrastructure, included sewage treatment plants,
pumping stations, and collection and intercept sewers, rehabilitation of sewer systems, and the
control of combined sewer overflows. The construction grants led to the improvement of water
quality in thousands of municipalities nationwide.
Congress set 1990 as the last year that funds would be appropriated for Construction Grants.
Projects funded in 1990 and prior will continue until completion. After 1990, EPA shifted the
focus of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that are provided by State Revolving
Funds.
State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state
revolving funds which state governments use to make loans to individuals, businesses, and
governmental entities for the construction of wastewater and drinking water treatment
infrastructure. When the loans are repaid to the state revolving fund, the collections are used to
finance new loans for new construction projects. The capital is reused by the states and is not
returned to the Federal Government.
The Agency also is appropriated funds to finance the construction of infrastructure outside the
Revolving Funds. These are reported below as Other Infrastructure Grants.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the nation's Water Infrastructure are outlined
below (dollars in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Construction Grants 48,948 21,148 39,193 9,975 11,517
Clean Water SRF 1,407,345 1,127,883 1,339,702 1,399,616 1,063,825
Safe Drinking Water SRF 802,629 715,060 910,032 962,903 816,038
Other Infrastructure Grants 341,767 385,226 411,023 381,481 388,555
Allocated Expenses 410,129 402,853 446,113 443,716 396,253
See the Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water portion in Section II of the PAR for more detailed
information on the results of the Agency's investment in infrastructure.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 481
-------
09-1-0026
HUMAN CAPITAL
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of increasing
or maintaining the nation's economic productive capacity. Training, public awareness, and
research fellowships are components of many of the Agency's programs and are effective in
achieving the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment, but the focus is
on enhancing the nation's environmental, not economic, capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars
in thousands):
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Training and Awareness Grants 48,416 46,750 43,765 32,845 30,768
Fellowships 7,553 10,195 12,639 12,185 9,650
Allocated Expenses 8,826 10,199 9,320 7,255 7,025
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 482
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
ASSETS
Intragovern mental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note S1)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
FY 2008
45,596
2,926,233
17,832
21,116
3,010,777 $
299,941
67,542
751
3,379,011
$
$
$
52,639
50,448
103,087
141,049
7,921
286,630
40,902
44,710
624,299
2,754,712
2,754,712
$
3,379,011
FY 2007
51,081
2,751,850
16,955
14,927
2,834,813
312,874
70,601
1,030
3,219,318
89,239
46,182
135,421
139,607
6,889
190,269
35,914
40,793
548,893
2,670,425
2,670,425
3,219,318
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
483
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
COSTS
Gross Costs $ 1,530,979 $ 1,497,010
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5) 69,769 76,452
Total Costs 1,600,748 1,573,462
Less:
Earned Revenue 502,177 377,904
NET COST OF OPERATIONS $ 1,098,571 $ 1,195,558
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 484
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY2008
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY 2007
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
Net Position - Beginning of Period $ 2,670,425 $ 2,606,400
Adjustment:
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 20,900
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted $ 2,670,425 $ 2,627,300
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue-Securities Investment 114,340 141,407
Nonexchange Revenue-Other 10,442 2,721
Transfers In/Out (35,246) (41,419)
Trust Fund Appropriations 984,974 1,040,371
Other (Note 40) 19,878
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5) 69,769 76,452
Total Budgetary Financing Sources $ 1,164,157 $ 1,219,532
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers in/Out
Imputed Financing Sources
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations $ 2,754,712 $ 2,670,425
-
18,701
18,701 $
(1,098,571)
84,287
39
19,112
19,151
(1,195,558)
43,125
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
485
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008
FY 2007
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1 $
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agcy) (Note 38)
Adjusted Subtotal
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law
Permanently Not Available
Total Budgetary Resources $
1,245,311 $
1,245,311
168,480
1,088,388
15,527
1,103,915
127,261
37,205
390,753
(1,725)
43,493
227,367
(1,811)
74,038
4,476
467,542
1,288,349
(4,263)
(54)
3,202,570 $
(33,969)
29,999
221,586
1,272,575
-
(2)
2,768,828
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (S6)
1,425,282
264,112
1,689,394
1,512,670
1,512,670
506
1,367,588
155,929
1,523,517
1,240,416
1,240,416
4,895
$ 3,202,570 $ 2,768,828
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
486
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 and 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2008 FY 2007
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 1,361,335 $ 1,454,495
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) -_ 7,215
Adjusted Total 1,361,335 1,461,710
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1 (110,170) (81,983)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 1,251,165 1,379,727
Obligations Incurred 1,689,394 1,523,517
Less: Gross Outlays (1,489,936) (1,496,631)
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (168,480) (127,261)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (2,752) (28,187)
Total, Change in Obligated Balance 1,279,391 1,251,165
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations 1,392,312 1,361,335
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (112,921) (110,170)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period $ 1,279,391 $ 1,251,165
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note S6) $ 1,489,936 $ 1,496,631
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note S6) (464,790) (193,398)
Distributed Offsetting Receipts *(Note S6) (1,074,969) (1,274,542)
Total, Net Outlays (49,823) 28,691
"Offsetting receipts line includes the amount in 68X0250 (payment to trust fund) from Treasury.
The payment cannot be made directly through the trust fund but must go through a "pass-through" fund.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 487
-------
09-1-0026
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (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, 2008 and 2007 consist of the following:
FY 2008 FY 2007
Fund Balance $ 45,596 $ 51,081
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 2008 FY 2007
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation $ 1,512,670 $ 1,240,417
Unavailable for Obligations 506 4,895
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,749,864) (2,446,934)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund 2,894 1,539
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 1,279,390 1,251,164
Totals $ 45,596 $ 51,081
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in
expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing obligations.
Note S2. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a settlement
agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified Superfund site.
Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are placed in site-specific,
interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used for potential future work at
such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Funds placed in special
accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take responsibility for the site, or to other
Federal agencies to conduct or finance response actions in lieu of EPA without further
appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, cashouts are $287 million and
$190 million, respectively.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 488
-------
09-1-0026
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, 2008, the total remaining state credits
have been estimated at $15.3 million. The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2007 was $14.5 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 them 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, 2008, EPA had 14 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding
agreements with obligations totaling $25 million. A liability is not recognized for these amounts
until all work has been performed by the PRP and has been approved by EPA for payment.
Further, EPA will not disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's application,
claim, and claims adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
Note S5. Income and Expenses from other Appropriations; General Support Services Charged
to Superfund
The Statement of Net Cost reports costs that represent the full costs of the program outputs.
These costs consist of the direct costs and all other costs that can be directly traced, assigned on a
cause and effect basis, or reasonably allocated to program outputs.
During FYs 2008 and 2007, the EPM appropriation funded a variety of programmatic and
non-programmatic activities across the Agency, subject to statutory requirements. This
appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits, travel, procurement, and
contract activities. This distribution is calculated using a combination of specific identification
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 489
-------
09-1-0026
of expenses to Reporting Entities, and a weighted average that distributes expenses
proportionately to total programmatic expenses. As illustrated below, this estimate does not
impact the consolidated totals of the Statement of Net Cost or the Statement of Changes in Net
Position.
FY 2008
FY 2007
Superfund
All Others
Total
Income from
Other
Appropriations
69,769
(69,769)
- $
Expenses from
Other
Appropriations
(69,769) $
69,769
- $
Income from
Net Other
Effect Appropriations
- $ 76,452
(76,452)
- $
Expenses from
Other Net
Appropriations Effect
$ (76,452) $
76,452
$ - $ -
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund from
the S&T and EPM funds are $0.5 million for FY 2008 and $2.3 million for FY 2007.
Note S6. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2007
Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the Budget of
the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of the United States
Government with actual numbers for FY 2008 has not yet been published. We expect it will be
published by March 2009, and it will be available on the OMB website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010. The actual amounts published for the year
ended September 30, 2007 are included in EPA's FY 2008 financial statement disclosures.
Budgetary Offsetting
Resources Obligations Receipts Outlays
1,523,517
FY 2007
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Rounding Differences*
$ 2,768,828
(828)
483
1,274,542 $
(542)
1,303,233
(1,233)
Reported in Budget of the U. S. Government $ 2,768,000 S 1,524,000 S 1,274,000 S 1,302,000
Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov.
490
-------
09-1-0026
Appendix
Agency's Response to Draft Report
11/12/2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA's Response to the Office of Inspector General's Draft Audit Report,
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2008 Financial Statements
FROM: Lyons Gray (2710A) /s/
Chief Financial Officer
TO: Bill A. Roderick (2410T)
Deputy Inspector General
Fiscal Year 2008 marks another successful financial statements audit cycle for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This year, we broadened Agency partnerships with a focus
on strengthening fiscal integrity, enhancing core business operations, and contributing to
Agency-wide performance management systems. We are proud of the many accomplishments
and thank you for identifying additional areas for improvement in the Inspector General's
Report. The audit work performed will help guide EPA's work in these areas as well as shape
future financial management initiatives.
Our offices worked together to expand stakeholder engagement in fiscal stewardship
yielding significant results. Some of the achievements are presented in Attachment 1 along with
commitments and responses from responsible management officials. In addition, suggested
changes to the report are included in Attachment 2. Detailed corrective action plans will be
provided to you and your staff within 90-day s of the final audit report. Please let me know if you
have any questions, or your staff can contact Lorna McAllister, Director of the Office of
Financial Management regarding the audit.
Attachments
cc: Luis Luna, Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resource Management
Molly O'Neil, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information
Susan Hazen, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resource
Management
Linda Travers, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information
Maryann Froehlich, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
James Newsom, Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 3
Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General
Paul Curtis, Director, Financial Statements Audits
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 491
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 1
EPA's Response to the Office of Inspector General's
Draft Fiscal 2007 and 2008 Financial Statements Audit Report
As demonstrated by the accomplishments listed below, the Agency maintains a strong and robust
financial management program.
• By streamlining its business processes, EPA successfully converted to the Department of the
Treasury's (Treasury's) new accounting system. One-third of business processes were
eliminated and a legacy server terminated. In addition to these operational efficiencies, EPA
helped the Federal government move one step closer to unified financial reporting.
• The Agency strengthened its financial data security by developing an event-driven control
that flags changes made to personal vendor information (170,000 changes made in FY 2008)
in the finance system. EPA also reduced user access to personally identifiable information
by 75 percent, re-certified users, and realigned security rights in the Agency's core financial
management system.
• EPA invested Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Funds monies, and earned nearly $242 million in interest.
• Through its data integration effort, EPA linked the FEMA/EPA national response framework
with resource utilization, so that real-time costs are now available on-line to Agency
managers and decision makers on the front lines during an emergency event.
• The Agency freed up $32 million in funds unnecessarily tied up in expired grants and
contracts for other high priority work in the Agency.
• EPA paid 99.95 percent of its invoices on time - over 32,000 payments totaling $1.1 billion.
• EPA contributed to a government-wide initiative by doing its part in managing and reporting
business transactions with other agencies. In FY 2008, EPA reduced its balances on
Treasury's material differences report from $84.9 million to $55.4 million.
These actions demonstrate that EPA adheres to the highest standards for financial management.
We are confident that focused attention on some of the areas noted during the audit, in
conjunction with the launch of EPA's new accounting system, will advance the Agency's goals
of improving fiscal integrity and operational efficiency and result in better information for
decision making. Specific recommendations and corrective actions, unless indicated otherwise
in Attachment 2, will be provided within 90-day s of the final audit report.
EPA concurs with the Inspector General's assessment in the following areas:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 492
-------
09-1-0026
• Improve the timeliness in paying for telecommunications services; calculate and disburse any
interest resulting from previous late payments (Office of Technology Operations, Office of
Environmental Information; Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer)
• Improve the quarterly matching of revenues and expenses for State contributions provided
toward the clean-up of Superfund sites with the costs incurred (Office of Financial Services,
Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Establish a more effective accrual process for unbilled receivables (Office of Financial
Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Maintain evidence that validates the need to change a vendor's information in the accounting
system (Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Improve the calculation and review process of Superfund Special Accounts interest (Office
of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Continue the progress made completing the open actions related to the new e-Relocation
program and associated physical and security requirements carried forward from a previous
audit (Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Realize the tangible benefits of consolidating most current financial management systems
within one organizational unit, which includes standardizing documentation and compliance
with relevant requirements and controls (Office of Enterprise, Technology, and Innovation,
and the Office of Program Management in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Enhance the process for identifying and liquidating excess monies on grants and interagency
agreements (Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources
Management)
• Review the software capitalization cycle and make improvements as necessary to ensure the
integrity of the capitalized balance and related depreciation (Office of Information
Collection, Office of Environmental Information; Office of Financial Services, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer)
• Evaluate other payroll reconciliation opportunities associated with the Agency's partnership
with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Internal Revenue Service, and Treasury
(Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
• Continue successful measures in reconciling transactions with other Federal agencies (Office
of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
The following areas may require more discussions between Agency leaders and the Inspector
General's staff to resolve differing opinions:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 493
-------
09-1-0026
Asbestos Loan Program Violated the Anti-Deficiency Act: The Agency is conducting an
internal review and working with the Office of Management and Budget to determine if a
technical violation has occurred, since permanent budget authority and the option for automatic
apportionment exist under statute and Federal guidelines. Feedback from these sources will
influence the Agency's future course of action. In the meantime, the Agency is working to
strengthen training and controls to ensure proper procedures and timelines are followed. (Office
of Budget and Office of Financial Services in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer)
Reimbursable Expenditures Exceeded Funds Collected from Non-Federal Entities:
The Agency followed the FY 2008 Reimbursable Authority Guidance to ensure that collections
were received before proper authority was issued to spend these funds. In addition, spending
under these accounts is controlled by both the account and the overarching appropriation. Both
had more than adequate apportioned resources. Subsequent obligations were within the
apportioned levels, and charging corrections have been made. (Office of Budget, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer; and the Region 3 Assistant Regional Administrator's Office)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 494
-------
09-1-0026
Attachment 2
EPA's Response to the Office of Inspector General's
Draft Fiscal 2007 and 2008 Financial Statements Audit Report
Clarifying Details for Consideration in the Final Report
1. EPA's Oversight of Payroll Reconciliation Needs Improvements
The Agency performs reasonable and adequate oversight for payroll support services and
meets the Internal Revenue Service requirements under Circular E. The reconciliation is
comprehensive and also includes amounts paid by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service. However, the Office of Financial Services will work with DFAS and the Inspector
General's staff to jointly develop a quarterly taxable wage reconciliation report instead of the
prescribed recommendations.
In addition, information obtained from Defense Finance and Accounting Service staff by the
Inspector General's staff regarding FY 2007 W-2 data was incorrect, and, as a result the
$337,000 difference in the audit report was in error. The correct difference was $2,800 for
one employee, which has since been resolved.
2. Accruals Were not Properly Calculated for Federal Unbilled Receivables
General Observation: There is a slight wording difference between the "At a Glance"
introduction and the report text.
As of the FY 2008 4th quarter, additional reviews were incorporated in the process.
3. EPA Needs to Improve Reconciliation of General Ledger Accounts to Detail
General Observation: Consider modifying the title of this issue to "EPA needs to better
reconcile Superfund State Contract dollars to the subsidiary account." The current
presentation suggests that there are reconciliation issues with all of EPA's general ledger
accounts, instead of this particular subset.
Incidentally, the Office of Financial Services evaluated the accrual amounts for the past four
years and compared the results to FY 2008. This assessment yielded no significant
fluctuations as comparable estimates averaging $36.1 million for the four previous years and
$35.9 million in FY 2008 provided a level of accounting confidence. In the future, those
transactions between 13 and 23 years old will also be evaluated to determine validity.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 495
-------
09-1-0026
4. EPA's Review of Unliquidated Obligations Was Incomplete
The language states that the Office of Grants and Debarment's review of unliquidated
obligations for inactive Interagency Agreements (IA) and grants was incomplete. While it
should have been done sooner, the Agency did review all of the Headquarters-funded grants
and lAs; there is no further review to be conducted/completed. The reviews confirmed that
the unliquidated obligation balances for all lAs and grants are accurate and represent valid
and viable obligations. The reviews further ensured that appropriate actions were taken to
deobligate unneeded funds.
In addition, the report does not take into account EPA's noteworthy accomplishments
liquidating dollars on those grants where the period of performance had expired. EPA
established stretch goals and a performance metric in FY 2006 designed to track progress
each year though FY 2009. To date, more than $83 million has been redeployed within the
Agency, including $13 million liquidated during FY 2008. Success in this area enabled EPA
to reduce the unliquidated obligation baseline from $85 million to $26 million. By the end of
FY 2008, EPA reduced the baseline to $13M, or 7.2% of total obligations. In addition, EPA
recovered $17 million of the $24 million lingering at agencies tasked many years ago through
lAs to do work on the Agency's behalf. This initiative was launched to limit audit exposure
associated with the new "parent/child" reporting requirements.
5. IFMS Vendor Table Susceptible to Unauthorized Changes and Changes Were Not
Adequately Documented
The Inspector General's staff identified a systems capability which allowed changes to a
vendor's information without formal detection or notification. Within weeks of the
discovery, the Office of Financial Management implemented a real-time auto-generated
email notification process to the users, their supervisor, and other appropriate officials. Since
then, there have been 2,832 notifications describing 162,070 changes to records for those
vendors supporting EPA. As an assurance covering any activity before launching the new
process in July 2008, a statistical random sample of 10,500 transactions, a 90 percent
confidence level (10.5 percent of the population) was reviewed, and the vendor table changes
were determined to be necessary and appropriate. This assurance was based on local
attestations by program offices, regions, and finance centers. Only one finance center
provided an attestation inconsistent with the guidance provided. As a result, the Inspector
General's verification yielded 13 of 45 unsupported transactions. The finance centers under
the direction of the Office of Financial Services no longer accept changes to a vendor's
information over the telephone and now require and maintain written documentation for all
revisions.
6. Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances
EPA concurs with the finding and has corrected the $1.3 million in overstated interest. The
interest is presented accurately in the FY 2008 financial statements. Future interest year-end
draw downs will be monitored closely.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 496
-------
09-1-0026
7. Lack of Systems Implementation Process Contributed to Financial Applications not
Complying with Requirements
The CFO's Office acknowledges the need for improvements in this area. However, the
deficiencies identified were driven by issues unrelated to compliance reviews. For this
reason, please consider deleting any language that implies that compliance reviews impeded
following prescribed systems requirements. In addition, the Deputy CFO has approved a
comprehensive list of areas to evaluate for compliance with systems requirements.
A planned reorganization is intended to provide a central accountable unit over most CFO
financial management systems, applications, reporting capabilities, and overall lifecycle.
Until the reorganization is finalized, the organizational title for the CFO's systems group
remains as the Office of Enterprise, Technology, and Innovation.
8. EPA did not Properly Account for Capitalized Software and Related Accumulated
Depreciation
EPA suggests modifying the existing recommendation to "The Assistant Administrator,
Office of Environmental Information, will direct staff to develop and implement a control
process for Information Management Officers that will require them to ensure accurate and
timely updates to their program and regional records in the Registry of EPA Applications and
Databases."
In addition, please incorporate the following clarifications: 1) the Office of Financial
Services populates the Agency's accounting system for the software lifecycles changes, not
the Office of Financial Management; and 2) the cumulative adjusted depreciation is properly
reflected in the FY 2008 financial statements along with the accompanying footnote.
9. EPA's Asbestos Loan Program Violated the Anti-Deficiency Act
EPA does not agree that an Anti-Deficiency Act violation took place. The Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990, section 504(f), authorizes increased re-estimated subsidy cost of direct
loans as permanent indefinite authority. The Office of Management and Budget, by Circular
A-ll, Section 120.83, permits automatic apportionment of such re-estimates in credit
financing accounts. Since there is a difference of opinion about the character of this
transaction, we have notified the Office of Management and Budget of this issue and are
currently conducting an internal review with EPA's Office of General Counsel. We await the
responses. Depending upon the findings of the review, we will take an appropriate course of
action.
