ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL  PROGRESS

-------
                            ABOUT THIS REPORT

Purpose of the Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Performance and Accountability Report for
Fiscal Year 2009 provides performance and financial information that enables the Congress, the
President, and the public to assess the Agency's progress in protecting human health and the
environment and using taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively to achieve results. This
document also satisfies reporting requirements of the following statutes:

•  Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982

•  Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988

•  Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

•  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

•  Government Management Reform Act of 1994

•  Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

•  Reports Consolidation Act of 2000

•  Improper Payments Information Act of 2002

-------
How the Report Is Organized

Administrator's Letter

The Administrator's letter transmits EPA's FY2009 Performance and Accountability Report from
the Agency to the President and the Congress. In the letter, the Administrator describes her
priorities, highlights some of the Agency's FY 2009 accomplishments and challenges, 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.

Message From the Chief Financial Officer

The Chief Financial Officer's message highlights the Agency's accomplishments in financial
management. It discusses EPA's efforts to integrate budget and performance information, and it
provides information on the Agency's  internal controls program under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 and financial management systems under Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996.

Section I—Management's Discussion and Analysis

The Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section  provides an overview of the full FY
2009 Performance and Accountability Report. It outlines EPA's organization, discusses
significant FY 2009 program performance results, and describes  some of the challenges the
Agency encounters in carrying out its  work. The MD&A also describes EPA's framework for
performance management and briefly analyzes the Agency's financial performance. Finally, this
section discusses EPA's progress in strengthening its management practices and compliance
with the Federal Managers' Financial  Integrity Act, the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act, and other statutes 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 MD&A is supported and
supplemented by detailed information provided in the "Performance Results," "Financial
Statements," and "Other Accompanying Information" sections and the appendices to this report.

Section II—Performance Results

This section reports performance results under each of EPA's five strategic goals established in
the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. Each goal section discusses progress toward
achieving the Agency's strategic objectives and  includes a table of detailed performance results
for each of the FY 2009 performance  measures presented in EPA's FY 2009 Annual Plan  and
Budget. This performance section addresses all of the elements of an annual performance
report specified under the Government Performance and Results Act and as specified in OMB
Circular No. A-11, "Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget."1
1 For more information on Section II, please contact EPA's Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability at 202-
564-1478.

-------
Section III—Financial Statements

The Financial Statements section contains the Agency's financial statements and related
Independent Auditor's Report, as well as other information on the Agency's financial
management.2

Section IV—Other Accompanying Information

This section provides additional material as specified under OMB Circular A-136, "Financial
Reporting Requirements."The subsection entitled "Management Challenges and Integrity
Weaknesses" discusses EPA's progress in strengthening management practices to achieve
program results and presents the Inspector General's list of top management challenges and
the Agency's response. This section also contains a "Summary of Financial Statement Audit
and Management Assurances" and information on Improper Payments Information Act
reporting.3

Appendices

The appendices include summaries of program evaluations, a list of relevant EPA Internet links,
and a glossary of acronyms and  abbreviations.
2 For more information on Section III, please contact EPA's Office of Financial Management at 202-564-4934.
3 For more information on Section IV, please contact EPA's Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability at 202-
564-1478.

-------
           ERA'S FY 2009 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

Table of Contents

About This Report	i
Table of Contents	iv
Administrator's Letter	vii
Message From the Chief Financial Officer	x

SECTION I: MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction	1-2
   What EPA Does	1-3
   Who EPA Is	1-3
   How EPA Works: Collaborating With Partners and Stakeholders	1-3
   Working With States	1-7
   Working With Tribes	1-7
   How EPA Works: A Framework for Performance Management	1-7
   Improving Performance Measures and Performance Management	1-8
FY 2009 Program Performance.
   Overview of Performance Trends and Results	
   Highlights of Program Performance by Goal	
   EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Financial Analysis and Stewardship Information	
   EPA's Sound Financial Management: Good for the Environment, Good for the Nation	
   EPA's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2009	
Improving Management and Results
   Office of Inspector General Audits, Reviews, and Investigations.
   Grants Management	
   Data Quality	
EPA Holds Itself Accountable: Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance
   Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act	
   Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
   I nspector General Act Amendments of 1988	
   Defense Contract Audit Agency Audits	
-10
-10
-12
-34

-37
-37
-38

-44
-44
-44
-44

-46
-46
-48
-48
-52
SECTION II: PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Introduction to Performance Section	II-2

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change	II-3
   Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air	II-6
   Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air	11-11
   Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer	11-15
   Objective 1.4: Radiation	11-19
   Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions	II-22
   Objective 1.6: Clean Air Research	II-27
                                        IV

-------
   Performance Results for Goal 1	11-31

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water	II-44
   Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health	II-47
   Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality	II-52
   Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research	II-56
   Performance Results for Goal 2	II-60

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration	II-74
   Objective 3.1: Preserve Land	II-77
   Objective 3.2: Restore Land	II-82
   Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research	II-88
   Performance Results for Goal 3	11-91

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	11-102
   Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks	11-107
   Objective 4.2: Communities	11-116
   Objective 4.3: Ecosystems	11-121
   Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research	11-127
   Performance Results for Goal 4	11-133

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	11-165
   Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance	11-169
   Objective 5.2: Environmental Stewardship and Pollution Prevention	11-174
   Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country	11-181
   Objective 5.4: Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability
   Through Science and Research	11-184
   Performance Results for Goal 5	11-187

EPA Enabling Support Programs	11-198
FY2009 Efficiency Measures	II-207

SECTION III: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements	III-4
Notes to Financial Statements	111-13
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)	111-61
Required Supplemental Stewardship Information (Unaudited)	III-63
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)	III-66
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements	III-75

SECTION IV:  OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

Introduction	IV-2

EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2009 Weaknesses and Significant Deficiencies	IV-3
   Material Weaknesses	IV-3
   Agency-Level Weaknesses	IV-4
   Significant Deficiencies	IV-8
   Summary of Financial Statement Audit	IV-9
   Summary of Management Assurance	IV-9

-------
FY2009 Key Management Challenges Identified by the Office of Inspector General	IV-10
   EPA's Response to Office of Inspector General (OIG) Management Challenges	IV-34

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 Reporting Details	IV-44
   Risk Assessments	IV-44
   Statistical Sampling Process	IV-44
   Corrective Action Plans	IV-44
   Improper Payment (IP) Reduction Outlook FY2005-FY 2010	IV-46
   Ensuring Management Accountability	IV-46
   Information Systems and Infrastructure	IV-47
   Statutory and Regulatory Barriers	IV-47
   Conclusions	IV-47

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Program Evaluations Completed in FY2009	A-1
Appendix B: Public Access	B-1
Appendix C: Acronyms and Abbreviations	C-1
                                         VI

-------
                           ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER

                                    November 16, 2009
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

       I am pleased to submit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year 2009
Performance and Accountability Report. This report documents the Agency's programmatic and
financial performance for the year, discusses our successes and challenges, and consolidates results
information we will use to inform policy and program decisions.

       This consolidated Performance and Accountability Report meets the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act and other management legislation, and the information it
contains complies with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget. The report
assesses EPA's performance against the annual commitments established in our FY 2009 Annual
Plan and Budget and reviews our progress toward the long-term goals presented in our 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.

       Data used to report progress are reliable and as complete as possible.  Because improvements
in human health and the environment may not become immediately apparent, there might be delays
between the actions we have taken and results we can measure. Consequently, we cannot provide
results data for several of our performance measures for this reporting year. When possible,
however, we have portrayed trend data to illustrate progress over time. We also report final
performance results, for prior years that became available in FY 2009.

Program Accomplishments

       EPA's FY 2009 program represents a transition at EPA with a new Administration and new
Administrator. Our results demonstrate a renewed sense of urgency for tackling the  environmental
problems that are confronting our nation.  EPA instituted a first-ever clean-car program aligned with
the U.S. Department of Transportation's fuel economy requirements to significantly reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles;  we outlined principles to reform chemicals
management; we increased environmental review of mountaintop mining to ensure stronger
protection of water quality; and we have begun implementing a far-reaching Executive Order focused
on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. In FY 2009 EPA issued a draft endangerment finding  that
greenhouse gases are impacting human health and welfare, proposed rules to track greenhouse gases
and also created incentives for accelerated innovations.  We have also completed a major assessment
of the impacts of climate change on regional air quality in the United States and found that climate
change has the potential to produce significant increases in ground-level ozone in many regions.

       The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $7.2 billion to EPA to spur
technological advances in science and health and invest in environmental protection and other
infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.  The Agency has been a leader in
effectively and efficiently distributing Recovery Act funds to promote green jobs and a healthier
                                            VII

-------
environment. By the end of FY 2009 EPA had obligated more than 95 percent of the Recovery Act
funds to states and communities.

Management

       In FY 2009 the Agency found no material weaknesses in the design or operation of our
internal controls over programmatic operations and no nonconformances in our financial
management systems. We completed corrective action to close two Agency-level weaknesses - key
applications related to security controls and redistribution of Superfund payments - and a significant
deficiency related to Superfund state share cost. During the financial statement audit process the
Agency's Inspector General identified several incongruities in the reporting of unearned revenue and
accounts receivable that are required to be reported as material weaknesses. EPA has already taken
steps to correct these weaknesses by restating its FY 2008 financial statements  and expects to
complete the remaining corrective actions by the  end of the second quarter of FY 2010. As a result, I
can provide reasonable assurance that, except for the unearned revenue and accounts receivable
weaknesses, EPA's internal controls over financial reporting were operating effectively as of
September  30, 2009, and no other material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the
internal controls over financial reporting.