Whatever the determination on the status of the Anti-deficiency Act issue, proper procedures
were not followed and additional controls and training are being initiated. To strengthen our
internal controls, routine briefings with staff within the Office of Budget will be conducted to
acquaint them with not just Anti-deficiency Act guidelines but also the more complex
requirements that they may encounter in day-to-day operations. The Asbestos Loan Program
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 497
-------
09-1-0026
will be added to the Agency's annual close-out guidance, normally issued in February, to
ensure processing timelines are met before the end of each fiscal year.
The language in the report suggests that the Office of Management and Budget provided
comments on this issue. However, the Office of Budget staff has not received any comments
from them and request that the reference be edited accordingly.
10. Reimbursable Expenditures Exceeded Funds Collected from Non-Federal Entities
EPA does not agree that an Anti-Deficiency violation took place. Control of spending under
the Anti-Deficiency Act is at the (a) appropriation or (b) fund level [OMB Circular A-l 1,
Section 145.2]. Some of the Agency's spending involves reimbursable work, where
apportionment authority for both appropriated and reimbursable funds can apply and under
OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 20.13(b). This means EPA can use relevant appropriated
resources or the reimbursable collections. Both had more than adequate apportioned
resources, and subsequent obligations were within the apportioned levels, as allowable under
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505). In addition, the Government
Accountability Office guidance (71 Comp. Gen. 224 (1992) states that collections (e.g., such
as from states for services requested) are considered as part of the direct appropriation, which
means any spending in excess of advanced collections are funded by the original
appropriation.
Region 3 followed the agency guidance for requesting reimbursable authority. Funds were
collected on October 10, 2006, and recorded in the accounting system prior to requesting
reimbursable authority for FY 2007. However payroll charging exceeded the original
estimates. Region 3 has corrected the payroll charges to not exceed the amount collected.
Note that payroll charging would not be stopped under EPA policy - rather corrections are
made after the fact - to ensure that salary is paid timely to employees.
11. EPA Violated the Prompt Payment Act by Not Paying Invoices Promptly
General Observation: Consider modifying the title of this issue to "EPA Violated the Prompt
Payment Act by Not Paying Telecommunication Invoices Promptly." The current
presentation suggests that the issue exists with all of EPA's payments, instead of this
particular subset.
All 20 invoices have been paid. EPA's records indicate that only 3 of these invoices are
subject to interest payments. EPA paid the remaining 17 invoices within the 30 day Prompt
Pay requirements based on the date received by the servicing finance center. Since the IG
questioned whether interest payments are due for the remaining 17 invoices, the Office of
Financial Services will consult with the Office of General Counsel to determine if future
actions are required.
12. EPA should Continue Effort to Reconcile Intra-governmental Transactions
EPA concurs and appreciates the OIG's acknowledgement of the Agency's progress to date.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 498
-------
09-1-0026
Responsible Managers:
Lorna M. McAllister /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Lorna M. McAllister, Director, Office of Financial Management, OCFO
Raffael Stein /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Raffael Stein, Deputy Director, Office of Financial Services, OCFO
David Bloom /s/11/12/2008 Signature/Date
David Bloom, Acting Director, Office of Enterprise, Technology, and Innovation, OCFO
Carol Terris /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Carol Terris, Acting Director, Office of Budget, OCFO
Krista Mainess /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Krista Mainess, Director, Office of Program Management, OCFO
Myra Galbreath /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Myra Galbreath, Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, OEI
Andrew Battin /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Andrew Battin, Acting Director, Office of Information Collection, OEI
Howard Corcoran /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
Howard Corcoran, Director, Office of Grants and Debarment, OARM
James Newsom /s/ 11/12/2008 Signature/Date
James Newsom, Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 3
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 499
-------
09-1-0026
Appendix
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information
Agency Follow-up Official
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Office of General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Director, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, Office of Environmental Information
Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Financial Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Research Triangle Park Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Cincinnati Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Las Vegas Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Washington Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Systems Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Policy and Planning Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Grants and Debarment
Deputy Inspector General
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@epa.gov. 500
-------
EPA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Section IV
Other Accompanying Information
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 501
-------
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND INTEGRITY WEAKNESSES
Management challenges and integrity weaknesses represent vulnerabilities in program
operations that may impair EPA's ability to achieve its mission and threaten the Agency's
safeguards against fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. These areas are identified
through internal Agency reviews and independent reviews by EPA's external examiners,
including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), and EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG). EPA's senior managers are committed to
correcting vulnerabilities in programmatic and financial operations and maintaining effective and
efficient internal controls to ensure that program activities are carried out in accordance with
applicable laws and sound management policy. EPA leaders meet periodically to discuss issues
raised by the Office of Inspector General and other evaluators, to review the Agency's progress
in addressing current weaknesses, and to identify emerging issues or concerns.
This section has two components: 1) a summary of EPA's progress in addressing current
integrity weaknesses and 2) the top management challenges identified by the Office of
Inspector General and reported to EPA's Administrator in the Office of Inspector General's July
2, 2008, memorandum, EPA's Key Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2008, and the
Agency's response.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 502
-------
EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2008 Weaknesses
Material Weaknesses
Physical Security of Critical Assets
EPA's FY 2008 Weaknesses and Significant
Deficiencies
Material Weaknesses
Physical Security of Critical Assets *
Key Applications Need Security Controls *
Agency-Level Weaknesses
Human Capital *
Homeland Security *
Implementation of Data Standards
Permit Compliance System
Key Applications Need Security Controls (downgraded)
6. Redistribution of Superfund Payments (new)
7. Program Evaluation (new)
Significant Deficiencies
1. Superfund State Cost Share
2. Integrated File Management System Suspense Table *
* These were reported as closed for FY 2008.
During its audit of the Agency's FY 2007
financial statements, the Office of Inspector
General found that physical security and
environmental controls at the Agency's
Cincinnati Finance Center needed to be
improved, and previously identified weaknesses
needed management's attention. To remedy this
deficiency, controls over visitor and general
access to the server room were established and
physical security enhanced with improved
technology. A new camera was installed in the
existing server room, which includes a 24-hour
video recording system, and a card reader
system was installed to monitor and log entry
events. The current server room was enhanced
to include sensors to monitor environmental
conditions, a water shield was installed to
protect the server from water damage, and the
uninterruptible power supply was upgraded.
Additionally, the Agency updated its
Memorandum of Understanding to incorporate
information on critical server backup and handling of storage media, scanning and monitoring
practices, system log practices, and server room access practices.
An evaluation of the installed equipment and review of support documentation were used to
validate the effectiveness of corrective actions. The reviews were performed by the Agency and
verified by the Office of Inspector General. EPA has completed corrective actions
associated with this material weakness.
Key Applications Need Security Controls
In FY 2007, the Office of Inspector General found that two critical applications at EPA's
Cincinnati Finance Center, the Billing and Reimbursable Accounting Information Network
System and the Relocation Expense Management System, lacked key security planning
documents. To remedy these deficiencies, the Agency developed security documents for both
applications (security and contingency plans) that comply with federal security requirements
specified by the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Additionally, an independent
risk assessment was conducted to review and test security controls. The Agency is currently
updating the security plans based on the results of the independent risk assessment. A plan of
action and milestones were created in the Agency's Automated System Security Evaluation and
Remediation Tracking for any deficiencies identified. The Agency believes that corrective
actions taken as of September 30, 2008, were sufficient to close this as a material
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
503
-------
weakness and has downgraded it to an Agency-level weakness for FY 2009. The
remaining corrective action will be completed in the first quarter of FY 2009.
Agency-Level Weaknesses
Human Capital
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged human capital as an Agency weakness to address concerns
raised by OIG and GAO. Since then, the Agency has made significant progress in
strengthening its human capital program, resulting in a "Green" status designation for Human
Capital under the President's Management Agenda for every quarter of FY 2008. EPA
implemented numerous corrective actions in five major areas:
• Workforce Planning - Tracked workforce planning activities to assess and ensure
alignment between the Agency's strategic plan and its human capital plans; developed and
implemented EPA plans for workforce planning, succession planning, and recruitment; and
implemented extensive competency assessment, workforce development, and
organizational assessment activities.
• Human Capital Accountability - Developed an extensive human capital Accountability
System to monitor performance measures, report progress against human capital initiatives,
and gauge the Agency's overall effectiveness in achieving its desired human capital results.
• HR Assessments - Conducted regular audits and assessments of the effectiveness and
efficiency of HR operations and compliance with personnel management authorities, as well
as the overall effectiveness of HC strategic management initiatives.
• OIG Audit Recommendations - Implemented all of the corrective actions recommended by
the OIG 2004 human capital audit.
• Workforce Development Strategy - Implemented extensive leadership and workforce
development training and improvement programs, including the Agency-wide Successful
Leaders Program.
EPA will continue to aggressively implement its workforce planning system, supported by
reliable and valid workforce data, to ensure that it hires the right number and type of people and
allocates its resources to best meet mission needs. In the context of the Agency's budget
process, the Agency has also taken steps to address workload assessment and benchmarking
analysis. In 2006, an assessment was conducted which compared EPA workload methodology
with other federal agencies. EPA has also issued a contract to explore ways to better assess
and benchmark current staff levels against workload shifts, focusing on certain key functional
areas that EPA shares with other federal agencies (such as regulatory development and
scientific research). This work is expected to take two years to complete.
EPA acknowledges that continued attention and improvement will be necessary to ensure that
the Agency's human capital practices adequately prepare EPA for future challenges. This
understanding is reflected in current EPA activities such as the Shared Service Center
consolidation and the Administrator's "Stronger EPA" initiative. However, after the extensive
improvements implemented over the last 7 years, the ongoing work that remains in human
capital management no longer meets the threshold of an Agency weakness. The Agency will
continue to work closely with OMB and the Office of Personnel Management to meet its human
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 504
-------
capital objectives under the President's Management Agenda. EPA has completed all
corrective actions associated with this weakness. EPA will continue to address
workforce distribution/resource planning and human resources transactional services at
the office-level in FY 2009.
Homeland Security
In FY 2006, EPA acknowledged homeland security as an Agency weakness in response to
concerns raised by the Office of Inspector General. Over the years, EPA has taken action to
strengthen its responsibility for homeland security by expanding its homeland security planning
and coordination efforts with other federal, state, and local agencies; recognizing a more
complete range of issues and information that must be considered in the development of
response plans for incidents of national significance; developing a crisis communication plan
and identifying responsible parties and roles for crisis communications; and fulfilling basic
homeland security requirements.
To respond to growing demands from new Homeland Security Presidential Directives and the
increasing complexity of its contribution to homeland security, EPA established the Homeland
Security Collaborative Network to coordinate and directly address high-priority, cross-Agency
technical and policy issues related to day-to-day homeland security policies and activities.
To improve its processes for identifying, obtaining, maintaining, and tracking response
equipment necessary for nationally significant incidents, EPA created and convened the
Homeland Security Policy Coordinating Committee. This executive committee, activated after a
homeland-security-related attack, brings together the Agency's senior political leadership to
provide policy direction to responders.
In FY 2008, EPA revised the Homeland Security Priority Work Plan (2008-2010), the Agency's
overarching planning framework for identifying and aligning cross-Agency homeland security
programs with EPA's highest homeland security priorities. The Plan identifies Presidential and
other externally driven homeland security mandates and outlines EPA's continuing efforts to
advance the Agency to the next level of preparedness.
EPA has been called on to respond to five major disasters and nationally significant incidents in
the past seven years: the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax terrorist incidents, the Columbia
Shuttle disaster and recovery efforts, the ricin incident on Capitol Hill, and the Gulf Coast
hurricanes. These responses have reinforced the importance of a continued focus on improving
the Agency's environmental homeland security focal areas: detection, prevention, and mitigation
and field preparedness and response. Within these areas, EPA identified and continues to focus
on four homeland security priorities: water security, decontamination, emergency response, and
internal preparedness. These priority areas have been identified as the result of external entities
assigning EPA specific responsibilities or through homeland security requirements and
assignments.
Additionally, EPA developed three tiers of information to be responsive to its homeland security
mandates. This information forms the basis for understanding EPA's highest homeland security
priorities and serves as a way to assess short-, medium-, and long-term goals and results. The
three tiers are:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 505
-------
• Desired end states. These describe the final outcomes of homeland security projects or
efforts once EPA believes it has met the President's or other externally imposed directives
(e.g., Homeland Security Presidential Directives).
• Desired results. These reflect specific programmatic areas through which EPA seeks to
make progress toward the desired end state.
• Action items. EPA's FY 2008-2010 action items reflect specific program and regional office
plans (e.g., projects or efforts) to progress toward desired results and ultimately reach EPA's
desired end state.
EPA will continue to use its Homeland Security Priority Work Plan as a systematic method to
assess homeland security priorities and projects annually. Additionally, the Agency will rely on
audits and evaluations conducted by the Office of Inspector General to help ensure that it
achieves its homeland security objectives and that its appropriations supporting homeland
security are spent efficiently and effectively. EPA has completed all corrective actions
associated with this weakness.
Implementation of Data Standards
In FY 2005, EPA acknowledged implementation of data standards as an Agency weakness.
EPA needs to establish a process for ensuring that each data standard adopted by the Agency
is fully implemented in a cost-effective and timely manner.
The Agency has made progress in addressing the implementation of data standards. EPA has
completed all of the corrective actions associated with this weakness. However, it will continue
to monitor ongoing activities, such as tracking program implementation of data standards, to
validate the effectiveness of its actions. The validation strategy will include continuous
monitoring of implementation of data standards within the Registry of EPA Applications and
Databases, as well as publication of the semi-annual Data Standards Report Card. EPA
expects to complete all corrective actions by the end of FY 2010.
Permit Compliance System
In FY 1999, EPA acknowledged its Permit Compliance System (PCS) as an Agency weakness.
EPA needs to revitalize or replace the system to provide information in a format that both the
states and EPA can use to ensure complete and accurate National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and discharge data.
EPA has developed and successfully implemented a modernized, national information system
designed to meet the needs of today's NPDES permitting and enforcement program—the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). However, not all of the states have yet been
migrated from the PCS to the new system. The closure date for this weakness has been
extended until the new system can accommodate the electronic transfer of data from state
systems and all states have been moved from the PCS to the new system.
The final closure date for this Agency weakness is now projected to be the end of third quarter
FY 2013 (with the PCS to be shut down in FY 2014). This completion date is based on various
assumptions and estimates that extend more than 6 years into the future. Because long-range
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 506
-------
predictions of the key variables and assumptions that may affect this effort are difficult and risky,
however, this completion date should be recognized as speculative.1
Currently, 22 states, two tribes, and nine territories are using the new system. Twenty-one of
these states are generally referred to as "direct users," since they directly use ICIS to manage
the NPDES program. Two other groups of states are still using PCS and need to be moved to
ICIS:
• "Hybrid states" use PCS and their own state systems to manage the NPDES program. Thus
the hybrid states will need to be able to electronically transfer (batch) the Discharge
Monitoring Report data from their systems to the new system.
• Full batch states have their own NPDES information systems and do not use the PCS to
directly manage the NPDES program. Thus, these states need to electronically transfer
(batch) all of the necessary data from their systems into the new system.
In May 2008, EPA migrated the first "hybrid state" by implementing the Discharge Monitoring
Report batch component of ICIS, which allows for the submission of NPDES Discharge
Monitoring Report data from state systems to ICIS in the Extensible Mark-up Language format
via the National Environmental Information Exchange Network and EPA's Central Data
Exchange. Approximately seven additional states (four "hybrid" and three "direct users") will be
migrated to ICIS with the completion of the Discharge Monitoring Report batch component of
ICIS in FY 2008.
In FY 2008 EPA also conducted, with input from states, an Alternative Analysis of the ICIS
business case which includes an analysis of technical approaches for developing the full batch
component of the PCS modernization. The Office of Management and Budget requires all
federal agencies to periodically conduct Alternative Analyses of their large information systems
to evaluate the benefits and costs of the current systems in achieving the business need, and to
compare this status quo to three alternative approaches for meeting the same business need. If,
based on the results of the Alternative Analysis, the Agency decides to change the currently
planned technical approach for completing the full batch component of PCS modernization, a
new plan for completing the full batch component of PCS Modernization will need to be
developed, which will result in revised costs and new completion dates.2 EPA expects to
complete all corrective actions by the end of FY 2013.
1 Because this completion date is based on various assumptions about the future, changes to the
assumptions will affect the projected schedule. For example, if, based on the results of the Alternative
Analysis of ICIS to be completed by September 30, 2008, the Agency decides to change its current
technical approach for completing the full batch component of PCS modernization, a new project plan for
completing PCS modernization will required. The FY2013 completion date assumes no changes to
current plans for the technical approach and also assumes FY 2008 and FY 2009 extramural funding for
ICIS at the President's budget amount of $6.7 million. For FY2010 and beyond, we assumed that annual
funding will rise to $ 7.5 million. (The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance assumes,
however, that if the President's $6.7 million budget level continues in FY 2010 and beyond, the schedule
would likely move five or more quarters into the future, with a shutdown date for PCS delayed until FY
2015). As with any project, extended timelines pose uncertainties, and predictions about when the project
will be completed become more speculative.
2 The new plan is for the full batch component only. PCS modernization for the direct user states was
implemented in FY 2006. PCS modernization for the hybrid states was implemented in FY 2008. These
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa.gov. 507
-------
Key Applications Need Security Controls
In FY 2007, the Office of Inspector General found two critical applications at EPA's Cincinnati
Finance Center, the Billing and Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System and the
Relocation Expense Management System, lacked key security planning documents. To remedy
these deficiencies, the Agency developed security documents for both applications (security and
contingency plans) that comply with federal security requirements specified by the National
Institute for Standards and Technology. Additionally, an independent risk assessment was
conducted to review and test security controls. The Agency is currently updating the security
plans based on the results of the independent risk assessment. A plan of action and milestones
were created in the Agency's Automated System Security Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
for any deficiencies identified.
Corrective actions taken during FY 2008 were sufficient to close "Key Applications Need
Security Controls" as a material weakness, and it has been downgraded from a material
weakness to an Agency-level weakness. EPA expects to complete all corrective actions
in the first quarter of FY 2009.
Redistribution of Superfund Payments
In its July 2006 report, EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific
Sites, the Office of Inspector General states that EPA did not make timely redistribution of
Superfund cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, and small purchase payments
from the general site identifier "WQ" to the specific Superfund site or other general site
identifiers. The Office of Inspector General recommends that EPA 1) develop written "WQ"
procedures for implementing Superfund site-specific accounting policies, 2) provide an
appropriate level of training for responsible personnel, 3) change cooperative agreement
conditions to require recipients to provide cost details within 24 hours of drawing down funds,
and 4) redistribute the remaining historical "WQ" costs.
The Agency acknowledges this as an Agency-level weakness and is taking action to address
the Office of Inspector General's concerns. For instance, between May 2006 and December
2007, the Agency implemented procedures that significantly decreased the undistributed "WQ"
costs for cooperative agreements and small purchases. The Agency has formed a workgroup,
composed of staff from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Administration and
Resource Management, and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, charged with
developing guidance on Superfund site charging. Additionally, the Agency plans to issue new
policies and procedures under its Resource Management Directives System that will incorporate
Office of Inspector General audit recommendations. EPA will use reports generated by the
financial management system to develop baseline data against which the Agency can measure
progress toward correcting this weakness. EPA expects to complete all corrective actions
by the end of FY 2009.
Program Evaluation
In its September 2007 report, Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management
Control Process, the Office of Inspector General identified several limitations to systematically
components of ICIS for direct and hybrid states, along with the core federal enforcement and compliance
and NetDMR components of ICIS, are not expected to be changed by the Alternative Analysis.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 508
-------
conducting program evaluations at EPA. These include: 1) lack of internal expertise; 2) lack of
external expertise; 3) funding limitations; 4) the need for strategic investment in program
evaluation; 5) complexity of measuring long-term outcomes; 6) insufficient data/performance
measurement information; and 7) limited program evaluation partnerships with states.
EPA managers recognize the need to strengthen program evaluation as part of the Agency's
overall effort to improve performance management and acknowledge program evaluation as an
Agency-level weakness. EPA is already taking steps to strengthen its program evaluation
capability. The Agency will develop a detailed corrective action strategy and validation plan to
fully address this weakness. EPA expects to complete all corrective actions by the end of
FY2011.