       We continue to strengthen our overall internal controls and internal controls related to
financial reporting, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123.  Under the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, I am providing reasonable assurance that, with the
exceptions noted, 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 Section I of this report, Management's Discussion and Analysis.

       In compliance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, EPA's Office of the Inspector
General identified what it considers to be the Agency's most serious management challenges in FY
2009. As the Office of Inspector General acknowledged, meeting challenges such as measuring the
results of our programs on human health and the environment or ensuring that the nation has the
funding needed to construct, repair and maintain its drinking water and wastewater system
infrastructure might take years and require the collaborative efforts of many, including Congress,
other federal agencies, states and communities. EPA is committed to working with our partners and
stakeholders to meet these challenges. Section IV of this report provides additional information on
EPA's internal control weaknesses, as well as the management challenges identified by the Office of
Inspector General and the Agency's response.

Future Direction

       Current economic conditions call for extraordinary measures, and EPA is actively pursuing
initiatives aimed at strengthening environmental protection for all.  The Agency has developed the
first national initiative to confront climate change. We are working to revitalize protections from
toxic chemicals, smog and water pollution and expanding opportunities so that communities most
affected by environmental  degradation can participate in the decision-making process.  We are
committed to restoring science to its rightful place as the Agency's cornerstone and rebuilding public
trust in our work.

       In coming years, EPA will focus its attention on four key areas of special concern:
confronting climate change and promoting the use of clean energy; protecting and cleaning up our air
                                             VIM

-------
and water; updating and strengthening regulations and laws governing chemicals and toxics; and
expanding the conversation on environmentalism.

       I am proud of the progress that we and our partners have achieved in FY 2009 to improve the
quality of our air and water and to protect the land.  EPA is on the job. We will meet our
responsibilities for enforcing the nation's environmental laws and regulations and will work with our
state and local partners to meet our biggest environmental challenges.

                                       Respectfully,
                                      Lisa P. Jackson
                                             IX

-------
                      MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                       November 16, 2009
       This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) presents the performance and financial results
achieved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during FY 2009.  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.

       On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act was enacted to create and save jobs in the United States, spur
economic activity and invest in long-term economic growth, and foster unprecedented levels of
accountability and transparency in government spending. EPA manages over $7 billion in projects and
programs that will help achieve these goals, offers resources to help other agencies "green" a much larger
set of Recovery Act investments and administers environmental laws that will govern related activities.
We led EPA's development of Recovery Act performance measures and also produced interactive reports
with graphics and links to geo-spatial information to track progress in obligating funds  by states,
programs, and grant applications, advancing Agency Recovery Act goals.

       In addition to EPA's implementation of the Recovery Act, the Agency continues to manage its
programs and resources effectively. For the 10l consecutive year in a row, EPA received an unqualified
opinion on its audited financial statements.

       As required  by OMB Circular A-123, we conducted our annual assessment on the effectiveness of
internal controls over financial reporting. During the evaluation the Agency reviewed  ten key financial
processes and tested 235 key controls.  We also undertook a number of steps to strengthen the
management integrity program, emphasizing the importance of maintaining and documenting internal
controls and increasing Agency-wide awareness of these responsibilities. OCFO also conducted a
successful internal "lean" event that optimized and standardized our offices' corrective action tracking
processes.

       To strengthen EPA's financial stewardship and management capabilities, the Agency led the
development of a new Agency-wide account code structure that meets the latest government standards
and will be used as the foundation of the Agency's new accounting system. We are integrating financial
information into everyday decision-making to maximize the use of EPA's resources. Additionally, EPA's
Integrated Financial Management System will be replaced by EPA's new system targeted to launch in
early FY2012.  Extensive testing and training are in place to ensure that the new system works properly to
facilitate an orderly transition.

       EPA will continue our commitment to financial excellence and ensure that  taxpayers' dollars  are
utilized effectively in fulfilling our mission to protect human health and the environment. I look forward
to continuing our collaboration with our partners and stakeholders, and developing innovative, cross-
cutting strategies to help meet the challenges ahead.