Significant Deficiencies
Superfund State Cost Share (Improved Quarterly Cost Reporting)
The Agency identified Superfund state cost share as a significant deficiency under its FY 2006
review of internal controls over financial reporting. The deficiency relates to how efficiently EPA
tracks Superfund state cost share contributions and matches them to expenses each quarter.
To remedy this significant deficiency, EPA has taken steps to centrally automate the Superfund
state cost share accrual process. EPA expects to complete all corrections by the end of FY
2009.
Integrated File Management System Suspense Table
In FY 2007, the Agency acknowledged the need to increase its controls over the Integrated
Financial Management System Suspense Table and improve its practices for removing financial
transactions that do not process completely in the Integrated Financial Management System.
To remedy this significant deficiency, the Agency no longer systematically purges aged data
from the Integrated Financial Management System. In FY 2008, EPA revised its policy to
ensure that documents in the Integrated Financial Management System Suspense Table are
reviewed, processed, or deleted in a timely manner. Users are now required to proactively
manage their own pending transactions so they do not sit on the Integrated Financial
Management System Suspense Table for a long time. This ensures that Agency activity is
posted in the correct accounting period. The Agency has also established controls to
automatically notify Integrated Financial Management System users, their supervisors, and
ultimately their senior manager (Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator) of pending
transactions that remain in the Integrated Financial Management System Suspense Table for
too long. The new process has been validated and the number of Suspense Table transactions
has been reduced by 99.2%. EPA completed all corrective actions associated with this
significant deficiency.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 509
-------
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT
Audit Opinion
Restatement
Material Weaknesses
Key Applications Need Security
Controls
Physical Security of Critical IT Assets
Total Material Weaknesses
Unqualified
No
Beginning
Balance
1
1
2
New
0
0
0
Resolved
1
1
2
Consolidate
d
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
0
0
0
SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES
Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (FMFIA § 2) (A-123 Appendix A)
Statement of Assurance
Material Weaknesses
Total Material Weaknesses
Unqualified
Beginning
Balance
0
New
0
Resolved
0
Consolidated
0
Reassessed
0
Ending
Balance
0
Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Operations (FMFIA § 2)
Statement of Assurance
Unqualified
Material Weaknesses
Not Applicable (N/A)
Total Material Weaknesses
Beginning
Balance
0
0
New
0
0
Resolved
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
Ending
Balance
0
0
Conformance With Financial Management System Requirements (FMFIA § 4)
Statement of Assurance
Systems Conform to Financial Management System
Requirements
Non-Conformances
Key Applications Lack
Security Requirements
Physical Security of Critical IT
Assets
Total Non-Conformances
Beginning
Balance
1
1
2
New
0
0
0
Resolved
1
1
2
Consolidated
0
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
0
0
0
Compliance With Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)
Overall Substantial Compliance
1 . System Requirement
2. Accounting Standards
3. USSGL at Transaction Level
Agency
Yes
Auditor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.eoa. gov.
510
-------
FY 2008 Key Management Challenges Identified by the Office of Inspector General and
EPA's Response
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires that each year, the Office of Inspector General
identify, briefly assess, and report the most serious management challenges facing EPA. In FY
2008, the Office of Inspector General revised its definition of management challenges to
distinguish them from internal control weaknesses. A weakness is a deficiency in the design or
operation of a program, function, or activity, which the Agency can correct. In contrast, a
management challenge is a lack of capability derived from internal self-imposed or externally
imposed constraints that prevent an organization from reacting effectively to a changing
environment. Addressing a management challenge may require assistance from outside of EPA
and take years to fully resolve.
For FY 2008, the Office of Inspector General identified eight management challenges, detailed
in the Office of Inspector General's memorandum to the Administrator which is included below.
EPA's response to each of these challenges follows the memorandum.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 511
-------
The Office of Inspector General's List of Key Management Challenges for FY 2008
EPA's Top Major Management Challenges
Reported by the Office of Inspector General
Link to
FY FY FY EPA
2006 2007 2008 Strategic
Goal
Link to President's
Management
Agenda
Performance Measurement:* EPA must focus on the logic and
design of its measures for success and efficiency, along with data
standards and consistent definitions, to ensure that usable, accurate,
timely, and meaningful information is used to evaluate and manage
EPA programs, operations, processes, and results.
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements:** EPA needs to
implement a strategy to effectively coordinate and address threats,
including developing a scenario to identify resource needs, internal
and external coordination points, and responsible and accountable
entities.
Threat and Risk Assessments: The Agency does not
comprehensively assess threats to human health and the
environment across media to ensure EPA's actions are planned,
coordinated, designed and budgeted to most efficiently and
effectively address environment risks. The fragmentary nature of
EPA's approach continues as environmental laws often focus on
single media or threats.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure:*** EPA maintains 204
offices and laboratories in 144 locations with over 18,000 staff
members. With diminishing resources, the autonomous nature of
regional and local offices, and the growing pressure to expand its
role globally, EPA will be challenged to assess the efficiency and
effectiveness of its current structure to identify opportunities for
consolidating and reducing costs.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure: Drinking water and
wastewater treatment systems are wearing out and it will take huge
investments to replace, repair, and construct facilities.
Oversight of Delegations to States: * Implementing EPA's
programs, enforcement of laws and regulations, and reporting on
program performance has to a large extent been delegated to States
and tribes, with EPA retaining oversight responsibility. However,
inconsistent capacity and interpretation of responsibility among
State, local, and tribal entities limits accountability for and
compliance with environmental programs and laws.
Chesapeake Bay Program: After 20 years of effort by federal,
State, and local governments, Bay waters remain degraded and
required nutrient and sediment reductions will not be met by the
2010 target. EPA needs to institute management controls ensuring
that actions to manage land development, agricultural runoff, nutrient
reduction technology, and air emissions are implemented, and that
consistent sources of funding are identified by EPA partners.
Voluntary Programs - Update:**** EPA must ensure that applying
voluntary approaches and innovative or alternative practices to
provide flexible, collaborative, and market-driven solutions for
measurable results are managed using standards, consistent
processes, and verifiable data, to ensure that programs are
efficiently and effectively providing intended and claimed
environmental benefits.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-
Goal
Goal 2
Goal 4
Goal 5
Goal 2
Goal 4
Cross-Goal
Performance
Improvement,
E-Gov
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Improvement,
Financial
Performance,
Human Capital
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Improvement
FY 2004 and 2005 Working Relationships with the States and Linking Mission to Management were consolidated into
Managing for Results. FY 2006 and FY 2007 Managing for Results and Data Gaps were merged into Performance
Management
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
512
-------
** FY 2006 and 2007 titled Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
*** py 2007 this topic was include in Workforce Planning and in FY 2005 and 2006 in Human Capital Management
**** pY 2006 and 2007 Voluntary Programs included Alternative and Innovative Practices and Programs
Data Quality, Emission Factors for Sources of Air Pollution, Privacy Program, and Workforce Planning Reported as Key
Management Challenge in FY 2006 and 2007 were reported as Internal Control Weakness in FY 2008
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 513
-------
w
u
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
July 2, 2008
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA's Key Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2008
TO: Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
We are pleased to provide you with the list of items the Office of Inspector General (OIG) considers to be
the key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2008 confronting the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This year the OIG revised the definition used for management challenges to clarify and
distinguish between internal control weaknesses and management challenges. In general, internal control
weaknesses are deficiencies in internal control determined in relation to a standard derived from the
concept of internal control as an activity. In contrast, management challenges are defined as a lack of
capability derived from internal self-imposed constraints or, more likely, externally imposed constraints
that prevent an organization from reacting effectively to a changing environment. For example, lack of
controls over approval of bankcard purchases would be considered a control weakness because it can be
corrected by adding the necessary controls. Conversely, the Agency's ability to address an issue such as
funding shortfalls for water infrastructure repairs would constitute a management challenge because the
Agency does not have the ability to solve this challenge without outside assistance, such as from
Congress and States.
Our decision to include the areas listed is based primarily on audit, evaluation, or investigative work we
performed and additional analysis of Agency operations. Thus, it is possible that additional challenges
exist in areas that we have not yet reviewed or that other significant findings could result from additional
work. Our key management challenges are listed below with detailed summaries provided in Attachment
1. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss your reaction to the list and any comments you might
have.
Management Challenge
Threat and Risk Assessments
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Performance Measurement
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Oversight of Delegations to States
Chesapeake Bay Program
Voluntary Programs - Update
Page
1
3
5
1
9
11
13
15
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
514
-------
We removed Data Standards and Data Quality, Privacy Program, Information Technology System
Development and Implementation, Workforce Planning, and Emission Factors from this year's
management challenges list, and they are currently included as proposed internal control weaknesses
under the category Data Quality and Standards. The previous challenges Managing for Results and Data
Gaps have been combined and the title changed to Performance Measurement. Voluntary Programs has
been removed from the current list, but we are including an update on the actions and concerns remaining
for Voluntary Programs.
Bill A. Roderick /signed/
Deputy Inspector General
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 515
-------
Attachment 1
Threat and Risk Assessments
EPA needs to periodically assess threats to human health and the environment across media to ensure that
resources and priorities focus on the highest risks, regardless of the source. Presently, EPA's strategic
goals stress reducing risks to human health and the environment from distinct sources - such as air
pollution, water pollution, and hazardous releases on land.1 This is feasible because EPA invests in
science to enhance its understanding of health and ecological implications, enabling it to identify and
develop risk assessment methodologies. Risk assessors can use these methodologies to evaluate the
adequacy of current exposure assessment approaches.2 Risks are assessed within each of the Agency's
strategic goals - for example, for air pollution effects, radiation, waste treatment, Superfund cleanups, etc.
However, the Agency does not assess threats to human health and the environment across media to ensure
EPA's actions are designed to reduce total risk in the most efficient manner.
Nearly 20 years ago the Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that EPA target its environmental
protection efforts on the basis of opportunities for the greatest risk reduction.3 This 1990 report described
the fragmentary nature of U.S. environmental policy and the frequently inconsistent and uncoordinated
efforts to address environmental problems. Based on the OIG's body of work, we believe the same
problem exists today. The fragmentary nature of EPA's approach continues because the underlying
conditions remain: environmental laws are often focused on a single media or threat, Agency goals and
units are designed to implement separate legislative mandates, and available technological solutions
address specific pollutant sources.4 Some EPA programs, like the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Border 2012 Program, are designed to address ecosystem or geographically defined environmental issues
rather than single media concerns. However, even these are organized and implemented to solve the
threats and risks faced by individual media. For example, the Border 2012 goals are to reduce water
contamination, reduce air pollution, reduce land contamination, etc. The relative threats and risks to
human health and the environment are not determined or used to prioritize EPA's efforts.
A need to measure the human health impacts of EPA programs and measure the total reductions in
pollution hazard and exposure has been recognized by the Office of Management and Budget. For
example, the Office of Management and Budget asked the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) to develop and apply measures that assessed the human health impacts of pollution
reduction achieved by enforcement and compliance assurance activities, rather than output measures
(pounds of pollution reduced).5
EPA could benefit from a periodic risk assessment to validate its priorities. For example, the Department
of Defense conducts a Quadrennial Review designed to identify threats and risks faced by the military and
then define appropriate strategies, priorities, and resources. An independent comprehensive risk
assessment would help ensure that EPA can establish appropriate risk-based priorities in its strategic
planning and budgeting processes. The diminishing resources available for environmental protection
increase the need to ensure that EPA does not expend resources on lower-priority problems at the expense
1 FY 2008 EPA Budget in Brief.
2 Testimony of Stephen L. Johnson before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
February 27, 2008.
Reducing Risk: Se
September 1990.
Reducing Risk: Se
September 1990.
OECA Memorandi
OECA's Use of Outcome-Based Performance Measures, September 29, 2004.
3 Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021,
4 Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021,
5 OECA Memorandum, re: Request for the Inspector General's Assistance to Improve and Expand
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 516
-------
of higher-priority risks. As the SAB concluded previously, "If priorities are established based on the
greatest opportunities to reduce risk, total risk will be reduced in a more efficient way, lessening threats to
both public health and local and global ecosystems."6
To create and implement a risk-based strategy, EPA should revisit recommendations originally proposed
by the SAB to establish the necessary institutional framework and scientific capabilities.7 For example,
EPA should assign a specific management focal point for assessing risk and to assure accountability,
establish a risk reduction framework, establish a formal mechanism for risk anticipation, and expand
long-range research on assessing human exposure and the toxicological science base. Moreover, to
institutionalize a relative risk assessment process, EPA will need to ensure that it has the trained
personnel and scientific databases that lead to credible analyses and policy.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
In July 1970, the first Administrator formally organized EPA. The original organizational structure was
based upon existing environmental legislation and encompassed discrete media programs for water, air,
pesticides, radiation, and solid waste, as well as 10 regional offices and a handful of laboratories inherited
from other federal agencies.8 Since that time additional responsibilities have been delegated to EPA. For
example, in recent years, EPA was assigned additional Homeland Security responsibilities.9 In addition,
how EPA carries out its programs has changed. Implementation of many environmental programs has
been delegated to the States with EPA's role evolving to planning and oversight. In recent years, EPA has
increased the extent to which it partners with other federal agencies; State, local, and tribal governments;
and the private sector to accomplish its mission.10
Since its inception, the number of EPA personnel has grown from about 5,000 to over 18,000.n As the
number of personnel has increased, so has EPA's infrastructure. EPA's portfolio now includes 204 offices
and laboratories in 141 locations throughout the country.12 Some EPA regions maintain the majority of
the staff in amain regional headquarters office, while others also maintain a number of separate
operations offices located in States.13 For example, California and Florida each have seven separate EPA
offices. EPA's Office of Research and Development maintains 13 independent laboratories, while EPA's
regional offices maintain separate regional laboratories. EPA maintains two offices each in Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
6 Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021,
September 1990, p.2.
7 Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021,
September 1990, p.6; Reducing Risk Appendix A: The Report of the Ecological and Welfare
Subcommittee, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021 A, September 1990, pp.66-70: Relative Risk Reduction Project.
Reducing Risk Appendix B: The Report of the Human Health Subcommittee, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021 B,
September 1990, pp.6-10: Relative Risk Reduction Project Reducing Risk Appendix C: The Report of
the Strategic Options Subcommittee; Relative Risk Reduction Project, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021 C,
September 1990, p.26;
8 Studies Addressing EPA's Organizational Structure, EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-00029, August 16,
2006
9 EPA Strategic Plan for Homeland Security September 2002
10 http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/jps.htm
11 Personnel figures - EPA's Office of Human Resources
12 EPA Office of Human Resources
13 Ref - EPA Region 10 Organization
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 517
-------
EPA Facility Locations
Denotes Regional Office
,
Guam, Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands, Mariana
Of EPA's 204 facilities, there are 49 with just 1 person and 88 which house 5 or fewer employees.14
According to EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management, many of the small offices are
temporary in nature and are established to handle a specific situation.
Part of the President's Management Agenda calls for federal agencies to strategically address human
capital. One of the action items in the Agenda calls for an analysis of existing organizational structures
from service and cost perspectives, and implementing a plan for optimization using various tools,
including redeployment, restructuring, and competitive sourcing. The Agency's current strategic plan
calls for having the "right people, in the right place, at the right time." However, since EPA's formation in
1970, a comprehensive study has not been completed to analyze EPA's mission and the related number
and location of employees needed to most effectively carry out EPA's mission at the least cost. For
example, with the increase in programs delegated to the States, EPA's role and ability to conduct effective
oversight of States becomes increasingly important. EPA might conduct an evaluation of the costs and
benefits realized by those regions maintaining separate operations offices in States versus maintaining
large regional offices. EPA might also consider conducting a review of the rationale and benefits
associated with maintaining its cadre of regional and Research and Development laboratories around the
country to determine whether they are sited in the appropriate locations for the type of work performed.
Maintaining over 200 facilities is resource-intensive. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the budget for
maintaining EPA's facilities is nearly half a billion dollars.15 Demonstrating the effectiveness of these
operations as well as the cost effectiveness of maintaining over 200 locations presents EPA with
challenges and opportunities for potential consolidation and cost savings. Because of the autonomous
nature of EPA and its regional and local offices, undertaking such a study may require the assistance of an
independent commission and agreement from EPA's many oversight committees. With diminishing
resources along with growing pressure to expand EPA's role in the global arena, EPA will be challenged
to reduce operating costs while expanding its mission. A comprehensive study to assess EPA's mission,
workforce, and infrastructure requirements would provide a rational basis for addressing these challenges.
OIG analysis of EPA Office of Human Resource data
OIG analysis of EPA budget
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
518
-------
Performance Measurement
Congress' desire to hold agencies accountable for performance was the motivating force behind the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. While the
Chief Financial Officers Act established the foundation for improving management and financial
accountability, the Government Performance and Results Act created requirements for agencies to
generate performance information that congressional and executive branch decision makers need in
considering measures to improve government and reduce costs.16
EPA has been recognized for its efforts to align its budgeting, planning, and accounting systems to track
and report on resource use. However, EPA continues to be challenged in measuring the human health and
environmental results of its environmental programs. Despite the vast array of data reported and
contained in EPA's information systems, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the States,
regulated entities, and EPA have pointed out that the Agency does not have much of the information it
needs pertaining to environmental conditions and trends and the potential human health risks of various
pollutants. This makes it difficult to evaluate and report on the benefits derived from environmental
activities and make optimal decisions about how to invest EPA's resources to maximize environmental
results.17
During a recent audit, we found that while many of EPA's programs received high scores for the program
purpose and program management categories on the Office of Management and Budget's Program
Assessment Rating Tool, EPA did not receive high marks for using information to manage programs and
demonstrate results. Of the 51 programs reviewed, 41 percent (21 programs) did not regularly collect
timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use
it to manage the program and improve performance.18
EPA is challenged in measuring its performance because measuring environmental results is inherently
difficult. Results are not always immediately recognized and programs may take several years to
demonstrate results. In addition, linking environmental activities to outcomes is complicated by a myriad
of external factors, including weather, international environmental issues, economic activity, and others
which are outside of EPA's control.19 As a result, many of EPA's performance measures focus on
program activities20 (number of enforcement actions, pounds of hazardous waste reduced, number of
permits issued, number of training sessions held, etc.). While these may be good indications of amount of
work performed, they do not measure the corresponding improvements to human health or the
environment. Compounding these factors, a majority of EPA's performance information is collected and
reported by program partners who do not always agree on how and what information should be collected
or tracked, and who do not report the information to EPA in a consistent manner.21
To address these factors, EPA management needs to make a concerted effort to focus on the logic of
program design and ensure that the design includes controls so that managers can measure, evaluate, and
demonstrate results for the resources used. Designing programs with clear and measurable results allows
16 Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
17 Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, EPA OIG Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007
18 Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, EPA OIG Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007
19 EPA's Progress in Using the Government Performance and Results Act to Manage for Results, EPA
OIG Report 2001-B-000001, June 13, 2001
20 EPA Strategic Plan 2006-2011, September 30, 2006
21 EPA's Progress in Using the Government Performance and Results Act to Manage for Results, EPA
OIG Report No. 2001 -B-000001, June 13, 2001
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa.gov. 519
-------
for transparency of, and accountability for, program performance. Program design and the strategic
planning process should include defining measures as well as ensuring the appropriate agreements,
funding, processes, and systems are considered to obtain the necessary information. EPA also needs to
ensure program managers are held accountable for ensuring that programs are designed with the means to
measure and demonstrate program results and that the information gathered is used to manage and
improve program results.22
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Approximately 160,000 public drinking water systems provide the Nation with drinking water, while
16,000 sewage treatment plants treat and dispose of wastewater.23 Under the Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act, water and wastewater facilities are responsible for treating water to specified levels.
EPA is responsible for administering these laws and has a role in assisting facilities to meet their
treatment requirements.