       In closing, I  would like to thank EPA's committed and dedicated staff across the country who
contributed to this report and made our progress in FY 2009 possible.
                                                        5ara J. Bennet
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

-------
  xP

J>   -^^^^  Z


1         I
                        EP>VsFY2009
         Performance and Accountability Report


                           Section I
      Management's Discussion  and Analysis
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-B-09-001), published on November
16, 2009. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2009 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.
                           Section I - Page 1

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION

Since it was established in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked
toward a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. From regulating vehicle emissions to
ensuring that drinking water is safe; from cleaning up toxic waste to assessing the safety of
pesticides and chemicals; and from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to encouraging
conservation,  reuse, and recycling, EPA and its federal, state, local, and community partners
have made enormous progress in protecting the nation's health and environment. America's air,
water, and land are cleaner today than they were only a decade ago, and increasingly
Americans are adopting a "green" way of thinking. Across the country, people are making
choices to preserve resources, prevent pollution, and reduce their impact on the environment.
                                                   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
leads the nation's environmental science,
research, education, assessment and
enforcement efforts. EPA's science provides
the foundation for Agency decision-making and
the basis for understanding and preparing to
address future environmental needs and
issues. The Agency is strongly committed to
scientific integrity and relies on the expertise of
its career scientists and of independent advisors in laying this foundation. EPA 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 restore and preserve ecosystems and
to protect children and other vulnerable groups from environmental risks.

Despite the nation's progress, however, much  work remains. The environmental problems the
country faces today are often more complex than those of years past, and implementing
solutions—both nationally and globally—is more challenging. For example, EPA and states face
serious challenges  in improving and maintaining the nation's drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure and are seeking innovative ways to fund needed repairs and construction.
Increased energy consumption and higher costs underscore the need to promote alternative
energy sources and invest in new technologies. Addressing global climate change will require
coordinated efforts  to research alternative fuels and other emission reduction technologies and
strong  partnerships across many economic sectors and around the world. Current
environmental problems often place significant burdens on vulnerable subpopulations,
especially children,  who are at particular risk from environmental threats. EPA also 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
and drive its commitment to excellent performance and strong, measurable results.

This  report reviews  the programmatic results EPA achieved in FY 2009, the progress it is
making toward its longer-term strategic goals,  and the challenges it faces. It also discusses the
Agency's financial and management accomplishments, identifies potential for improvement, and
demonstrates EPA's commitment to be held accountable for results.
                                   Section I - Page 2

-------
What EPA Does

EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To achieve a cleaner, healthier
environment for all Americans, the Agency:

•  Develops regulations to implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. EPA
   evaluates environmental and pollution data and sets national standards for environmental
   programs. Where possible and appropriate, it delegates to states and tribes the authority
   and responsibilities to implement programs and ensure that these standards are met.

•  Enforces environmental laws, regulations, and standards by taking legal actions. EPA
   enforces environmental regulations, ensuring consistency and a level playing field, and
   assists states, tribes, and the regulated community in understanding and complying with
   environmental requirements.

•  Provides grants to states, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. EPA
   provides grants to states, tribes, and others to support the implementation of environmental
   programs. Grants also support research to improve the scientific basis for decisions on
   environmental and human health issues and to promote sharing of best practices and
   innovative approaches.

•  Operates laboratories throughout the nation. 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 help Americans understand
   environmental issues; appreciate their shared responsibility for protecting the environment;
   and learn how they can reduce their use of energy and materials, reuse what they can, and
   recycle the rest. EPA publishes a variety of materials and provides the public access to
   information on its Web site.

Who 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 is headquartered 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 atwww.epa.gov.

How EPA Works: Collaborating With Partners and Stakeholders

Addressing today's complex environmental issues requires greater transparency and
cooperative action;  establishing real working partnerships with all involved; and combining
EPA's resources with those of other federal agencies and state,  local, and tribal partners who
are heavily invested in economic and resource-protection activities. EPA understands that
government alone cannot begin to address all of the nation's environmental challenges. The
Agency also works with business and industry, nonprofit organizations, environmental groups,
                                   Section I - Page 3

-------
and educational institutions in a wide variety of collaborative efforts. There are now more than
13,000 firms and other organizations participating in EPA partnership programs.
                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment
     Assistant Administrator
     For Administration and
     Resource Management
        General Counsel
     Assistant Administrator
    for Prevention, Pesticide
      ,ind Toxic Substances
           Region I
          Boston. MA
           Region 5
          Chicago, IL
                                                Administrator
                                              Deputy Administrator

                                              Prowjes CKtfUl suserviiiw of UK Agency
                                               d a RSponstblf dirccfy to the Present
                                                   cfthc United States.
                                   New York, NY
 Region 6
Dallas, TX
                         Assistant Administrator
                          for Enforcement and
                         Compliance Assurance
                                                              Assistant Administrator
                          Emergency Response
                         'cMttfs poftrv. gurdorf ft. o-irf dtreman
                         • strje.y managing wcrsw: preparing for
   Region 7
Kansas City, KS
                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                   Assistant Administrator
                                                     for Environmental
                                                       Information
                                                         Region 4
                                                        Atlanta, CA
 Region 6
Denver, CO
                                     Region 9
                                 San Francisco, CA
                              Region 10
                             Seattle, WA
                                              Section I - Page 4

-------
                                                                of    Environmenta
Reg/on 10 EPA Reports on Toxics in the
Columbia River Basin
In 2009, EPA released the first Columbia River Basin State
of t/i£ River Report for Toxics, a compilation of data about
four widespread contaminants in the basin and the risks
they pose to people, fish, and wildlife. The Region led a
team of more than 20 partner organizations to draw this
latest portrait of the toxic threats in the Columbia Basin,
which drains nearly 260,000 square miles across seven
states. http://yosemite.epa.gov/rlO/ecocomm.nsf/
Columbia/Columbia
Region 9 The American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) Saves Jobs
At the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site, EPA has
spent $20.7 million in ARRA funds, which will reduce
cleanup time from three years to 18 months. Work com-
pleted will enable the removal of 170,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments from the bottom of Keswick
Reservoir downstream from the mine and eliminate a
major threat to the Sacramento River ecosystem, the most
important salmon spawning grounds in California. Federal
hydropower facilities will be able to generate $3 million to
$6 million worth of additional peak power each year. The
project has created or saved more than 200 jobs.
www.epa.gov/region09/ironmountainmine
Region 7 Conducts Massive Lead Clean-up
Through September 15, 2009, EPA Region 7 has cleaned
up lead-contaminated soil from 1,128 residential proper-
ties at eight Superfund lead/mining sites in Missouri and
Nebraska. Specifically, lead contamination has been
removed from 807 properties within the Omaha lead site,
and the remaining 321 cleanups occurred at sites in south-
eastern and southwestern Missouri. Region 7's use of site-
specific contracts on these sites has enabled the Region to
meet 100 percent of its small business goals. InFY 2009,
Region? awarded allSuperfund-AmericanReinvestment
and Recovery Act funding to small businesses.
http://www.ep a. gov/region07/cleanup/npl_files/index.htm
Region 8 EPA Protects At-Risk Communities
Based on health risks documented by Region 8's remedial investigation,
investigations conducted by the Agency tor Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, and concerns expressed by the community and state political lead-
ers, in June 2009 EPA determined that a public health emergency exists at
the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site in Northwest Montana. This marked the
first EPA determination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act that conditions at a site constitute a public
health emergency. The unprecedented determination underscored the need
for further action and health care for area residents who have been or may be
exposed to asbestos. As a result, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services awarded a grant to provide medical care to the  residents of Lincoln
County, while EPA continued its expeditious elimination of human exposure
pathways at the site. http://www,epa.gov/region8/superfund/libby/index.html
    Region 6 BP Consent Decree Will Control Pollution
    A settlement with BP Products North America Inc. resulted in the
    company paying a penalty of $12 million for violations of the
    Clean Air Act regulations. The settlement also requires BP to
    spend more than $161 million on pollution controls and enhanced
    maintenance and monitoring,  and $6 million on a supplemental
    project to reduce air pollution in Texas City. EPA estimates that
    these actions will reduce emissions of benzene and other volatile
    organic compounds by approximately 6,000 pounds annually, pro-
    viding a substantial benefit to  the 4,700 people living less than 1
    mile from the refinery, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
    cases/civil/caa/bptexas.html
                                                    Section I  - Page 5