According to EPA, approximately 240,000 water main breaks and 75,000 sewer overflows occur each
year, resulting in threats to public health across the country.24 Some of the Nation's water infrastructure
systems have components over 100 years old. As an example of the magnitude of the costs, a single city,
the District of Columbia, has estimated that it will need to expend $3.6 billion to meet various
requirements of the Clean Water Act.25 Nationally, the cost will be extremely large. EPA has estimated
that approximately $1 trillion dollars will be needed to pay for water and wastewater infrastructure over
the next 20 years.26 EPA also estimates that utilities are planning to spend only about half that amount
over that same time. The remaining $500 billion has been termed the "water and wastewater infrastructure
gap." The gap represents infrastructure failures that could increase risks to public health and the
environment, as well as damage the national economy.
America's water and wastewater assets are critical to the country's public health, economy, and
environment. Meeting standards requires regular investment for treatment plants and distribution systems.
Water and wastewater facilities have made considerable capital expenditures. Local governments spend
more on water infrastructure than they do on everything else except education.27 However many drinking
water and wastewater systems across the country are failing to keep up with repairs and new construction
required to maintain compliance with federal water standards. Many systems still need to build new
facilities and distribution systems, and repair and replace aging infrastructure. Further, increasingly
stringent standards could compel systems to make even more extensive capital improvements. For
example, many wastewater treatment plants are beginning to install costly nutrient removal technologies.
Drinking water facilities will also need to meet new standards. In 2006, EPA issued three new rules28 and
made substantial revisions to the existing Lead and Copper Rule. These rules promise safer drinking
water and cleaner recreational waters. Implementation will increase the cost through upgrades to meet
new requirements, and so the infrastructure gap could continue to grow in size.
22 Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, EPA OIG Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007
23 http://www.epa.qov/oqwdw/sdwa/basicinformation.html and
http://www1 .eere.energy.qov/femp/pdfs/bamf wastewater.pdf
24 http://www.epa.qov/nrmrl/pubs/600f07015/600f07015.pdf
25 http://archive.nacwa.orq/qetfile.cfm?fn=2007cso-a.russell.ppt.
26 http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/qapreport.pdf, http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/index.html
27 http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/07expenditures.pdf
28 The three new rules were: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (January 2006),
Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (January 2006), and Final Ground Water Rule (November 2006)
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo&.epa. gov. 520
-------
Presently, the Federal Government does not have a national approach to bridging the water and
wastewater infrastructure gap. EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds received
about $1.7 billion in federal capitalization grants in FY 2006.29 The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture also provided systems with grant and loan
assistance of about $2 billion in FY 2006.30 The programs are not part of a comprehensive investment
strategy to address water infrastructure needs; they reflect each individual agency's mission and
congressional direction. Additionally, the federal aid, as well as aid from State funding programs, is
already considered in computing the size of the funding gap.
EPA also addresses the gap by advocating for its "Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure."31 One pillar
is "full cost pricing." Reviews have shown that many local users resist full cost pricing. For example,
Pennsylvania is being sued by a group of localities over more stringent permit limits required to meet
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards.32 The localities consider the required investment to meet
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards an "unfunded mandate" pushed onto local rate payers. EPA
supplements its "full-cost pricing" advocacy with programs organized around the remaining three pillars:
"Effective Management," "Water Efficiency," and "Watershed Approaches." In short, infrastructure
funds need to be used effectively. The Office of Water's Better Management Website, for instance,
contains several links to information geared at improving management practices within the water sector.
EPA has also established a "National Alliance for Water Efficiency."33 Other programs, such as EPA's
advocacy for "green infrastructure" to reduce storm runoff, contribute to reducing future infrastructure
needs.34
EPA's current approach, based on providing a relatively small amount of funding to State revolving funds
and operating programs such as those under the "Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure," is helpful.
Other federal agencies contribute as well. However, this approach does not represent a coherent national
strategy for resolving the problem of aging and deteriorating infrastructure. A comprehensive approach
would realistically assess the investment requirements, and work with States and local governments to
organize resources to meet needs. It would also alert the public and Congress of the unfunded liabilities
and risks. While EPA has responsibility for administering the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA does not have resources or authority to address this gap by itself. EPA needs to ensure
there is a comprehensive federal understanding of the risks to public health, the environment, and the
economy if this critical resource gap remains unresolved. EPA should also take the lead in organizing a
coherent federal strategy within the limits of its statutory authorities and responsibilities.
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
EPA has faced unprecedented challenges in responding to incidents of national significance including the
World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These events
elevated the Nation's expectations of EPA's emergency response role. Over the last several years these
expectations have formally expanded EPA's traditional emergency response function. The 2004 National
Response Plan, the 2008 National Response Framework, and multiple Homeland Security Presidential
29 http://www.epa.qov/safewater/dwsrf/allotments/fundinq dwsrf allotments-2006.html and
30 Water and Environmental Programs, Annual Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2006, USDA Rural
Development, p. 6.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/disbursementreports/profiles/National E
xpenditure FY07.xls
31 http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure.
32 "Bill for upgrades at PA water plants creates sticker shock,"
http://www.baviournal.com/article.cfm?article=3281
33 www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/20080331 -08-P-0120.pdf, p. 11.
34 http://www.epa.gov/water/speeches/9-19-07 Water lnfrastructure.pdf, p. 10.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 521
-------
Directives35 have established new federal requirements for EPA. The National Response Framework and
several Homeland Security Presidential Directives direct EPA to support, coordinate, or lead responses to
incidents of national significance, to include certain types of terrorist attacks or natural disaster events.
EPA established its first Homeland Security office in 2003.
EPA needs to ensure it is ready to meet its Homeland Security requirements. The Agency must develop
incident scenario plans that identify resources needed, planning assumptions, and accountable EPA
entities. In addition, Agency plans need to be coordinated and communicated among all participating EPA
entities as well as with outside federal, State, or local agencies that may be responding alongside EPA to
nationally significant incidents. Reports issued by the Office of Inspector General since 2003 have
identified a number of concerns with EPA's Homeland Security-related planning efforts and actions.36
Recent reports37 indicate that EPA's plan for responding to incidents of national significance (1) has
undocumented assumptions and unsupported resource requirements; (2) was developed with little internal
or external coordination; (3) is missing key accountability designations or process descriptions for
handling crisis communications; (4) has not met milestones for completing certain critical Homeland
Security responsibilities; and (5) has not established accountable entities in EPA, with proper authority, to
complete certain critical Homeland Security requirements.
Based on our concerns in this area, since 2004, we have identified Homeland Security as an EPA
management challenge.38 Prior to 2004, we identified our concerns in this area under the "protection of
critical infrastructure" management challenge.39 Since FY 2005, EPA has identified its efforts in support
35 See, http://www.dhs.qov/xprepresp/committees/editorial O566.shtm
36 EPA Needs a Better Strategy to Measure Changes in the Security of the Nation's Water Infrastructure,
EPA OIG Report No. 2003-M-00016, September 11, 2003; EPA Needs to Assess the Quality of
Vulnerability Assessments Related to the Security of the Nation's Water Supply, EPA OIG Report No.
2003-M-00013, September 24, 2003; Decline In EPA Particulate Matter Methods Development
Activities May Hamper Timely Achievement of Program Goals, EPA OIG Report No. 2003-P-00016,
September 30, 2003; Survey Results on Information Used by Water Utilities to Conduct Vulnerability
Assessments, EPA OIG Report No. 2004-M-0001, January 20, 2004; EPA's Homeland Security Role to
Protect Air from Terrorist Threats Needs to be Better Defined, EPA OIG Report No. 2004-M-000005,
February 20, 2004; EPA Needs to Better Manage Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response Equipment,
EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00011, March 29, 2004; EPA's Final Water Security Research and
Technical Support Action Plan May Be Strengthened Through Access to Vulnerability Assessments,
EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00023, July 1, 2004; EPA Needs to Determine What Barriers Prevent
Water Systems from Securing Known Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
Vulnerabilities, EPA OIG Report No. 2005-P-00002, January 6, 2005; EPA Needs to Fulfill Its
Designated Responsibilities to Ensure Effective BioWatch Program, EPA OIG Report No. 2005-P-
00012, March 23, 2005; EPA Needs to Better Implement Plan for Protecting Critical Infrastructure and
Key Resources Used to Respond to Terrorist Attacks and Disasters, EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-
00022, April 26, 2006; and EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency Response
Planning, EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0055, January 9, 2008.
37 Exit Memorandum for Preliminary Research of the Effectiveness of EPA's Emergency Response
Activities, EPA OIG Report No. 2006-M-000004, February 24, 2006; EPA Needs to Better Implement
Plan for Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Used to Respond to Terrorist Attacks and
Disasters, EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-00022, April 26, 2006; EPA Should Continue to Improve Its
National Emergency Response Planning, EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0055, January 9, 2008; and OIG
Assignment No.2008-115 (ongoing).
38 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/challenges.htm, 2004-2007 EPA Management Challenges.
39 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/challenges.htm, 2001-2003 EPA Management Challenges.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 522
-------
of Homeland Security as an Agency-level weakness40 and is currently taking action to strengthen this
area, such as by: (1) expanding Homeland Security planning coordination efforts with other federal, State,
or local agencies; (2) recognizing a more complete range of issues and information that must be
considered when developing response plans for incidents of national significance; (3) developing crisis
communication plans and identifying responsible parties and roles for crisis communications; and (4)
completing basic Homeland Security requirements.
In its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA said that it planned to close its Homeland
Security management challenge by FY 2008.41 In addition, in its FY2007Performance and
Accountability Report, EPA said it planned to correct certain other concerns we raised by FY 2008.42
Because many ongoing actions are not yet completed or to a point where their effectiveness can be
measured, additional time is needed to determine whether the actions will be effective in addressing
EPA's Homeland Security challenges.
The OIG plans to continue to monitor and report on EPA's progress in managing its Homeland Security
challenges. Completion of the ongoing actions will help the Agency continue on a path toward better
management of the significant challenges posed by its Homeland Security responsibilities. However, the
challenge of planning and preparing for incidents of national significance, including the potential for
multiple terrorist attacks, will not end with completing ongoing actions. While EPA has extensive
experience in managing emergency responses, it is usually the lead or only responder. The lessons learned
from past emergencies are ingrained in EPA's approach to planning for nationally significant events. The
expansion of the Agency's current Homeland Security responsibilities will generally require different
thinking about how to respond, coordinate with others, and communicate in nationally significant
emergencies. In addition to the physical and resource challenges, EPA will also have to change how its
managers think about emergency response. EPA will have to expand its emergency planning process to
include more internal organizations, as well as external organizations. Previously uninvolved EPA
components will have to accept responsibility for planning and coordinating support to emergency
response. These internal and external lines of communication and coordination will have to be confirmed
and tested to maintain a credible capability outside normal practice.
Oversight of Delegations to States
EPA's oversight of State programs requires improvement. GAO43 and OIG44 have reported that EPA has
made some progress in this area. However, there are a number of factors and practices that reduce the
effectiveness of Agency oversight. Key among these are limitations in the availability, quality, and
robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data, and limited Agency resources to
independently obtain such data. Differences between State and federal policies, interpretations, and
priorities make effective oversight a challenge.
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish its mission, EPA develops
regulations and establishes programs that implement environmental laws. These programs may be
40 http://www.epa.qov/ocfo/par/2005par/par05kev mqmt challenqes.pdf, electronic p. 5;
http://www.epa.qov/ocfo/par/2006par/par06mqmt accomplishments and challenqes.pdf, electronic p.
8; and http://www.epa.qov/ocfo/par/2007par/par07manaqement weaknesses.pdf, electronic p. 5.
41 http://www.epa.qov/ocfo/par/2006par/par06mqmt accomplishments and challenqes.pdf, electronic p.
8.
42 http://www.epa.qov/ocfo/par/2007par/par07manaqement weaknesses.pdf, electronic p. 5.
43 EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, But EPA's Oversight Needs Further Improvement,
GAO-07-883, July 31, 2007
1 Despite Progress, EPA Neec
Watershed, EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0049, January 8, 2008
44 Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 523
-------
delegated to State, local, and tribal agencies that request to take primacy of the program. Delegation,
however, does not relieve EPA of its statutory and trust responsibilities for protecting human health and
the environment. EPA performs oversight of State, local, and tribal programs in an effort to provide
reasonable assurance that delegated programs are achieving their goals. In addition to regulatory
programs, EPA sponsors voluntary partnerships and programs with more than 10,000 industries,
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and State and local governments on more than 40 pollution
prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. Dealing with partners requires different types of
management approaches and controls than when dealing with parties that require oversight. EPA does not
have the resources to effectively administer all its responsibilities directly. EPA relies heavily on local,
State, and tribal agencies for compliance and enforcement and to obtain performance data. In the 2007
Performance and Accountability Report, EPA states it delegated the responsibility for issuing permits and
for monitoring and enforcing compliance to the States and tribes.45
A critical management challenge to EPA is oversight of its delegations to the States. Federal
environmental statutes grant EPA a significant role in implementing the intent of the law, and also
authorize a substantial role for States. Federal intent is to give all citizens an equal level of environmental
protection. However, quality data are often lacking to ensure that the intent of the law is met. For
example, EPA lacks the data necessary to assess the benefits of its air toxics standards, such as decreased
incidence of cancer. Data on the program's effectiveness, such as changes in emissions, concentrations of
air toxics in the (ambient) outdoor air, and data on compliance with air toxics standards, are limited and
inconclusive.46 Also, federal requirements establish consistency for businesses and within industries
nationwide. State discretion adds flexibility to address specific circumstances and local issues. Joint
implementation and enforcement leads to special challenges in interpretations, strategies, and priorities.
EPA has improved its oversight by implementing the State Review Framework. This framework is a
consistent approach for overseeing programs. The framework can also identify other weaknesses and
improvements that can be made. GAO reported that EPA had made substantial progress in improving
priority setting and enforcement planning with the States. However, GAO concluded that EPA's oversight
needed further enhancement. For example, State Review Framework reviews show that EPA has limited
ability to determine whether States are performing timely, appropriate enforcement, and whether penalties
are applied to environmental violators in a fair and consistent manner within and among the States.47 OIG
found that EPA did not exercise effective enforcement oversight of facilities with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in significant long-term noncompliance.48 The situation
was also exacerbated by a lack of complete and accurate records of NPDES compliance and enforcement
actions.
In other reports, the OIG has consistently noted that EPA's oversight of State activities or data needs to be
improved to make accurate assessments of performance and results. For example, EPA's oversight of
State vehicle inspection and maintenance programs needed improvement.49 These programs represent a
key pollution control strategy in urban areas. They are also a prime example of why EPA involvement is
critical to address pollution issues that are not bound by State lines. The OIG reported that EPA had not
45 US Environmental Protection Agency, Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2007 -
Environmental Progress, November 13, 2007
46 EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program, GAO-06-669, June 23, 2006
47 EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, But EPA's Oversight Needs Further Improvement,
GAO-07-883, July 31, 2007
5 Better Enforcement Oversig
Significant Noncompliance, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00023, May 14, 2007
' EPA's Oversight of the Vehicle Inspection ai
Report No. 2007-P-00001, October 5, 2006
48 Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major Facilities With Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term
49 EPA's Oversight of the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Needs Improvement, EPA OIG
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: oc/b/'nfo@epa. gov. 524
-------
ensured that States were meeting program commitments. Overall, EPA did not have a reasonable
assurance that emissions claimed by some inspection and maintenance programs had been achieved.
In our view, while EPA has improved its oversight of delegated programs, the issues are complex and
changeable. To provide effective oversight, the Agency must address the limitations in the availability,
quality, and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data. Effective oversight of
delegations to States is a continuous management challenge that requires an agile organization, accurate
data, and consistent interpretations of policy.
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most biologically diverse estuary. Improving water
quality is the most critical element in the overall protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries, according to the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement.50 Yet after about 20 years of effort by
federal, State, and local governments, the Bay waters remain degraded and the latest targeted cleanup goal
will not be met. After a series of reports, the OIG has determined that while EPA could increase its use of
some authorities and improve oversight, this is not nearly sufficient for achieving and sustaining water
quality goals.51 EPA quite simply does not have the resources, tools, or authorities to ensure that the
Chesapeake Bay Program is successful. Changes in national farm policy, local land development
decisions, and individual life styles could have huge impacts on the amount of pollution being discharged
to the Bay.
Congress designated EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) with the responsibility to
coordinate cleanup efforts with other federal agencies and State and local governments.52 The CBPO was
also given the responsibility to report to Congress on the progress in cleaning up the Bay. Congress
provides a much higher level of funding to CBPO than it does for any other geographically-based
program. The 2009 budget requests $29 million for CBPO.53 With this money, the CBPO awards grants
and offers various technical information and assistance. Congress' interest in the Bay is also exhibited in
its proposed funding of projects in the Farm Bill.54
As the most mature watershed restoration program, successful approaches and solutions for organizing
and managing cleanup will therefore be highly relevant to stakeholders in other watersheds throughout the
nation. Success or failure will resonate in communities across the country. The Bay's problems are
national problems. The CBPO can be the prototype for developing ways to address the water quality
impairments of other watersheds. Learning from the Bay's successes and failures will be critical to
watersheds across the country. The most important water quality issues (nutrient overloading, habitat loss,
50 Chesapeake 2000, p. 1, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/chesapeake2000aqreement.pdf
51 Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and
Agricultural Resources, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004, November 20, 2006; EPA Relying on
Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its
Watershed, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00009, February 28, 2007; Development Growth Outpacing
Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031,
September 10, 2007; and Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0049, January 8, 2008.
52 Section 117 of the Clean Water Act.
53 FY2009 EPA Budget in Brief, page D-4,
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2009/Final%2009%20BIB%20.pdf
54 USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, http://www.usda.gov/documents/07finalfbp.pdf
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 525
-------
and decline in fish populations) faced by the Bay are the same issues the other 28 estuaries in EPA's
National Estuary Program face.55
EPA's CBPO has provided scientific information used by the partnership in setting allocations, revising
water quality standards, and establishing stricter wastewater treatment discharge limits. Despite these
important accomplishments, the Bay partners face significant obstacles in achieving the Bay's water
quality goals. It is now widely acknowledged that the nutrient and sediment reductions that are required
will not be met by 2010 as planned. EPA did not meet its strategic plan goals for the Chesapeake Bay in
2005 and 2006.56 At the current rate of progress, it will take decades for the Bay partners to reach their
reduction goals, and that is without factoring in future challenges.
The Bay partners face the following key challenges: (1) managing land development, (2) increasing
implementation of agricultural conservation practices, (3) monitoring and expediting the installation of
nutrient removal technology at wastewater treatment plants, (4) seeking greater reductions in air
emissions, and (5) identifying consistent and sustained funding sources to support tributary strategy
implementation. Few of these steps can be taken by EPA; its "partners" will need to implement practices
to reduce loads. However, EPA will need to institute management controls to ensure that the promised
reductions are realistic, and those that are claimed are actually being achieved.
Actions necessary to address the above challenges will not be easily implemented even if such practices
are described as cost-effective. For example, it will be difficult to convince enough agricultural producers
that conservation practices will not adversely affect productivity. In many cases, EPA has no clear
authority to control the major sources of pollution, such as from land development. Other practices are
controversial because they place restrictions on the lives of the residents of the Bay watershed. Controls
may result in property owners near the coast not being able to construct additions to their homes or
develop vacant land. However, to address these challenges, EPA and its partners will need to make major
program improvements. In the absence of significant steps from government, financial incentives, or other
mechanisms of influence, the enormous reductions required will not be forthcoming.
The CBPO has begun responding to the recommendations contained in reports by the EPA OIG and GAO
by improving program management and strategic planning. While these efforts are likely to improve
overall management, they are unlikely to result in the accelerated progress needed to achieve the
reduction goals. It will still be up to local governments to determine how they will develop lands and to
other federal agencies on how they will direct agricultural production or transportation. It is the Bay
community's responsibility to take action to ensure that Bay-wide commitments are met, and that water
quality goals are achieved and maintained. It is EPA's responsibility to monitor and assess progress. The
Bay partners need to commit to implementation plans with realistic timeframes and generate adequate
financial support. EPA should then use its reporting responsibilities to advise Congress and the
Chesapeake Bay community on the partners' progress in meeting these commitments, and identifying any
funding shortfalls and other impediments that will affect progress
Voluntary Programs - Update
EPA supports and advocates for a range of voluntary programs designed to provide flexibility and novel
and beneficial approaches to achieve environmental goals. The basic premise of voluntary approaches is
flexible, collaborative, market-driven solutions that can deliver measurable environmental results. These
55 Challenges Facing Our Estuaries, Key Management Issues,
http://www.epa.qov/owow/estuaries/about3.htm.
' Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountabilit
176 http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2006par/index.htm
56 Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 526
-------
programs primarily work with business, community, or other partners to either reduce pollution below
regulatory requirements, or ameliorate environmental problems not otherwise regulated by EPA (e.g.,
water and energy use, recycling).57 In 2002, EPA released an innovation strategy that described EPA
activities and priority issues.58
Voluntary programs have proliferated in recent years and now address a wide variety of
environmental challenges.59 However, their growth has not been matched by appropriate
organization and oversight. Recent OIG work illustrates that EPA does not have Agency-wide
policies that require the inclusion of key evaluative elements such as standardized management
processes, consistent and reliable data, and uniform operational guidelines that allow for
comparative assessment. EPA has not developed specific definitions that help EPA staff to
categorize or identify these diverse voluntary programs. Finally, EPA has not implemented a
systematic process to develop, test, and market voluntary programs, or to regularly evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs. As a result, EPA cannot identify a consistent population of
voluntary programs, there are no policies requiring voluntary programs to have comparative
programmatic elements, and there is no systematic process in place to regularly assess the
effectiveness of these programs.60 In response, the Agency committed to a series of steps
intended to establish minimum design standards, improve management, and develop multi-year
internal program evaluation plans for voluntary programs as part of the Agency's strategic and
annual planning, budgeting, and accountability systems.
Evaluations of individual voluntary programs continue to uncover design, data, and implementation
concerns. For example, we found shortcomings in EPA's "gold standard" Performance Track voluntary
program with quality controls, performance measurement, and strategic planning.61 In response, EPA
committed to develop better goals and measures, improve monitoring, explore alternative performance
data collection methods, and develop a comprehensive strategic plan. Our evaluation of EPA's largest
voluntary program, ENERGY STAR, found that EPA does not have reasonable assurance that its self-
certification process is effective. EPA relies on some alternative verification mechanisms, but lacks any
quality assurance or review of reported results. The Agency's verification testing lacks a clear
documented methodology governing products selected for verification tests and does not test for
statistically valid results. Consequently, product efficiency and energy savings reported by manufacturers
are, for the most part, unverified by EPA review.62 In response, EPA committed to establish a Quality
Assurance Program integrating the various elements of its compliance monitoring system for ENERGY
STAR-qualified products.
Clearly, EPA must be innovative and flexible, and adapt to changes in environmental protection, to
continue progress toward environmental goals. The challenge is to maintain those vital elements of the
existing system, such as the standards, permits, and compliance assurance efforts that are part of EPA's
basic mandate, while simultaneously pursuing creative new tools and approaches that complement and
enhance the Agency's efficiency and effectiveness. However, as the EPA OIG continues to evaluate the
57 EPA Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship, December 2005.
58 EPA Innovating for Better Environmental Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation of Innovation at EPA,
April 2002.
59 Partne
14,2006
60 Voluntc
Approach, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00041, September 25, 2007
61 Performance Track Could Improve Progn
Report No. 2007-P-00013, March 29, 2007
62 ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthei
Report No. 2007-P-00028, August 1, 2007.
59 Partnership Programs May Expand EPA's Influence, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00003, November
4
60 Voluntary Programs Could Benefit from Internal Policy Controls and a Systematic Management
6/
Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure Value, EPA OIG
e
62 ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity of the Label, EPA OIG
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 527
-------
efficiency and effectiveness of voluntary programs, such as ENERGY STAR, Indoor Radon, and those
designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is increasingly a concern that the potential benefits of
voluntary programs are not commensurate with the size of the environmental and human health problems
they are intended to solve.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 528
-------
EPA's Response to Office of Inspector General Identified Management Challenges
Threat and Risk Assessment
Agency Response: EPA appreciates the Office of Inspector General's concerns and
recommendation that the Agency enhance its efforts to periodically assess and prioritize threats
to human health and the environment across media and use this information to inform its
strategic planning and budgeting processes. As the Office of Inspector General points out,
nearly 20 years ago EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that EPA target its
efforts based on opportunities for the greatest risk reduction. The Board's 1990 report, Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, described the "fragmentary
nature of EPA's approach" to addressing environmental problems due to a number of underlying
conditions, including environmental laws that are focused on a single medium or threat, the
Agency's responsibilities for addressing separate legislative mandates, and technologies that
are targeted to address specific pollutant sources.
Given these conditions and EPA programs' disparate and individual interests and
responsibilities, forging a cross-media, cross-Agency approach to assessing risk and using the
information to establish risk-based priorities for planning and resource allocation represents a
significant challenge. In principle, however EPA concurs with the Office of Inspector General's
view that, given the diminishing resources available for environmental protection, there is a
critical need for EPA to focus on high-priority environmental threats to human health and the
environment across media to ensure that the Agency's actions are designed to reduce total risk
in the most efficient manner. Over the coming months, EPA will conduct further discussions with
senior leadership and policy-makers from across the Agency to initiate the development of an
integrated risk-based strategy and appropriate metrics to measure the aggregate impacts of risk
reduction to human health and ecosystems. EPA will consult with the Science Advisory Board
as necessary in developing this integrated risk-based approach. The Agency will also continue
to consult with the Office of Inspector General and to provide information on its progress.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges the Office of Inspector General's concerns and agrees
that the Agency could benefit from a comprehensive review of its organizational structure as it
relates to the number and location of employees needed to effectively accomplish its mission.
While EPA does not have the resources or the authority to conduct such a broad review, it has
conducted periodic nationwide assessments to identify cost-saving opportunities as a result of
mission and personnel changes.
EPA maintains an inventory of buildings—owned and leased—that support its current mission.
While some employees are located in "special use spaces," the vast majority of employees are
located in Headquarters buildings, regional offices, and laboratories. The "special use spaces"
are rent-free in many instances and generally used by enforcement personnel who must work in
concert with and proximate to state and local enforcement offices. The Agency requires all
program and regional senior management officials to provide, in writing, space requirements
and any requests for additional space, facility construction, repair, and alterations.
Under the Space Consolidation and Rent Avoidance Project, the Agency has released
approximately 195,000 square feet of space, resulting in an annual rent avoidance of more than
$6.5 million. The Agency plans to release approximately 86,000 square feet of additional space
in regional facilities for an estimated annual rent avoidance of nearly $2 million. Through its
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 529
-------
master space planning process, the Agency will continue to identify and fulfill its long-term
facility requirements.
Performance Measurement
Agency Response: While measuring environmental performance is inherently challenging, EPA
has made performance measurement improvement and performance management a priority
and is pursuing many actions to meet this challenge. The Agency has undertaken significant
work to strengthen its performance management framework and has made significant progress.
EPA's work to strengthen performance management contributed to the Agency's winning the
President's Quality Award for Management Excellence. EPA is the second federal agency to
receive this award.
EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer has conducted an annual performance measures
review for each of the last two years. This effort has included better aligning EPA's operational
measures with its annual budget measures and strategic plan measures. EPA established an
Agency-wide Deputy Regional Administrator and Deputy Assistant Administrator Performance
Management Council to discuss and improve EPA's performance management practices.
Additionally, EPA developed and submitted the Agency's Implementation Plan for Executive
Order 13450 on Improving Government Program Performance. The Office of Management and
Budget lauded EPA's plan as a model for other agencies. The Agency also established a senior
staff Performance Management Workgroup to improve performance measures and address key
issues at the staff level on an ongoing basis. EPA continued implementing and improving its
quarterly management report and developed "measures central"—a centralized database of the
Agency's key performance measures. Regional priorities have been added to the system, and
the Agency piloted an effort among national program offices to "map" the relationships among
key sets of measures. Staff has identified lessons learned to assist in future streamlining and
aligning measures.
Other EPA offices have also led significant efforts to improve performance management
practices. The Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) led regular progress
meetings between regional offices, Headquarters offices, and the Deputy Administrator on key
measures. The Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation's National Center for Environmental
Innovation runs regular trainings for EPA staff and managers on the logic of program design,
including specific training in logic modeling and program evaluation. The National Center for
Environmental Innovation offers detailed courses for staff and a primer for managers.
In 2007, the Office of Research and Development initiated a study with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to assist EPA and other agencies in addressing the common challenge of
evaluating efficiency in research. The NAS study provided precedent-setting information that will
allow research programs throughout the government to reassess how they measure efficiency.
EPA's plans to continue addressing the performance measurement challenge include:
• Conducting an annual review of FY 2010 measures, focused on improving the links between
EPA's operational measures, senior management priorities, and long-term environmental
and health goals.
• Strengthening efforts to govern/oversee the overall quality of the measures and data in the
measures central system.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 530
-------
• Developing a comprehensive strategy to address barriers to program evaluation (National
Center for Environmental Innovation).
• Revising the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's approach to strategic
planning for EPA's FY 2009-2014 plan. The Office is moving from a tool-based approach to
an environmental-problem-based approach.
• Continuing to improve the performance measures used for state grants to increase
transparency and accountability of state contributions to achieving EPA's mission.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Agency Response: EPA is doing everything possible within its authority, responsibility, and
resource constraints to change the way the country views, values, manages, and uses its
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The Sustainable Infrastructure initiative continues
to be a top priority and has been extremely active in the past year. While ultimately long-term
sustainability will occur at the local level, EPA has provided and continues to provide national
leadership. For example, the Agency has partnered with six of the major water and wastewater
professional associations to reach national consensus on the 10 "Attributes of an Effectively
Managed Utility." This first-of-a-kind national collaboration will enable utilities to operate under a
common management framework that will help the sector move toward sustainability in a unified
manner. Recently, this collaboration has resulted in a primer to help utilities assess their
operations based on the "Attributes," focus on their most critical challenges, and set measurable
performance goals. The primer is accompanied by an online tool kit that identifies other sources
that can help utilities manage in a sustainable manner.
Recognizing that water efficiency has significant implications for infrastructure and how the
Agency values water, EPA has been actively expanding the WaterSense Program, launched in
2006. The WaterSense label will help consumers find products and services that save water
while ensuring performance, thereby reducing the burden on infrastructure and mitigating water
availability challenges. It also helps to build a national consciousness of the value of water and
water services, which will be essential to the national awareness and commitment that will be
required to pay for infrastructure needs.
Additionally, EPA has reached out to other federal agencies and departments to work together
on infrastructure sustainability. EPA is working with the Department of Transportation on a set of
case studies on asset management, an area of common interest for water and highway
infrastructure. The Department of Transportation and EPA have agreed to establish a full-time
liaison position to facilitate further collaboration. Last year, EPA partnered with the Department
of Agriculture on the National Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure conference and
continues to collaborate with the Department and its funding programs. EPA has discussed
water infrastructure with the Army Corps of Engineers and recently shared with them its Special
Appropriations Act Project guidance, which includes a section on how to incorporate sustainable
practices in earmark projects.
EPA believes it has taken and will continue to take effective steps to define and pursue its role
in ensuring that the nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is sustainable in the
future and in increasing public awareness and appreciation of the need for sustainable water
infrastructure. Expanding EPA's role will require increased authority and resources.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 531
-------
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Agency Response: In FY 2006, EPA acknowledged homeland security as an Agency weakness
in response to concerns raised by the Office of Inspector General. Over the years, EPA has
taken action to strengthen its responsibility for homeland security by expanding its homeland
security planning and coordination efforts with other federal, state, and local agencies;
recognizing a more complete range of issues and information that must be considered in the
development of response plans for incidents of national significance; developing a crisis
communication plan and identifying responsible parties and roles for crisis communications; and
fulfilling basic homeland security requirements.
To respond to growing demands from new Homeland Security Presidential Directives and the
increasing complexity of its contribution to homeland security, EPA established the Homeland
Security Collaborative Network to coordinate and directly address high-priority, cross-Agency
technical and policy issues related to day-to-day homeland security policies and activities.
To improve its processes for identifying, obtaining, maintaining, and tracking response
equipment necessary for nationally significant incidents, EPA created and convened the
Homeland Security Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC). This executive committee, activated
after a homeland-security-related attack, brings together the Agency's senior political leadership
to provide policy direction to responders.
In FY 2008, EPA revised the Homeland Security Priority Work Plan (2008-2010), the Agency's
overarching planning framework for identifying and aligning cross-Agency homeland security
programs with EPA's highest homeland security priorities. The Plan identifies Presidential and
other externally driven homeland security mandates and outlines EPA's continuing efforts to
advance the Agency to the next level of preparedness.
EPA has been called on to respond to five major disasters and nationally significant incidents in
the past seven years: the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax terrorist incidents, the Columbia
Shuttle disaster and recovery efforts, the ricin incident on Capitol Hill, and the Gulf Coast
hurricanes. These responses have reinforced the importance of a continued focus on improving
the Agency's environmental homeland security focal areas: detection, prevention, and mitigation
and field preparedness and response. Within these areas, EPA identified and continues to focus
on four homeland security priorities: water security, decontamination, emergency response, and
internal preparedness. These priority areas have been identified as the result of external entities
assigning EPA specific responsibilities or through homeland security requirements and
assignments.
Additionally, EPA developed three tiers of information to be responsive to its homeland security
mandates. This information forms the basis for understanding EPA's highest homeland security
priorities and serves as a way to assess short-, medium-, and long-term goals and results. The
three tiers are:
• Desired end states. These describe the final outcomes of homeland security projects or
efforts once EPA believes it has met the President's or other externally imposed directives
(e.g., Homeland Security Presidential Directives).
• Desired results. These reflect specific programmatic areas through which EPA seeks to
make progress toward the desired end state.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 532
-------
• Action items. EPA's FY 2008-2010 action items reflect specific program and regional office
plans (e.g., projects or efforts) to progress toward desired results and ultimately reach EPA's
desired end state.
EPA will continue to use its Homeland Security Priority Work Plan as a systematic method to
assess homeland security priorities and projects annually. Additionally, the Agency will rely on
audits and evaluations conducted by the Office of Inspector General to help ensure that it
achieves its homeland security objectives and that its appropriations supporting homeland
security are spent efficiently and effectively. EPA has completed all corrective actions
associated with this weakness.
Oversight of Delegations of States
Agency Response: EPA agrees with the Office of Inspector General that the Agency has made
progress in its oversight of delegated programs, and it intends to continue this progress through
a variety of ongoing initiatives. As the Office of Inspector General notes, state oversight is a very
complex and changeable arena. Through federal statute, implementing regulations, and
program design, states are allowed flexibility in how they manage and implement environmental
programs. This flexibility is critical for individual states to meet the broad range of environmental
challenges and set priorities to deal with them.
Led by the Deputy Administrator, EPA is devoting significant attention to improving its
performance management and accountability systems for Agency programs, including those
delegated to the states. Several of these efforts are aimed at improving data and performance
measures to better assess program progress nationally. Through the Environmental Council of
the States (ECOS), state environmental commissioners, who are responsible for implementing
delegated programs, annually participate in developing EPA's strategic plan and national
program guidance. For the last three budget cycles, council officers have participated in the
Agency's budget hearings with the Deputy Administrator and Chief Financial Officer. For the
budget hearings, states provide information about state priorities, respond to Agency questions
about program priorities and funding needs, and submit state budget proposals for the state and
tribal categorical grant programs.
National program consistency and accountability depend on the work that EPA regions do with
states to ensure that national program goals are met through negotiated EPA/state agreements
and grants. National program managers and EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer work
closely with the states in planning, budgeting, and accountability processes to ensure better
alignment of program goals, objectives, and measures of effectiveness at the state level. Each
year, states, regions, and national program managers review existing program progress
measures and make recommendations for improving individual measures, aligning their
measures, and where appropriate, reducing/eliminating unnecessary measures. The focus is on
ensuring that the measures are meaningful ways to measure program progress.
The most recent example is the State Review Framework, developed jointly by EPA and the
states, which governs program evaluations conducted by EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. The principal goal of the Framework is to ensure national consistency
in how the states carry out and enforce air, water, and waste programs.
EPA program offices are responsible for state oversight of individual programs; however, the
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations participates in joint workgroups, such
as the State Review Framework Workgroup, to remove barriers to collaborative problem
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 533
-------
solving. The Office supports outreach and consultation with the states through national
associations, particularly the Environmental Council of the States. EPA works with the Council
to ensure that consultation with the states occurs early in the development of regulations, policy,
and guidance, and that the consultation that takes place is timely, meaningful, appropriate, and
facilitates the goal of protection of human health and the environment.
Currently, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations is participating in a
number of areas to improve the EPA-state relationships. Many of these areas involve improving
data, performance measurement, and accountability.
• EPA is working on a uniform state grant workplan in response to Office of Management and
Budget concerns and has developed a common set of environmental measures that it
requires be included in all state grant workplans.
• EPA will continue to utilize performance measurement and accountability analyses, using
information from completed Agency Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) reviews.
• The Office of Environmental Information is working with states to have them adopt data
standards for national program databases and to develop new applications for the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network.
• EPA is making expanded use of business process improvement techniques and burden
reduction projects to eliminate waste and duplication in EPA and state work to enable "doing
the right things, the right way," reducing reporting burden for state programs, and allowing
the redirection and redeployment of scarce resources to maximize program accountability.
• The Agency is enhancing its consultation with the states in developing regulations to ensure
that final rules can be implemented effectively. The Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations is also participating in a special project to revise EPA's
guidance governing economic analyses for the cost of rules to include better estimates of
the costs to the states for implementation.
The Agency is committed to pursuing these improvements.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Agency Response: The Office of Inspector General continues to raise concerns about EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program. Between 2005 and 2008, the Office of Inspector General issued
several evaluation reports on the Program, the majority focusing on EPA's efforts to reduce
nutrients and sediment loads from the principal source sectors in the Chesapeake Bay. EPA
believes that actions taken to date and those planned in the future adequately address the
concerns the Office of Inspector General expressed in their reports.
In a May 2008 report to Congress, Strengthening the Management, Coordination and
Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA described Chesapeake Bay Program
partners' collective efforts to implement Government Accountability Office recommendations.
This report provides documentation and evidence demonstrating how these recommendations
have been implemented and will support enhanced coordination, collaboration, and
accountability among the Program partners. In addition, it describes Program partners' progress
in developing and implementing the Chesapeake Action Plan, a critical enhancement of the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 534
-------
Program's management system that supports implementation of the Government Accountability
Office recommendations.
The Chesapeake Action Plan has four primary components:
• A strategic framework that unifies the Chesapeake Bay Program's existing planning
documents and clarifies how Program partners will pursue the restoration and protection
goals for the Bay and its watershed.
• An operating plan that identifies and catalogues Program partners' resources and actions
being undertaken and planned.
• Dashboards, which are high-level summaries of key information, including clear status of
progress, realistic annual targets toward certain Chesapeake 2000 goals, summaries of
actions and funding, and critical analyses of the current strategy, challenges, and future
emphasis.
• An adaptive management process that begins to identify how this information and analysis
will provide critical input to determine Program partners' actions, assign emphasis, and
establish future priorities.
These components enhance coordination among Chesapeake Bay Program partners,
encourage them to continually review and improve their progress in protecting and restoring the
Bay, increase the transparency of the Program's operations for partners and the public, and
heighten the accountability of the Program and its partners for meeting their Bay health and
restoration goals.
The Chesapeake Action Plan supports a management system that more closely aligns
implementation responsibilities with the unique capabilities and missions of the Chesapeake
Bay Program partners, thereby using the limited resources available to the Program partners
more efficiently. The Action Plan will significantly transform the way the Program will operate.