-------
Accomplishment,    EPA     Regions
            Region 5 A Coal-Fined Plant Re-Powers With Renewable
            Biomass Fuel
            Region 5 will be home to the country's first electric utility to reduce
            greenhouse gas emissions due to a Clean Air Act consent decree. The
            conversion will make Ohio Edison's Burger facility the largest coal-fired
            plant in the United States to re-power using primarily renewable biomass
            fuels. The change will approach "carbon neutrality" because the carbon
            dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning biomass will be offset by the
            absorption of CO; by the vegetation grown to produce the fuel. In addi-
            tion to the 1.3-million-ton-per-year CO2 reduction from the coal-fired
            operation, the agreement will reduce 14,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 1,300
            tons of nitrogen oxides, and 700 tons of paniculate matter annually.
            http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a5792a626c8dac098525735900
            400c2d/7eef89cla5d3b609852576100047a74d!Cpenrtocument
             Region 4 School Chemical Clean-out Campaign
             (SC3) Protects Students
             Region 4 continues to demonstrate national leadership
             with its School Chemical Clean-out Campaign (SC3)
             program. In FY 2009, the SC3 program was responsible for
             the removal of more than 78,500 pounds of chemicals
             (including 180 pounds of mercury) from 110 schools,
             impacting over 53,400 students.
             http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/rcra/sc3.htm
Region / Enforcement and Voluntary Actions
Curb Diesel Emissions
Region 1 helped alleviate asthma and other respiratory
diseases caused or exacerbated by exposure to diesel emis-
sions. The Region enforced federally approved anti-idling
regulations and encouraged voluntary partnerships with
the freight industry through the Agency's SmartWay pro-
gram. This two-pronged approach reduced millions of
pounds of paniculate matter that can lead to respiratory
problems and greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
change, http://www.epa.gov/regionl/eco/diesel/idling.html
                                                                                  Reg/on 2 Hudson River Dredging Removes PCBs
                                                                                  The long-awaited and historic dredging of the Upper
                                                                                  Hudson River to remove sediment contaminated with poly-
                                                                                  chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) began in May 2009. The first
                                                                                  phase of the six-year project is being conducted under an
                                                                                  agreement with the General Electric Company, which plans
                                                                                  to remove 265,000 cubic yards of sediment from a 6-mile
                                                                                  stretch of the river. EPA is working closely with communi-
                                                                                  ties in the dredging area to minimize impacts, ensure their
                                                                                  concerns are heard, and convey critical information about
                                                                                  the project. http://www.epa.gov/hudsoiV
Region 3 Agencies Establish Enhanced Review
Process for Mountaintop Mining Permits
In FY 2009, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jointly developed an enhanced review process (ERP) that
will ensure timely, consistent, and transparent review of
permit applications with the greatest potential to impact
water quality and drinking water in affected communities.
Region 3's Multi-criteria Integrated Resource Assessment
(M1RA) tool identified 79 permits for the ERP. MIRA
allowed decision-makers from EPA Regions 3, 4, and 5 to
reach consensus on the permits using a common set of
data for discussion and analysis.
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm
                                                          Section I - Page 6

-------
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, providing
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. Since 1995, EPA and states
have been implementing the National
Environmental Performance Partnership
System to improve the effectiveness of state-
EPA partnerships and focus resources where
they are needed most. Through performance
partnerships, EPA and states work together to
set priorities, design strategies, share
expertise, negotiate partnership and grant
agreements, and develop the measures they
will use to assess progress. 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 States to Improve Results
           And Reduce Burden

During FY 2009, EPA continued to work closely
with the Environmental Council of the States
(EGOS) to address planning, performance
measurement, grant, and related partnership
efforts. For example, EPA and EGOS are
working together to develop a new approach for
assessing the state results from federal grants.
The Agency is working with states to identify a
consistent set of measures that are
representative of state work and results and to
incorporate them in standardized grant work
plans.

The pilot project for standardizing grant work
plans, completed in FY 2009, successfully
identified a limited number of options for work
plans which meet both EPA and state needs. In
FY 2010, the Agency will recommend using
standardized work plans, based on EPA and
state preferences, to document appropriate state
grant measures.

During FY 2009, EPA and states also worked
together to reduce state  reporting requirements
in 16 priority areas ranging from grant policies to
programmatic reporting in the water, waste, and
air programs.
EPA has the direct responsibility to implement federal laws to protect human health and the
environment in Indian country, until a tribe seeks and is approved for an authorized program.
Due to the United States' unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes, EPA works
with tribes in a government-to-government relationship toward this goal. In FY 2009, EPA
reaffirmed its Indian Policy, outlining nine principles to guide its work with tribal governments.
(See EPA's Indian Policy page at www.epa.qov/tribal/basicinfo/epa-policies.htm.) In particular,
EPA and tribes are focusing on drinking water, sanitation, schools, and properly managing solid
and 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. EPA also works with tribes to build capacity toward
administering their own environmental programs. For more information, see the Agency's
"Strategy for Reviewing Tribal Eligibility Applications to Administer EPA Regulatory Programs"
atwww.epa.gov/tribal/pdf/strategv-for-reviewing-applications-for-tas-01-23-08.pdf. In addition,
EPA's tribal portal (www.epa.gov/tribalportal) provides a one-stop resource for tribal
environmental information and data.

How EPA Works: A Framework for Performance Management

EPA is accountable for using its resources efficiently and effectively to manage its programs
and achieve results. To carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment, EPA
established five long-range goals: clean air and global climate change, clean water, protected
land, healthy communities and ecosystems, and environmental compliance and stewardship.
                                    Section I - Page 7

-------
These five goals, along with the 20 objectives and numerous strategic targets which support
them, are presented in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire  report.pdf).

The Agency's strategic plan also provides the structure for its budget documents. Each year in
its Annual Performance Plan and Budget, EPA commits to annual performance measures that
support achievement of the longer-term goals and objectives outlined in its Strategic Plan. EPA
reports its results against these annual performance measures and discusses progress toward
longer-term measures in its annual Performance and Accountability Report.
          EPA's  Performance Management
                             Framework
                          Stratecpc Plan
                          Ervirormerrtal Fitures
                          Long-term planring/measures'target setting
             , and Evaluation
   Performance and Accountability Report
   Measures Central
   Executive Management Dashboard——.,
Annual Plan and Budget
Annual measiresytarget setting
 nterna1 budget hearings
                                ,|'S^*''l^w'vw||F^WWvl^^wP3WffP/i'v'
                                ^
                             National Program Guidance
                             Regional performance commitments
                            JFJerforniar^^
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.