It is important to note that Program partners have long been engaged in significant actions to
advance the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Program partners are strongly
committed to achieving program goals for the Bay. The Chesapeake Action Plan has placed the
Program on a course to accelerate the pace at which the partners implement actions to improve
the Bay.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 535
-------
IMPROPER PAYMENTS INFORMATION ACT OF 2002
REPORTING DETAILS
Risk Assessments
To implement the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) requirements, the Agency
reviewed and sampled disbursements made in the highest risk susceptible inventories. EPA
determined that its programs did not have "significant erroneous payments," defined by the IPIA
as payments exceeding $10 million and 2.5% of program payments. Because the Clean Water
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are former Section 57 programs, EPA
was required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for them. The Agency's corrective action
proposed to reduce the error rate of improper payments in the SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.30
percent over a five-year period. Since the end of FY 2005, EPA has continued to surpass the
FY 2008 target of 0.30 percent. The error rates for these two programs were as follows:
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Outlays
$2.1 billion
$2.0 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.1 billion
Erroneous Payments
$10. 3 million
$ 3.0 million
$ 3.5 million
$1.64 million
$8.3 million
Error Rate
0.49 percent
0.15 percent
0.15 percent
0.07 percent
0.39 percent
Statistical Sampling Process
Based on having low error rates and less than $10 million in erroneous payments, OMB
approved relief from annual statistical sampling and reporting requirements for the Clean Water
and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs for FY 2007 - FY 2009. EPA will
need to conduct a risk assessment on these programs in three years (FY 2010), or may be
required to re-initiate measurement activities if there are any substantial changes to the program
(legislation, funding, etc.) that may impact payment accuracy.
Corrective Action Plans
In order to meet OMB's objective, 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:
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
536
-------
Grants
As described in Section II above, EPA was granted relief from annual statistical sampling of
direct and subrecipient SRF payments. Since FY 2006, the Agency tracks erroneous payments
by grant recipient in the Grantee Compliance Database.
During FY 2005, EPA performed an erroneous payments review for calendar year (CY) 2004
using judgmental risk-based sampling to select 267 grant recipients for administrative reviews
including 111 non-profits grantees. Nineteen of the non-profit grantee reviews identified
potential erroneous payments. In FY 2006, the Agency completed it risk-based judgmental CY
2005 sample of 99 non-profit recipient reports - 24 identified potential erroneous payments. In
FY 2006, EPA introduced a new, random statistical sampling approach that categorizes grant
recipients for review. In FY 2007, of the 60 CY 2006 statistically sampled non-profit grantee
recipients reviewed, 27 were identified as having potential erroneous payments. In FY 2008, of
the 60 CY 2007 statistically sampled non profit grantee recipients reviewed, 15 were identified
as having potential erroneous payments. Final results for these 4 years provided in the table
below.
The table below also reports updated information on the appeal process results (costs still in the
recipient appeal) for these years. The Agency also reports on these results for the Improved
Financial Management initiative of the President's Management Agenda.
Non-Profit Grantees Review/Audit
Results
Total dollars drawn
All potential erroneous payments
cited
Questioned costs determined
allowable
Actual erroneous payments
(unallowable costs)
Costs that have been recovered
Costs still in recipient appeal process
Percent of erroneous payments
CY 2004
Review
$9,065,389
$650,799
$646,237
$18,755
$18,755
$0
0.207 %
CY 2005
Review
$20,222,038
$1,016,967
$329,378
$687,589*
$57,791
$0
3.400 %
CY 2006
Review
$29,373,772
$562,394
$523,227
$39,167
$6,280
$0
0.133%
CY 2007
Review
$22,544,462
$384,352
$307,919
$13,433
$13,433
$0
0.059 %
* Of the $687,589 in final erroneous payments identified for CY 2005, $629,798 (or 91.6%) was associated with a
single earmark award. But for this one earmark, erroneous payments for sampled granted during CY 2005 were
$57,791, equal to 0.2857% of total disbursements for sampled grants, and well below EPA's target metric of 1% of
total disbursements. In response to the Agency's findings, the earmark grant has been terminated and the recipient
suspended, as shown on GSA's Excluded Parties List System.
Contracts
EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate improper payments.
The appropriate Contracts Officer Representatives or On Scene Coordinators are notified of all
improper payment discovered. In January 2003, EPA implemented a monthly Improper
Contract Payment Report. The report captures the number of improper payments per month
and provides information on each improper payment including the reason and recovery status.
In FY 2006, the Agency received final Recovery Audit Report - and audit reviewed 376,000
small purchase and contract payment transactions worth $6.5 billion. The Audit Recovery
contract reviewed 100,471 contract payments totaling $4.3 million and found only 4 erroneous
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
537
-------
payments (a 0.01 percent error rate). EPA has addressed all audit recommendations cited in
the Recovery Audit Report.
Results of EPA's Improper Contract Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2003*
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number of Erroneous
Payments
25 (of 24, 056)
21 (of 24,886)
21 (of 26,305)
25 (of 28,098)
14 (of 29,828)
12 (of 32, 043)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$206.1
$748.5
$121.5
$406.5
$65.3
$324.0
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.02 percent
0.08 percent
0.01 percent
0.03 percent
0.01 percent
0.03 percent
* FY 2003 only included data from January through September.
Based on EPA's excellent performance and effective controls, the Agency does not plan future
externally conducted recovery audits. Formal Recovery Audit have demonstrated a low rate of
erroneous payments whereby making it not cost effective to conduct these external audits. The
Agency continues to use a monthly Improper Contracts Payment Report as the tool for
monitoring payments.
Commodity Payments
Since no high risk areas have been identified, no corrective action is required. EPA continues
to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate any improper payments. The
commodity payments were included in the FY 2006 completed Recovery Audit described above
in Section 11 I.E. Contracts. The Recovery Audit contractor reviewed 275,185 invoices paid
totaling $2.2 million and found 31 improper payments (less than 0.01 percent error rate). The
improper commodity payments were attributed to product returns not deducted, duplicate
payments due to keypunch errors and vendor number errors, cash discounts not taken, and
state and local tax exemptions not taken. As of January 2006, the Agency consolidated its
commodity payments operation to one Finance Center. The consolidation achieves a higher
degree of internal control, consistency and oversight. The consolidation plus several other
corrective actions addressed the Recovery Audit Report recommendations. In preparation for
replacing the core financial system, EPA reviewed the vendor file to ensure the accuracy of all
vendor codes.
The Agency implemented a commodities payment tracking mechanism in January 2004 to
gather improper payment data. This tracking system provides the data for a monthly Improper
Commodities Payment Report which includes information on each improper payment. Given
the low rate of erroneous payments, EPA does not plan future externally conducted recovery
audits - a formal Recovery Audit is not cost effective for the contractor who is paid based on
erroneous payments found/recovered. The Agency will continue using the monthly Improper
Commodities Payment Report as the tool for monitoring these payments.
Results of EPA's Improper Commodity Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
Number of Erroneous
Payments
40 (of 42,698)
102 (of 50,665)
63 (of 45, 859)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$416.0
$695.5
$176.5
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.17 percent
0.23 percent
0.06 percent
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
538
-------
2008
48 (of 43,629)
$215.4
0.08 percent
Payroll
By December 31, 2004, the Payroll Workgroup completed a comprehensive review of internal
controls and submitted recommendations to reduce improper payments. Additionally, in FY
2005, the workgroups developed a corrective action plan/best practices. EPA implemented
these corrective actions before the Agency transferred the payroll disbursement function to the
Department of Defense in May 2006. EPA now benefits from the combination of both agencies
internal controls.
Travel Card/Purchase Card
The Agency continues to monitor the travel and purchase charge card transactions in
accordance with the Agency policies and procedures. In addition, EPA monitors the issuance of
purchase cards to ensure that spending limits and span of control are kept to a minimum. The
Agency implemented a monitoring program that requires each of the Senior Resource Official to
perform biennial reviews of the purchases made within their program offices. These reviews
ensure that integrity of the purchase card program. EPA continues to use several additional
controls.
• Notify card holder's approving official via email for each purchase - daily;
• Conduct routine reviews on various transactions; and
• Review Agency Atypical Report which identifies airline ticket purchase without
authorizations.
Improper Payment (IP) Reduction Outlook FY 2005 - FY 2009
(Dollars in millions)
Program
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
FY
2005
Outlays
$1 ,963
(actual)
FY
2005
IP%
0.45
target
0.15
actual
FY
2005
IP$
$3.0
FY
2006
Outlays
$2,303
(actual)
FY
2006
IP%
0.40
target
0.15
actual
FY
2006
IP$
$3.5
FY
2007
Outlays
$2,344
FY
2007
IP%
0.35
target
0.7
actual
FY
2007
IP$
$1.60
FY
2008
Outlays
$2,143
(est.)
FY
2008
IP%
0.30
target
0.39
actual
FY
2008
IP$
$8.3
FY
2009
Outlays
$2,100
(est.)
FY
2009
IP%
0.30
target
0.30
est.
FY
2009
IP$
$6.3
(est.)
Ensuring Management Accountability
As previously outlined in the corrective action plans, the Agency continues to strengthen already
strong internal controls in key payment processes. Information on erroneous payments from
reviews and audits for the two SRFs, our largest grant programs, is reported semi-annually to
management in both the Office of Water and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In all
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
539
-------
cases action is taken with the appropriate officials to ensure improper payments are recovered
and to avoid future improper payments. Similar monitoring through reports is done for the
contract and commodities payment areas.
Information Systems and Infrastructure
The Agency's information systems are sufficient to reduce improper payments to targeted
levels.
Statutory and Regulatory Barriers
None.
Conclusions
EPA met all of the requirements and received a Green Status on Eliminating Improper
Payments as of June 30, 2008. The Agency continues to demonstrate a low level of risk for the
SRF programs through random statistical sampling of direct payments and targeted state
reviews. In FY 2007, based on the guidelines contained in Appendix C to OMB Circular A-123,
Part I, Section K (program has documented a minimum of two consecutive years of improper
payments that are less than $10 million annually), EPA requested and received relief from the
annual statistical sampling and reporting requirements of the I PI A for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRFs. This waiver for statistical testing of SRF transactions covers fiscal years
2007-2009. EPA will be required to resume statistical assessment and report on the SRF
programs in the FY 2010 PAR. OMB's approval of the three-year waiver is contingent on no
significant legislative or programmatic changes, significant funding increases and/or any change
that would result in substantial program impact. If such changes occur, the Agency must
reinitiate risk assessments and comply with IPIA reporting requirements if there is significant
risk of improper payments occurring.
For FY 2008, EPA committed to the following activities:
• Continue to monitor commercial payments to ensure accurate characterization of monitoring
efforts annually in the PAR; and
• Brief OMB, as needed, depending on program changes, legislative and/or funding revision,
or anything that development from EPA's monitoring.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 540
-------
EPA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix A
Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2008
This document is one appendix from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 541
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
1 More Action Needed to Protect
Public Indoor Air Risks
EPA, Office of Inspector General
(OIG)
The evaluation was conducted to
determine how EPA measures
Indoor Radon Program results,
what results were achieved at
the regional and state levels with
the State Indoor Radon Grant
funds, what changes might be
made to the Indoor Radon
Program to improve its
effectiveness and efficiency in
meeting its short- and long-term
goals, and the challenges to
adopting the recommended
changes.
The Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA)
established the goal that indoor air
should be as free of radon as the
outdoor air. The radon program is not
achieving greater results for several
reasons: 1) EPA's ability to achieve
results with a voluntary program is
limited, 2) potential loss of a sale
represents a disincentive for real estate
agents and sellers to conduct radon tests
during real estate transactions, and 3)
added expense represents a disincentive
for builders to use radon-resistant new
construction. Opportunities exist within
the federal community to substantially
increase the number of homes tested
and mitigated for radon. EPA has not
decided how to use all its authorities to
achieve the Act's goals. Also, EPA has
not been publishing in its performance
reporting program results in relation to
homes at risk.
The OIG recommended
that EPA develop a
strategy for achieving the
IRAA's long-term goal and
consider using its
authorities granted by
Congress or explain its
alternative strategy. The
OIG also recommended
that EPA identify to
Congress limitations to
meeting the goal, as well
as recommending
improvements to how
EPA measures and
reports program results.
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Programs Have
Limited Potential
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG conducted this review
to evaluate the extent to which
EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG)
programs can significantly
reduce future GHG emissions
and whether their data are
complete and reliable.
The set of voluntary GHG programs the
OIG reviewed includes outreach efforts
to recruit program partners and reduce
GHG emissions. The OIG found that the
greatest barriers to participation in the
voluntary GHG programs were the
perceived emission reduction costs and
reporting requirements. The OIG also
found that these voluntary programs are
not likely to reduce more than 19 percent
of the projected 2010 GHG emissions for
their industry sectors. From this, the OIG
determined that if EPA wishes to reduce
GHG emissions beyond this point, it
needs to consider additional policy
options. The OIG also found that eight of
the 11 programs in the review showed
weaknesses in their current data
collection and reporting systems.
The OIG recommended
that EPA review emission
reduction cost analyses
annually and update them
as needed. For programs
that recruit and enroll
participants, EPA should
adopt written partnership
agreements that require
stronger data quality
provisions on how
confidential business
information will be
handled. For programs
that do not recruit and
enroll participants, EPA
should develop a policy or
procedure that specifically
identifies how these
voluntary GHG programs
link their reported
outcomes to program
efforts.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
542
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
1 Improvements in Air Toxics
Emissions Data Needed to
Conduct Residual Risk
Assessments
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments required EPA to
develop maximum achievable
control technology (MACT)
standards to reduce air toxics
emissions from stationary
sources. In 2004, EPA
completed the last of its MACT
standards. The OIG conducted
this evaluation to assess the
effectiveness of those standards
in reducing air toxics emissions.
EPA's National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) data indicate an overall decline in
air toxic emissions concurrent with
implementation of the MACT standards.
Although NEI data reliability is uncertain,
it is reasonable to conclude that air
toxics emissions have decreased. This
review suggests that the MACT program
has played a role in these reductions.
EPA plans to use NEI data to assess the
public health risk remaining from MACT
sources' air toxics emissions but the
reliability of NEI data for site-specific
emissions varies considerably. In
December 2006, EPA presented its plan
for conducting residual risk assessments
to EPA's Science Advisory Board. The
Board's June 2007 report recommended
several actions to improve this process.
These recommendations included
developing a framework for improving
the NEI data and conducting an analysis
to determine the impact of data
uncertainty on the risk assessments. In
March 2007, EPA solicited public
comment on the NEI and other data it
plans to use for conducting residual risk
assessments.
The OIG recommended
that EPA develop data
quality objectives (DQOs)
for using the NEI data in
conducting residual risk
assessments and
establish requirements for
state reporting of air toxics
emission data and
compliance monitoring
information.
Mid-Cycle Review of the Office
of Research and Development's
Air Research Program at the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA, Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC)
BOSC "mid-cycle" reviews are
designed to gauge the program's
progress with respect to 1) its
future direction and 2)
performance and accountability.
While narrower in focus than the
in-depth technical evaluation that
constitutes a full BOSC program
review, the mid-cycle review
provides the program with critical
information on its progress to
date.
The transition of the Program from the
PM and Ozone Programs to the Air
Research Program has clearly been
successful. The revised Long-Term
Goals (LTGs) are intended to address
regulatory needs and to build the
knowledge base for a multi-pollutant
approach to controlling air pollution. The
response to the 2005 program review
was highly positive. Overall, the BOSC
found that the Air Research Program is
meeting its goals and is conducting the
appropriate high-quality science to meet
those goals. The BOSC rated the
progress of the program as "exceeds
expectations."
The BOSC recommended
that future research
include a focus on the role
of composition and of
atmospheric chemistry on
the toxicity of particles.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
543
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
EPA Assisting Tribal Water
Systems But Needs to Improve
Oversight
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG undertook the
evaluation to assess EPA's
oversight and assistance of tribal
community water systems
(CWSs), and to independently
evaluate water quality at
selected systems.
Tribal drinking water sample results in
EPA files indicate that drinking water
supplies consistently met regulatory
requirements. Regional EPA staff also
made correct compliance decisions with
sample results that tribal CWSs
provided. However, internal control
deficiencies existed in administering
EPA's oversight of tribal CWSs in two of
the five regions the OIG reviewed. To
varying degrees, tribal drinking water
records in four of the five regions were
incomplete due to a failure to maintain
oversight of system operations and/or
poor records management. In
determining if tribal CWSs exceeded
drinking water regulatory limits, the OIG
found that of the approximately 2,300
independent samples analyzed, only
seven were above the limits. In those
cases, the OIG informed regional staff
and water system operators, who then
took follow-up actions.
The OIG recommended
that the Assistant
Administrator for Water:
• Establish national and
regional tribal drinking
water program standard
operating procedures in
coordination with
Regional offices.
• Require Region 2 to
submit a plan that
corrects deficiencies in
how it currently
implements its tribal
drinking water program,
including those
identified in this report.
• Direct regions to issue
monitoring and
reporting violations,
take appropriate
enforcement actions
against tribal CWSs
with health-based
violations or that fail to
monitor or submit
monitoring reports, and
enter violations into the
Safe Drinking Water
Information System.
Summary of Recent
Developments in EPA's Drinking
Water Program and Areas for
Additional Focus
EPA, Office of Inspector General
This review included a summary
of the findings and
recommendations from recent
evaluation reports by the OIG,
the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), and others;
tracking of significant program
developments; and identifying
challenges to help focus future
evaluation efforts.
The drinking water program faces
challenges, notably limited resources,
emerging contaminants and new
regulations, and system security issues.
We suggest future evaluations for
several areas of the drinking water
program. These reviews should allow
EPA to determine how well its programs
are working and help it direct resources
toward its most pressing needs. Priority
should be given to water security-
response capability, chemical security at
drinking water facilities,
variances/exemptions and waivers,
effectiveness of Agency funding, and the
contaminant selection process. Other
areas meriting review include inter-
program linkages, Underground Injection
Control-Class V wells, transient and
non-transient non-community water
None.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
544
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
systems, and the recent modernization
of the Safe Drinking Water Information
System.
Recommendations
Evaluating the Effectiveness of
the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program
Industrial Economics, Inc.
EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds
(OWOW) initiated this evaluation
to assess whether the Targeted
Watersheds Grant (TWG)
program has been effective in
building on the successes of
public/private watershed
partnerships; promoting the
achievement of incremental, yet
tangible, on-the-ground results;
and encouraging innovative
approaches to advance the
protection and restoration of
water resources. EPA selected
Industrial Economics, Inc., to
conduct the evaluation;
specifically, to determine the
impact of the TWG program on
efforts to protect and restore
watersheds and how aspects of
the program and characteristics
of grantee organizations
contribute to the successful
implementation of watershed
approaches.
Adequate funding is key to supporting
the implementation of watershed
projects. It is a primary factor in the
success of TWG grantees. Many
interview respondents, Regions and later
implementation grantees in particular,
identified a need for EPA to expand the
level of outreach and technical
assistance it provides to grantees. The
National Program Office needs to clearly
define the output and outcome measures
it wants grantees to incorporate into their
work plans, and issue guidance to
grantees and Regions that conveys its
expectations for measurement and
tracking of results. A few Regions and
implementation grantees recommend
that EPA develop a standard set of
measures, including information
requirements for establishing baseline
measures against which progress can be
compared. Several interview
respondents recommended increased
EPA funding to support capacity building
efforts conducted by national service
provider organizations and local planning
and capacity-building projects by
implementation grantees.
EPA should consider:
• Providing additional
guidance and
assistance to help TWG
grantees effectively
measure their progress
and achievement of
social, organizational,
and environmental
outcomes.
• Increasing grantees'
access to technical
assistance and
promoting inter-grantee
communication and the
exchange of TWG
success stories and
lessons learned.
• Establishing linkages
between the TWG
program and other EPA
program offices to
expand the pool of
resources available to
grantees.
• Streamlining the TWG
program application
process and grantee
reporting requirements.
The Relationship Between In-
Home Water and Sewer Service
and the Risk of Respiratory
Tract, Skin, and Gastrointestinal
Track Infections Among Rural
Alaska Natives
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)
CDC investigated the
relationship between the
presence of in-home piped water
Regions with a lower proportion of home
water service had significantly higher
hospitalization rates for pneumonia and
influenza (rate ratio [RR]=2.5), skin or
soft tissue infection (RR=1.9), and
respiratory syncytial virus (RR=3.4
among those younger than 5 years) than
did higher-service regions. Within one
region, infants from villages with less
than 10% of homes served had higher
hospitalization rates for pneumonia
(RR=1.3) and respiratory syncytial virus
(RR=1.2) than did infants from villages
with more than 80% served. Outpatient
Higher respiratory and
skin infection rates were
associated with a lack of
in-home water service.
This disparity should be
addressed through
sanitation infrastructure
improvements.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
545
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
and wastewater services and
hospitalization rates for
respiratory tract, skin, and
gastrointestinal tract infections in
rural Alaska. They determined
in-home water service and
hospitalization rates for selected
infectious diseases among
Alaska Natives by regions during
2000 to 2004. Within one region,
infant respiratory hospitalizations
and skin infections for all ages
were compared by village-level
and water services.
Findings
Staphylococcus aureus infections
(RR=5.1, all ages) and skin infection
hospitalizations (RR=2.7, all ages) were
higher in low-service than in high-service
villages.
Recommendations
Evaluating Future Directions of
the Plug-In To eCycling Program
Indtai, Inc.
The evaluation focused on the
partnership program Plug-In To
eCycling as it relates to
increasing the reuse and
recycling of end-of-life
electronics.
The findings of the evaluation are:
• The infrastructure and market for
ecycling are in the growth stages, yet
significant progress has been made.
• The ecycling opportunities available to
consumers are difficult to track and
characterize.
• There are significant opportunities to
increase consumer awareness of
ecycling opportunities and benefits.
The recommendations of
the evaluation are:
• Play a more active role
in working with industry
partners.
• Consider leveraging
trade associations on
industry wide topics.
• Assume a stronger
"quarterbacking" role in
coordinating multi-
stakeholder efforts.
• Focus attention on
removing barriers and
obstacles to cost-
effective ecycling.
• Bolster partners'
understanding of Plug-
In's strategy.
• Improve consumer
recognition of the Plug-
In brand.
• Establish a baseline of
partner performance
against which future
progress can be
measured.
• Assume leadership on
building a capacity to
track electronics
collections and
recycling.
• Clarify how Plug-In will
interface with state
ecycling programs, in
light of state mandated
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
546
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks:
More Complete Facility Data
Could Improve Implementation
of EPA's Spill Prevention
Program
Government Accountability
Office (GAO)
GAO conducted their analysis by
meeting with officials in the EPA
Headquarters' oil spill and
enforcement programs,
surveying all 10 EPA Regional
offices about facility identification
and inspection practices, visiting
Regions 5 and 6 to discuss their
Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC)
programs and attend site
inspection visits, and discussing
oil spill programs with six states.
GAO compiled information on
the differences in Regional
programs during their visits to
Regions 5 and 6. They also
focused on different enforcement
processes and mechanisms
used by each region.
Hazardous Materials: EPA May
Need to Reassess Sites
Findings
GAO findings on Regional variability:
• Regional offices can implement the oil
program according to their individual
circumstances, leading to regional
variations in the number of oil facility
inspections.
• GAO recognized that EPA has begun
to implement policies to promote
consistency in how the oil regulations
are interpreted and enforced.
GAO findings on the number of regulated
facilities:
• EPA has information on only a portion
of the facilities subject to the oil rules,
hindering its ability to identify and
effectively target facilities for
inspection and enforcement, and to
evaluate whether the program is
achieving its goals.
• While inspections are generally risk-
based, the risk assessments do not
include many unknown facilities that
may pose more serious threats than
those targeted for inspection.
• Incomplete information on which
facilities are subject to the rules, and
where and how often leaks may occur,
prevents EPA from effectively
targeting inspections to facilities that
potentially pose the highest risks.
GAO findings on State oil spill programs:
• Five of six state programs reviewed
use tank registration and reporting
systems to collect data on oil storage
facilities, giving them information on
the universe of facilities subject to
state regulations and the ability to
inspect and/or target those that they
believe present the highest risks of
spills.
• By taking a similar approach, EPA
would have more complete data for
setting inspection priorities based on
risk.
Per GAO, EPA may need to reassess
sites receiving asbestos-contaminated
Recommendations
recycling programs.
GAO recommends that
EPA:
• Analyze options for
obtaining data on
SPCC-regulated
facilities, including a
tank registration
program.
• Develop guidance for
EPA regions on how to
better coordinate with
states on SPCC issues
• Finish developing
performance measures
and obtain data to
evaluate SPCC
program effectiveness.
In commenting on a draft
of this report, EPA
generally agreed with
GAO's recommendations
and provided a number of
technical comments that
were incorporated into the
report, as appropriate.
The EPA Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
547
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Receiving Asbestos-
Contaminated Ore From Libby,
Montana, and Should Improve
Its Public Notification Process
Government Accountability
Office
GAO was asked to (1) describe
the status of EPA's and other
federal agencies' efforts to
assess and address potential
risks at the facilities that received
contaminated Libby ore and (2)
determine the extent and
effectiveness of EPA's public
notification efforts about
cleanups at sites that received
Libby ore. GAO, among other
steps, convened focus groups in
three of the affected
communities to address these
issues.
Findings
ore from Libby, Montana, and should
improve its public notification processes.
Recommendations
Response (OSWER) has
developed a vermiculite
site strategy whereby
vermiculite ore sites
potentially contaminated
with Libby ore will be
further assessed by
applying the recently
developed "Framework for
Investigating Asbestos-
Contaminated Superfund
sites." The focus of the
further assessments will
be on the known 105
exfoliation sites.
Additional programmatic
guidance and training is
being developed to
support the overall
strategy. The guidance
and training will also
address, as necessary,
public notification and
outreach. The evaluation
does not alter the goals
and objectives identified in
the Strategic Plan, nor
does it impact the
strategic architecture,
scope of measurement or
target levels. The results
of the evaluation do not
change our performance
measures. The vermiculite
sites strategy issued as a
result of the evaluation will
result in an increase in
site assessments which
may lead to additional
removal actions, which is
one measure of
performance in our
program.
EPA Decisions to Delete
Superfund Sites Should Undergo
Quality Assurance Review
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG sought to determine
As of September 2007, EPA had deleted
322 sites from the NPL. Among the eight
sites reviewed, documentation for the
Agency's decision to delete three sites
was not consistent with EPA guidance.
The Agency's decisions for two of these
sites were also not consistent with
criteria specified by EPA guidance and
The OIG recommended
that EPA implement a
national quality assurance
process that ensures
deletion decisions meet
criteria specified by EPA
guidance and the NCP.
They recommended there
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
548
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
whether deletions from the
Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL) have (1) consistently
followed EPA guidance and met
the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) criteria and (2) been
supported by complete and high
quality data and analysis which
provide reasonable assurance
that public health and the
environment are protected. Eight
deleted NPL sites were reviewed
from EPA Regions 3 and 5. The
OIG selected these sites based
on where information presented
in public notices, 5-review review
reports, and/or other relevant
documents appeared
inconsistent with deletion criteria
specified by EPA guidance and
the NCP. Documents and data
were reviewed and officials from
the Regions were interviewed.
Findings
not supported by data and analysis. EPA
did not ensure cleanup activities and
goals were complete and remedies were
fully protecting human health and the
environment before deleting these two
sites.
Recommendations
be actions to ensure
better support for deletion
decisions and oversight of
ongoing cleanup activities.
Performance Indicators for EPA
Emergency Response and
Removal Actions
Abt Associates
The purpose was to assess the
outcome of individual fund-led
emergency response and time-
critical removal actions. This
subset of actions was selected
because they require more
investment of EPA time and
resources than actions led by
Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs), and also data are more
likely to be readily available. The
evaluation tool and the results of
the evaluation will be of interest
primarily to EPA staff with
responsibility for conducting and
managing removal actions.
Improved Controls Would
Reduce Superfund Cleanup
Backlogs
Findings include:
• Indicators for emergency responses
and time-critical removals vary.
• Definitions of "success" and opinions
on appropriate indicators vary.
• Indicators are largely subjective in
nature.
• Information readily available to apply
indicators is limited.
Neither EPA nor the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) took actions needed to ensure
progress at seven New Jersey-led
Recommendations
include:
• Apply the evaluation
tool in the context of
performance indicators.
• Implement a basic
scoring approach
initially.
• Solicit feedback from a
broad audience on
proposed performance
indicators.
• Use the evaluation tool
to frame lessons
learned documents.
• Select a subset of
removal actions and
establish a data
collection approach.
Consider a case-study
approach to evaluating
specific actions.
The OIG recommends
that the Region 2
Administrator direct staff
to coordinate, with NJDEP
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
549
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG sought to determine
why some hazardous waste sites
in the Superfund program that
existed prior to October 1986
have not yet had remedial
construction completed. The OIG
also reviewed the impacts
resulting from sites not yet
achieving construction
completion.
Findings
Superfund site cleanups.
Recommendations
officials, the cleanup of
specified sites more than
20 years old. Region 2
should assume lead
status from New Jersey
for those sites where both
agencies agree it would
be beneficial and develop
Letters of Agreement for
those sites. It was also
recommend that the
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response,
where appropriate,
improve site profiles in
EPA's public Superfund
Web site to accurately
depict EPA and state
actions taken to protect
human health and the
environment.
EPA Should Continue Efforts to
Reduce Unliquidated Obligations
in Brownfields Pilot Grants
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG sought to determine
whether EPA has been using
funds in a timely manner for
Brownfields pilot projects, and
whether funds were available for
deobligation.
EPA has not consistently implemented a
national policy or process that provides
reasonable assurance that Brownfields
grant funds will be spent in a timely
manner. EPA Headquarters has not
provided specific guidelines on when
grants should be terminated, nor has it
defined inadequate progress for grant
performance. Regions have generally
allowed time extensions when grantees
requested them.
The OIG recommends
that the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER
establish a process for
reviewing non-performing
grants, and develop
procedures for terminating
and deobligating funds
from those grants. The
OIG recommended using
the term "insufficient
progress" in grant
assessments and that the
Regions deobligate
remaining funds for 21
grants that are scheduled
to end by September 30,
2008.
EPA Needs to Track Compliance
with Superfund Cleanup
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG evaluated whether EPA
has resolved violations to
Superfund enforcement
instruments consistent with its
According to EPA's Superfund
information system, there were 3,397
active Superfund enforcement
instruments to ensure cleanups at NPL
sites as of September 30, 2007. Yet EPA
does not nationally compile or track data
on substantial non-compliance with the
terms or requirements of these
instruments.
The OIG recommends
that EPA track and
monitor substantial non-
compliance by using and
modifying, as appropriate,
the existing Superfund
information system. It was
also recommended that
EPA establish enforceable
response actions to
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
550
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
guidance, practice, and
authorities.
Findings
Recommendations
address contamination
from the Muskego Landfill
Site.
Millions of Federal Dollars
Remain for Co/on/as Projects
(Report No. 08-P-0184)
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG conducted an audit of
the Colonias Wastewater
Treatment Assistance Program
(CWTAP) because of a large
unliquidated obligation balance
in the program. The audit
objective was to answer the
following question: "Has EPA
provided the oversight necessary
to ensure that the Texas Water
Development Board manages
CWTAP grants so that funds are
drawn properly and projects are
completed on time?" The OIG
reviewed EPA's CWTAP grants
to the Board, reviewed the
amounts paid to the Board for
grant expenses, and interviewed
EPA and Board managers and
staff members. The OIG visited
Board offices in Austin, Texas, in
September 2007, and reviewed
a sample of project files. The
OIG performed the work in
accordance with generally
accepted government auditing
standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the
United States. The OIG
conducted field work from
September to December 2007.
For additional details on scope
and methodology, see Appendix
A of the report.
The Colonias program needs to improve
the timeliness of CWTAP fund
disbursements.
EPA's Regional Office 6
should:
• Amend the workplans
and/or operating
agreements for the
open CWTAP grants to
include specific
projects, schedules,
and dollar amounts.
• Develop and implement
a policy, similar to what
is contained in the
Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's
(OCFO's) 2007 EPA
Policy for the U.S.-
Mexico Border
Program, that specifies
a process for taking
corrective actions when
projects are delayed.
Improvements Needed to Ensure From 2005 to 2007, EPA took actions to
Grant Funds for U.S.-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure
Program Are Spent More Timely
(Report No. 08-P-0121)
implement timeframes for Border
Program projects, reduce the scope of
projects, and reduce unliquidated
obligations of projects. However, EPA
needs to make additional changes to the
The OIG recommends
that:
• The OCFO clarify its
August 2007 policy for
the U.S.-Mexico Border
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
551
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG evaluated the U.S.-
Mexico Border Program to
assess the controls for obligating
and using water infrastructure
grant funds. The OIG reviewed
program internal controls and
interviewed EPA personnel at
Headquarters and in EPA
Regional offices 6 and 9. OIG
examined grant prioritization
lists, project data and work
plans, program appropriations,
NADBank financial reports, and
other information.
Findings
process it uses to manage the funds
Congress appropriates for water
infrastructure improvements along the
U.S.-Mexico Border. EPA managers
provide grant funds in advance to ensure
that funds are available to build projects
once planning is completed. EPA staff
feel pressure to obligate money to avoid
a reduction in program funding. If this
continues, between $34 and $57 million
of the funds Congress appropriated for
the program in FY 2007 and 2008 will
not be needed until FY 2010 or beyond.
Recommendations
Program to specify the
actions EPA will take
when the fund balance
reaches the $140-
million threshold of
concern.
• Regions 6 and 9
require the U.S.-Mexico
Border program to
complete planning and
design of projects
before EPA awards any
grant funds to
NADBank for
construction of the
projects.
• The Office of Water
(OW), in conjunction
with Regions 6 and 9,
prepare a plan to
expeditiously use U.S.-
Mexico Border Program
funds for other projects
with unobligated
money.
• TheOCFOandOW
adjust future budget
requests for the U.S.-
Mexico Border Program
to reflect funds that
have not been
obligated in future
years.
• Regions 6 and 9
prepare grant work
plans that include
specific projects,
measures, milestones,
and detailed budgets to
be achieved with grant
funds.
Border 2012 Program Needs to
Improve Program Management
to Ensure Results
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG examined the impact of
Border 2012's program
management and organization
The OIG found that the current
organizational structure of the Border
2012 Program allows it to achieve a
collaborative relationship at the U.S.-
Mexico border and address
environmental and public health issues
unique to the border region. The
structure also creates opportunities for
stakeholder involvement from local,
state, and national groups while
The OIG recommended
that EPA strengthen
management controls to
effectively demonstrate
program performance and
that the Agency develop a
strategic plan, issue
guidance to better support
program results, improve
performance measures,
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
552
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
on its ability to protect the
environment and public health in
the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Findings
providing the program with the ability to
create an effective mechanism to
discuss border issues.
Recommendations
and develop criteria for
determining what
constitutes successful
completion of program
goals.
Framework for Developing Tribal
Capacity Needed in the Indian
General Assistance Program
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG sought to determine
whether the EPA's Indian
General Assistance Program
(IGAP) has been effective in
developing tribal capacity to
implement environmental
programs.
EPA often uses the target funding level
of $110,000 as the basis for IGAP
funding instead of considering
environmental capacity needs and prior
progress. EPA and tribes consider IGAP
funding to be essential continuing
support for tribal environmental
programs. When the funding is not
based on tribal capacity needs or
priorities, EPA cannot demonstrate that
the highest human health and
environmental needs are addressed.
The OIG recommends
that:
• The American Indian
Environmental Office
develop and implement
an overall framework
for achieving capacity,
including valid
performance measures
for each type of tribal
entity, and help the
Regions incorporate the
framework into the
IGAP work plans.
• EPA Regional offices
negotiate with tribes to
develop environmental
plans that reflect
intermediate and long-
term goals, link those
plans to annual IGAP
work plans, and
measure tribal progress
in meeting plans and
goals.
• Revise how IGAP
funding is distributed to
tribes to place more
emphasis on tribes'
prior progress,
environmental capacity
needs, and long-term
goals.
EPA Should Continue to Improve
Its National Emergency
Response Planning
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG evaluated EPA's
Emergency Response Business
Plan and sought to determine
how the Agency estimated
The OIG found that EPA's Emergency
Response Business Plan did not
disclose the basis for EPA's resource
estimates. Additionally, EPA
management stated that they did not
consider state and local resources in
their estimates because they believed
they would be working with the affected
state and local governments in a unified
command structure.
The OIG recommends
that EPA revise the Plan
to incorporate the
methodology and
assumptions used to
develop all personnel and
resource estimates, the
rationale for the selection
of the incidents of national
significance, lessons
learned from past
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
553
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
resource needs for national
emergencies, how the resource
estimates considered the use of
state and local government
agency resources in national
emergencies, and how EPA
used existing data on chlorine
volumes to guide plans for
responding to a chemical attack.
Findings
Recommendations
incidents, logistics of
resource deployment, and
risk communications.
Wetland Program Development
Grants: Assessing Their Role in
State Tribal Wetland Programs
Indtai, Inc.
Indtai evaluated the
effectiveness of the Wetland
Program Development Grants
(WPDGs) in helping states/tribes
to build their wetland programs.
Small programs are more dependent on
WPDGs, but get fewer grants with less
funding per grant than larger programs.
Small program are very dependent on
WPDGS overall. Unpredictability of grant
awards inhibit long-term planning for
small programs, which often must greatly
ratchet down activity in years they do not
receive grants. Some grants do not
actually help build programs. Having a
strategic plan leads to more effective
program building.
Consider base (i.e., non-
competitive) funding,
longer grant duration,
better feed back on grant
reports, set-asides for
smaller programs, better
definition of criteria EPA
wants state/tribes to
achieve within core
elements.
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to
Improve Oversight of
Wastewater Upgrades in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(Report No. 08-P-049)
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The OIG sought to determine
how well EPA is assisting its
Chesapeake Bay partners in
cleaning up the Bay. The report
evaluates the progress in
controlling discharges from
wastewater treatment facilities.
Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment
facilities risk not meeting the 2010
deadline for nutrient reductions if key
facilities are not upgraded in time. In the
seven years since signing the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement, EPA and
its state partners have taken a number of
steps to lay the foundation for achieving
wastewater nutrient reduction goals.
Water quality standards have been set,
nutrient loadings have been allocated,
and nutrient limits are beginning to be
incorporated into permits. However,
states need to finish adding nutrient
limits to the permits, and the facilities will
need to make significant reductions in
the three years remaining before the
deadline. Crucially, these reductions will
need to be maintained once achieved.
Significant challenges include generating
sufficient funding and addressing
continuing population growth. EPA
needs to better monitor progress to
ensure that needed upgrades occur on
time and loading reductions are achieved
and maintained. Otherwise, Bay waters
will continue to be impaired, adversely
affecting living resources throughout the
ecosystem that supports commercial and
The EPA Region 3
Regional Administrator
should work with the
states to establish interim
construction milestones
for priority facilities,
monitor milestone and
financial funding progress
for these facilities, and
continue efforts to develop
effective and credible
water quality trading
programs. The Regional
Administrator also should
have EPA and states
continue to evaluate
industrial discharges and
refine industrial nutrient
cap loads where
appropriate. For additional
information, refer to
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/
2008/20080108-08-P-
0049.pdf.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
554
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
recreational uses. It would not be
practical or cost-effective to obtain
additional reductions from wastewater
treatment facilities to compensate for
goals not being met in other areas.
Recommendations
EPA Needs to Better Report
Chesapeake Bay Challenges: A
Summary Report (Report No.
08-P-0199)
EPA, Office of Inspector General
This review summarizes and
adds to several evaluations
conducted by the OIG in
response to a congressional
request. It evaluates how well
EPA is working with its
Chesapeake Bay partners in
cleaning up the Bay.
Despite many noteworthy
accomplishments by the Chesapeake
Bay partners, the Bay remains degraded.
This has resulted in continuing threats to
aquatic life and human health and
citizens being deprived of the Bay's full
economic and recreational benefits.
Through its reporting responsibilities,
EPA could better advise Congress and
the Chesapeake Bay community that 1)
the Bay program is significantly short of
its goals and 2) partners need to make
major changes if goals are to be met.