During FY 2009, EPA developed and implemented a number of key initiatives designed to
further strengthen the Agency's performance management system:
                                 Section I - Page 8

-------
•  Revising EPA's Strategic Plan. The Government Performance and Results Act requires
   that EPA update its Strategic Plan every three years. In FY 2009, EPA undertook a
   streamlined approach to revising its plan by focusing on improvements in strategies and
   performance measurement and integrating these efforts with development of its FY 2010
   and FY 2011 budgets. The Agency targeted the impact of global climate change,
   sustainable agriculture, contaminants, and import safety as areas of focus and summarized
   its proposals in a "Strategic Plan Change Document," which was released for public review
   and comment in October 2008. The Agency will consider comments received from  the
   public, its partners, and its many stakeholders in preparing the full-text plan. EPA, like many
   other agencies, delayed issuing its new plan due to the change in Administration and the
   need to capture new program directions. EPA anticipates releasing its draft Strategic Plan
   for public review and comment in the spring of 2010.

•  Implemented Executive Order 13450 on Improving Government Program
   Performance. EPA continued to carry out its  implementation plan for Executive Order
   13450, convening a second Performance  Management Council in October 2008 to address
   the future of performance management at EPA and reinforce the use of performance
   information in decision-making.

•  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 to communicate performance results to the public and its partners
   and stakeholders. The Agency continued to centralize its performance information  using its
   Annual Commitment System (ACS), a database which houses all Agency performance
   measures in one place so that EPA can more easily access and use measures to manage
   its programs and activities. ACS now incorporates all performance measures, including new
   measures for work initiated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and truly
   serves as EPA's Measures Central. In FY 2009, EPA also strengthened its governance of
   measures by reviewing performance measures in ACS and assisting national program and
   Regional staff in improving measures and data quality. The Agency also developed mid-year
   and end-of-year performance reports for senior managers.

•  Improved  performance management tools for Agency managers. EPA developed and
   launched the Executive Management Dashboard to provide managers with the performance
   and resource information they need to effectively manage their programs. The Executive
   Management Dashboard provides managers  across the Agency with easy access to
   executive-level, up-to-date performance and financial information.  Managers can view the
   results of their programs (as well as other programs and Regional progress) across time and
   determine whether they  are  meeting their  annual targets. The Dashboard has proved
   extremely useful in providing greater transparency across programs and Regional offices to
   monitor results. In FY 2009 EPA worked with  the Indian Program to add tribal measures to
   the Dashboard. The Dashboard also incorporates new Recovery Act reporting information.
                                  Section I - Page 9

-------
                   FY 2009 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

In FY 2009, 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 results and highlights accomplishments and challenges under each goal.

Overview of Performance Trends and Results
                      EPA's FY2009 Performance Results
                               (Total Measures = 205)
                 I Met   D Not Met    n Data Available After November 16, 2009
Performance Measures Met

In its FY 2009 Annual Plan, the Agency committed to 205 annual performance measures. In
FY 2009, the Agency met 108 of these performance measures, 74.5 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 2009 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 had planned.
                                 Section I - Page 10

-------
Performance Measures Not Met

In FY 2009, however, EPA also faced a number of difficult challenges and obstacles to success.
Despite the Agency's best efforts, 37 performance measures were not met.  There are a number
of reasons for missed targets:

•  An  unexpected demand for resources, or competing priorities.

•  Dependence on collaborative efforts with state, tribal,  and local governments.

•  Factors outside EPA's control, such as weather, technological challenges, or population
   growth and land use patterns.

•  The difficulty inherent in forecasting or estimating the Agency's ability to achieve its
   performance targets, especially given the increasing complexity of today's environmental
   challenges.

•  Delays in Agency processes, such as contracting and hiring.

EPA will carefully consider its FY 2009 results and adjust program strategies and approaches
accordingly. Section II of this report, "Performance Results," provides a more detailed
explanation of missed targets and discusses how the Agency plans to meet these performance
measures in the future.

Data Unavailable

Because final end-of-year data for some measures were not  available when this report went to
press, EPA is not yet able to report on 60 of its 205 performance measures. This delay in
reporting can be largely attributed to the Agency's sharpened focus on longer-term
environmental and human health outcomes, rather than on simpler, activity-based outputs.
Environmental outcome results may not become apparent within a fiscal year, and assessing
environmental improvements often requires  multi-year information. Many variables are involved
in evaluating progress toward an outcome-oriented goal, and additional time is needed to
understand and assess factors such as exposure and the resulting impact on human health.