Current efforts will not enable partners to
meet their goal of restoring the Bay by
2010. Further, new challenges are
emerging. Bay partners need to address:
uncontrolled land development, limited
implementation of agricultural
conservation practices, and limited
control over air emissions affecting Bay
water. EPA does not have the resources,
tools, or authorities to fully address all of
these challenges. Farm policies, local
land development decisions, and
individual lifestyles have huge impacts
on the amount of pollution being
discharged to the Bay. EPA needs to
further engage local governments and
watershed organizations in efforts to
clean up the Bay.
The OIG recommends
that the EPA
Administrator improve
reporting to Congress and
the public on the actual
state of the Chesapeake
Bay and actions
necessary to improve its
health. The OIG also
recommends that the
Administrator develop a
strategy to further engage
local governments and
watershed organizations
to capitalize on their
resources, tools,
authorities, and
information to advance
the mission of the
Chesapeake Bay
Program, and provide the
Program Office with the
opportunity to comment
on proposed rulemaking
related to pertinent air
issues. EPA concurred
with all of the
recommendations in this
report.
Assessment of the Performance
Measures Improvement Project
U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Federal Consulting
Group (FCG)
FGC conducted the assessment
and provided findings in the
context of the Malcolm Baldrige
Criteria for Performance
Excellence. Areas addressed
include strategic planning,
The inclusion of the Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) outcome measures in
the Agency Strategic Plan has resulted
in greater internal alignment within OPP
and a focus on key mission areas. All
senior executives have the outcome
measures in their annual performance
plans and many have included them in
their staffs' plans. The outcome
measures provide a mechanism and a
framework to better communicate with
the public and stakeholders.
In order to give more
balance to the overall
measurement system, it is
suggested that OPP
expand the list of OPP
performance measures to
include employee-related
measures (retention,
satisfaction, and training),
stakeholder and customer
satisfaction measures,
and financial measures.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
555
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
performance measurement,
workforce focus, process
management, leadership, and
customer focus.
Findings
Recommendations
Review of the Office of Research
and Development's Human
Health Risk Assessment
Program (HHRA) at the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA, Board of Scientific
Counselors
This evaluation reviewed the
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program's relevance, structure,
performance, quality, leadership,
coordination and communication,
and outcomes.
The Program's goals are fully consistent
with the Agency's strategic mission and
with the Program's multi-year plan.
Products from two LTGs are critical to
EPA's regulatory mission and form the
foundation for regulatory decisions and
policies in a variety of program offices
and regions. The Program has a
comprehensive and logical framework for
producing high-quality risk assessments
and for managing internal and external
review processes, is internationally
recognized as a leader in risk
assessment methods development and
implementation, has done an excellent
job of engaging scientists and managers
in its planning, and has very high quality
risk assessments and research.
Outcome measures are extremely well-
defined for each LTG. The BOSC rated
two LTGs as "Meets expectations" and
one LTG as "exceeds expectations."
Follow-up
recommendations
resulting from this review
included:
• Capture the
responsiveness of the
staff members to
national emergencies
and the HHRA
Program's contributions
to particularly difficult
cleanup sites in annual
performance goals.
• Improve the IRIS
(Integrated Risk
Information System)
program and PPRTV
(Provisional Peer-
Reviewed Toxicity
Values) process,
including increasing the
number of IRIS
assessments
completed each year,
and making the
prioritization process for
IRISs and PPRTVs
transparent.
• Ensure transparency of
decisions made in the
process of performing
ISAs (Integrated
Science Assessments).
Mid-Cycle Review of the Office
of Research and Development's
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Research Program (EDRP) at
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA, Board of Scientific
Counselors
BOSC "mid-cycle" reviews are
The EDRP has been very responsive to
the recommendations of the 2004 BOSC
program review. Most of the
recommendations were implemented;
budget constraints prevented some
recommendations from being
implemented. The updated draft MYP is
very logical and provides a coherent
framework for addressing priority
research needs. The metrics being used
to assess progress are appropriate, but
the BOSC recommended additional
Recommendations
include:
• EDRP is encouraged to
develop and improve
ongoing programs.
• Epidemiological studies
should continue to be
partnered with other
Agencies.
• Carefully consider new
metrics in the context of
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
556
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
designed to gauge the program's
progress with respect to 1) its
future direction, and 2)
performance and accountability.
While narrower in focus than the
in-depth technical evaluation that
constitutes a full BOSC program
review, the mid-cycle review
provides the program with critical
information on its progress to
date.
Findings
metrics be developed. The BOSC did not
identify any research gaps or additional
needs for the program, and encourages
the program to further enhance the
Agency's leadership role in risk
management. The BOSC rated the
overall progress of the EDRP program
as Exceeds Expectations.
Recommendations
budget, FTEs, and the
amount of time a
particular activity has
been underway.
Develop additional
metrics that a) assess
how the research
outcomes are being
used in decision
making; and b) assess
the level of
collaboration and/or
interaction between
members of the EDRP
with other agencies,
academia, industry, and
in the international
community.
The program is
encouraged to a)
continue its ongoing
evaluation and planning
activities; and b) take
on an even more visible
leadership role in risk
management.
EPA should consider
more harmonization
with other regulatory
agencies regarding the
results of EDC scientific
studies and their
application for risk
assessment.
If any extramural funds
become available, the
program should use
them for cooperative
agreements.
Mid-Cycle Review of the Office
of Research and Development's
Global Change Research
Program (GCRP) at the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA, Board of Scientific
Counselors
BOSC "mid-cycle" reviews are
The BOSC reaffirms that, in general, the
GCRP is doing the "right work" and doing
it "well." Among its accomplishments, the
GCRP's shift in focus toward a more
national perspective and its
reorganization of its programmatic
areas—fundamental recommendations
of the 2006 report—have been
accomplished fully and effectively. The
BOSC judged that GCRP managers
made the correct decisions from a
national perspective in their use of
Follow-up
recommendations to the
review included 1) the
need to constrain GCRP
activities to its mission
and 2) the adequacy of
resources to accomplish
even that limited mission.
The annual performance
measures listed under
annual performance goal
(APG) 1 should be
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
557
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
designed to gauge the program's
progress with respect to 1) its
future direction and 2)
performance and accountability.
While narrower in focus than the
in-depth technical evaluation that
constitutes a full BOSC program
review, the mid-cycle review
provides the program with critical
information on its progress to
date.
Findings
resources and therefore decided on an
"exceeds expectations" rating for the
Program's progress since its last BOSC
program review.
Recommendations
broader in geographic
scope to be considered
truly national (e.g.,
assessments of
representative watersheds
in different regions of the
United States). Of greater
concern to the BOSC is
the absence of the all-
important coherent "story"
of what the GCRP intends
to produce for the
environment. The BOSC
recommends that the
GCRP include both
intramural and extramural
elements in this task, and
devote substantially more
resources to both. The
final recommendation that
requires additional effort
from the GCRP is to
facilitate the "harvest"
from prior and current
activities.
EPA Has Initiated Strategic
Planning for Priority Enforcement
Area, But Key Elements Still
Needed
EPA, Office of Inspector General
The purpose of the evaluation
was to determine how well EPA
planned for success in its
national enforcement priority
areas. The evaluation focused
on the air toxics, mineral
processing, and combined sewer
overflow national priorities.
The Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance has instituted a
process for strategic planning in its
national enforcement priority areas. It
has developed strategic planning
guidance and a strategy template to
facilitate continual review and
improvement of the strategies. However,
each of the plans is missing key
elements to monitor progress and
accomplishments and efficiently utilize
Agency resources. All three strategies
lack a full range of measures to monitor
progress and achievements. Two
strategies lack detailed exit plans.
Additionally, the combined sewer
overflow strategy does not address the
states' key roles in attaining the
strategy's overall goal. The absence of
these elements hinders the Office from
monitoring progress and achieving
desired results in a timely and efficient
manner.
EPA should issue a policy
requiring national priority
strategy documents to
include a full range of
output and outcome
performance measures
with targets and
timeframes, an exit plan,
and clear roles for states.
EPA should also develop
a cost-effective
methodology for
measuring resource
inputs under the national
priorities.
EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal
Year 2007 New Budget
GAO found that EPA obligated 72% of
resources reviewed for civil enforcement,
The report recommends
identifying reliable key
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
558
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Authority for the Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
Program in Regional Offices
Government Accountability
Office
The GAO report examines EPA's
FY 2007 budget execution
process at the request of a
Congressional appropriations
committee. GAO examined fund
allocation in enforcement and
compliance assurance program
operating plans under the
Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM)
appropriation within EPA's
Regional offices. It also
examined individual projects for
regional enforcement and
compliance assurance, civil
enforcement, compliance
assistance, compliance
incentives and compliance
monitoring programs.
Findings
compliance assistance, compliance
incentives, and compliance monitoring
programs under the EPM appropriation
in FY 2007 to Regional offices with only
small differences in obligations reported
by EPA Headquarters and regional
offices. The report states that EPA lacks
the information to guide a systematic
approach to resource allocation in
Regional offices.
Recommendations
workload indicators that
drive resource needs to
inform resource allocation
decisions.
Review of the Office of Research
and Development's Science and
Technology for Sustainability
Research Program (STS) at the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA, Board of Scientific
Counselors
This evaluation reviewed the
STS Research Program's
relevance, structure,
performance, quality, leadership,
coordination and communication,
and outcomes.
The People, Prosperity, and the Planet
(P3); Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR); and Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Programs
all have been highly relevant to EPA's
mission and the elements in these
programs should be preserved whenever
possible. The life cycle assessment
(LCA) programs, metrics, and
procedures developed under the
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies (P2NT) Research Program
are relevant and important to the goals of
EPA, stakeholders, and the international
community. The STS Research Program
is positioned to move these initiatives
forward and is encouraged to build on
this strength. The Program meets or
exceeds expectations in achieving its
LTGs relative to tools and technology
development and their adoption. The
creation and adoption of metrics for
quantitative assessment of sustainability
is in too early a stage for qualitative
Follow-up
recommendations
resulting from this review
included suggestions to:
• Develop a clear
definition of
sustainability and a
framework for its
application to a broad
range of human
activities.
• Develop, use, and
apply metrics for
sustainability across
LTGs.
• Develop an outline for
how metrics for
sustainability will be
developed. This should
include criteria for
assessing the utility and
predictability of metrics.
• Improve decision tools
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
559
-------
Goal Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
ranking at the time of review, but every
indication is that the excellent research
being conducted in the STS Research
Program will contribute strongly to that
goal.
Recommendations
through targeted
extramural
collaboration, and
reach a wider set of
stakeholders.
• Consider redirecting the
Green Technology
Program or replacing it
with an extramural
grants program,
because the relevance
and impact of this
program is less
apparent (assess if it is
serving a function not
being met by the
private sector and
academia).
Evaluating the Effectiveness of
EPA's PPIN Grant Program
Abt Associates
Abt evaluated the effectiveness
of the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange Network
centers in providing technical
assistance to states, local
governments, technical
assistance providers, and
businesses.
The Pollution Prevention Resource
Exchange network provides direct and
indirect technical assistance through
eight centers, dedicated to increasing the
adoption of pollution prevention by
improving the dissemination of relevant
information. The centers provide
pollution prevention information,
networking opportunities, and other
services to states, local governments,
technical assistance providers, and
businesses. The study found that the
centers interact, strengthening the ability
of individual centers to provide technical
assistance. The centers have strong and
constructive relationships within their
regions and the national network allows
each center to deliver more and better
information to their customers.
Many of the
recommendations
describe how to
strengthen the
measurement of short-
term, intermediate, and
long-term outcomes for
the PPIN grant program.
For example, the centers
should develop standard
protocols to be used for
follow-up with their target
audience to determine if
approaches are effective
at making change
happen. Follow-up with
customers should be an
intrinsic part of the activity
for maximum resource
efficiency.
ESP EPA Should Further Limit Use of
Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
EPA, Office of Inspector General
To determine whether EPA used
award fee plans for Cost-Plus-
Award-Fee (CPAF) contracts
that clearly identified the specific
award fee criteria and properly
established performance
Developing and administering CPAF
contracts is a labor-intensive process,
and many EPA employees involved with
contract management believe that
competition is a more effective way to
motivate contractors. The OIG found that
the calculation used to compute base
fees on these contracts is overly
complex, and eliminating the
requirement for contractors to submit
self-evaluations could save up to
The OIG recommends
that EPA further limit the
use of CPAF contracts by
revising the Contracts
Management Manual to
require that a cost-benefit
analysis be conducted
before a CPAF contract is
awarded. When CPAF
contracts are used, the
OIG recommends that
EPA better document the
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov.
560
-------
Goal Evaluation Findings Recommendations
Title/Evaluator/Scope
indicators; achieved a higher $50,000 over the course of a contract. basis for performance
level of performance by using ratings given. EPA should
this contract type; and also modify its contracts
sufficiently reviewed, approved, to bring them into
and awarded fees. compliance with the EPA
Acquisition Regulation to
avoid the future
overpayment of base
fees.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 561
-------
EPA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix B
Public Access
This document is one appendix from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 562
-------
EPA invites the public to access its newly redesigned Web site at 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.
EPA newsroom: www.epa.gov/newsroom/
• News releases: www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsreleases.htm
• Regional newsrooms: www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsrooms.htm
Laws, regulations, and dockets: www.epa.gov/lawsregs
• Major environmental laws: www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html
• Regulations and proposed rules: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
Where you live: www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm
• Search your community: www.epa.gov/epahome/commsearch.htm
• EPA Regional offices: www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htmtfregiontext
Information sources: www.epa.gov/epahome/resource.htm
• Hotlines and clearinghouses: www.epa.gov/epahome/hotline.htm
• Publications: www.epa.gov/epahome/publications.htm
Education resources: www.epa.gov/epahome/students.htm
• Teachers: www.epa.gov/teachers/
• Office of Environmental Education: www.epa.gov/enviroed/
About EPA: www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
• Organization: www.epa.gov/epahome/organization.htm
Programs: www.epa.gov/epahome/programs.htm
• List of all programs and projects: www.epa.gov/epahome/abcpgram.htm
• Programs with a geographic focus: www.epa.gov/epahome/places.htm
Partnerships: www.epa.gov/partners/
• Central data exchange: www.epa.gov/cdx/
• Business Guide to Climate Change Partnerships:
www.epa.gov/partners/Biz guide to epa climate partnerships.pdf
Business opportunities: www.epa.gov/epahome/business.htm
• Small business gateway: www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/
• Grants and environmental financing: www.epa.gov/epahome/grants.htm
Careers: www.epa.gov/careers/
• EZ Hire: www.epa.gov/ezhire/
• Student opportunities: www.epa.gov/careers/stuopp.html
EPA en Espahol: www.epa.gov/espanol/
EPA ft3^: www.epa.gov/chinese/
EPA tiing Viet: www.epa.gov/vietnamese/
EPA eJ"^0-|: www.epa.gov/korean/
Environmental Kids Club: www.epa.gov/kids/
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 563
-------
ERA'S FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix C
Acronyms and Abbreviations
This document is one appendix from the Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-R-08-004), published on November
17, 2008. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report are available from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or by e-mail at
ncepimaKajone.net.
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfo@)epa.gov. 564
-------
ACS
AEGL
AFO
ANPR
AOC
APG
AQCD
AQI
AQS
BMPs
BOSC
Btu
BUI
CAA
CAMR
CAIR
CARE
CASTNet
CBPO
CERCLA
Compensation,
CCMPs
Plans
CCSP
CDC
CDX
CEMS
CFCs
CFO
ChAMP
CO
CO2
CRTs
CWA
CWS
CY
DDT
DfE
DHS
DOE
DST
DWSRF
ECOS
EDSP
EHPV
EIA
EM Ps
EMS-HAP
Pollutants
EPA
EPEAT
Tool
ET
ETS
ETV
FEMA
FFMIA
1996
FFRRO
FISMA
FMFIA
FQPA
FRP
FTE
FY
GAAP
GAO
GAP
CIS
GHG
GM
GMRA
GPRA
1993
Annual Commitment System
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
Animal Feeding Operation
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Area of Concern
Annual Performance Goal
Air Quality Criteria Document
Air Quality Index
Air Quality System
Best Management Practices
Board of Scientific Counselors
British Thermal Unit
Beneficial Use Impairment
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Mercury Rule
Clean Air Interstate Rule
Community Action for a Renewed Environment
Clean Air Status and Trends Network
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
and Liability Act
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Climate Change Science Program
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Central Data Exchange
Continuous Emission Monitoring System
Chlorofluorocarbons
Chief Financial Officer
Chemical Assessment and Management Program
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Cathode Ray Tubes
Clean Water Act
Community Water System
Calendar Year
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
Design for the Environment
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Energy
Decision Support Tool
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Environmental Council of the States
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
Extended High Production Volume
Energy Information Agency
Environmental Management Practices
Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air
Environmental Protection Agency
Electronics Products Environmental Assessment
Evapotranspiration
Emissions Tracking System
Environmental Technology Verification Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Federal Information Security Management Act
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982
Food Quality Protection Act
Facility Response Plan
Full Time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Government Accountability Office
General Assistance Program
Geographical Information System
Greenhouse Gas
Genetically Modified
Government Management Reform Act
Government Performance and Accountability Act of
GS General Service
GSN Green Suppliers Network
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2E Hospitals for Healthy Environment
HABs Harmful Algal Blooms
HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HPV High Production Volume
HPVIS High Production Volume Information System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
lAQTfS Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
ICR Information Collection Request
IP Improper Payment
IPIA Improper Payments Information Act
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISA Integrated Science Assessment
ISSC Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
IT Information Technology
LoB Line of Business
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MCO Mission Critical Occupation
MD&A Management's Discussion and Analysis
MMBtus Million Metric British Thermal Units
MMTCE Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
MMTCO2E Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MPV Moderate Production Volume
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
MTCOE Megatons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAPL Non-aqueous Phase Liquids
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEP National Estuary Program
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Non Road Cl Non Road Compression Ignition
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPEP National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
NPL National Priorities List
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSR New Source Review
NTI National Toxics Inventory
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OOP Ozone Depleting Potential
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OFM Office of Financial Management
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPAA Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
ORD Office of Research and Development
P2 Pollution Prevention
P2RX Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
P3 People, Prosperity and the Planet
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PAR Performance and Accountability Report
PARS Performance Appraisal and Recognition System
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
565
-------
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Pb Lead
PBDEs Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCFV Partnership for Clean Fuels
PCS Permit Compliance System
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PM Particulate Matter
PM Performance Measure
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Pre-Manufacture Notice
PMO Program Management Office
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts Per Million
PPRTVs Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values
PRIA Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
R&D Research and Development
RA Remedial Action
RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Corrective Action
RED Registration Eligibility Decision
RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team
RfC Reference Concentrations
RFS Renewable Fuels Standard
RSEI Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
RTP Research Triangle Park
SAB Science Advisory Board
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEMARNAT Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources
SEPs Supplemental Environmental Projects
SES Senior Executive Service
SIDS Screening Information Data Sets
SIMS Shellfish Information Management System
SIP State Implementation Plans
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SOC Significant Operational Compliance
SOL Statute of Limitations
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures
SRF State Revolving Fund
STA Stormwater Treatment Area
TAGs Technical Assistance Grants
TASWER Tribal Association of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for Communities
TPEA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TRI-ME Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSE Technology for a Sustainable Environment
TWG Targeted Watershed Grants
UIC Underground Injection Control
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
URE Unit Risk Estimate
UST Underground Storage Tank
UV Ultraviolet
WPDG
Wetland Program Development Grants
VCCEP
VOC
WHAT If
Fisheries
WIPP
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program
Volatile Organic Compound
Watershed Health Assessment Tools Investigating
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov.
566
-------
WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2008 Performance and
Accountability Report. We welcome your comments on how we can make this report a more
informative document for our readers. We are particularly interested in your comments on the
usefulness of the information and the manner in which it is presented. Please send your
comments to:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
This report is available on OCFO's homepage at:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2008par/index.htm
\
EPA-190-R-08-004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report
November 17, 2008
To submit comments or questions on the FY 2008 PAR, please e-mail: ocfoinfotiSiepa. gov. 567
------- |