In many cases, reporting cycles—including some which are legislatively mandated—do not
correspond with the federal fiscal year on which this report is based. Data reported biennially or
by calendar year, for example, are not available for this report but will be provided in
subsequent reports.

Extensive quality assurance/quality control processes to ensure the reliability of performance
data can  also delay reporting. EPA relies heavily on performance data obtained from state,
tribal, and local agencies, all of which require time to collect information and review it for quality.
Often, EPA is unable to obtain complete end-of-year information from all sources in time for this
report.

Data Now Available

EPA is now able, however, to report data from previous years that became available in
FY 2009. Final performance results data became available for 37 of the FY  2008 performance
                                   Section I - Page 11

-------
measures on which the Agency did not report in its FY 2008 Performance and Accountability
Report. Of these 37 performance measures, EPA met 34.

Highlights of Program Performance by Goal

In FY 2009, with resource obligations of $17.308 billion and 17,049 full-time-equivalent
employees, EPA and its partners 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.
                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 emissions by enhancing partnerships with
                              businesses and other sectors.
                                                                   Goal 1 FY 2009
                                                                Performance Measures
In 2009, EPA established a greenhouse gas reporting rule that
requires sources such as electricity generators and large
industries that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of greenhouse gas
emissions per year to report on their levels of greenhouse gas            e~   °   e~
emissions. The Agency also issued a proposed finding that
greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger
public health or welfare.
                                                                 Data Available After
                                                                November 16, 2009 = 28

                                                                 (Total Measures = 30)
Objective 1—Healthier Outdoor Air

Key Achievements

•   Proposed finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat. In FY 2009, after a thorough
    scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA issued a proposed finding
    that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.
    The proposed finding identified  six greenhouse gases that are at unprecedented
    concentrations as a  result of human emissions and pose a potential threat to current and
    future generations: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
    perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA completed a public comment period in June,
    receiving almost 400,000 comments, and expects to issue a final finding in FY 2010.

•   Air quality monitoring near schools. As part of a new air toxics monitoring initiative, EPA
    and state and local air pollution control agencies will monitor the air around schools for toxic
    air pollutants. Air toxics are of potential concern because exposure to high levels of these
    pollutants over many decades could result in long-term health effects. EPA and its state and
    local partners will  sample outdoor air near selected schools over 60 days; analyze the
    samples and report on levels of air toxics found and their potential for long-term health
    impacts; and take action as needed to ensure that nearby industries are in compliance with
    clean air regulations.

•   Increasing the supply of renewable fuels. In FY 2009, EPA issued  a proposed rule
    detailing its strategy for implementing the revised national renewable fuel standards, as
                                   Section I - Page 12

-------
   mandated under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. EPA estimates that,
   when the rule is fully implemented in 2022, the greater volumes of biofuel mandated by the
   revised standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by a
   total of approximately 150 to 160 million tons per year (carbon dioxide equivalent emissions)
   and displace about 11 percent of annual gasoline and diesel consumption.

•  Decreasing diesel emissions. Authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA's Diesel
   Emissions Reduction Program is a multi-faceted grant program aimed at lowering diesel
   emissions from the 20 million diesel engines currently existing in this country. In FY 2009,
   the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provided $300 million—in
   addition to the $60 million provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act—in new
   funding for national and state programs to support a variety of cost-effective technologies
   that can dramatically reduce harmful emissions, save fuel, and help our nation meet its
   clean air and sustainability goals. In addition to saving and creating jobs and stimulating the
   economy, these Recovery Act projects will reduce criteria pollutants, air toxics, and pollution
   by many thousands of tons.

Challenges

•  EPA is working to integrate climate programs with its toxics and criteria pollutant programs.
   The Agency recognizes the need to design control programs with criteria pollutant  reduction
   strategies that will reduce smog, soot, and toxic air pollutants;  increase energy efficiency;
   and promote cleaner fuels. EPA will coordinate its efforts to minimize the burden on the
   regulated community while maximizing pollution reduction across all titles of the Clean Air
   Act, as well as such new legislation as the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Objective 2—Healthier Indoor Air

Key Achievements

•  Better air quality in schools. As a result of EPA's Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
   program, nearly 40,000 schools across the nation are implementing effective indoor air
   quality practices. In FY 2009, more than 500 education professionals from across the
   country participated in EPA's ninth annual Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools National
   Symposium, which promotes effective and sustainable indoor  air quality management
   programs in schools. EPA recognized 34 school districts and several individuals for making
   outstanding progress in creating healthy learning environments for children.

•  Improved environmental management of asthma. EPA's work among key populations
   has improved environmental management of asthma triggers,  averting an estimated 70,000
   asthma-related emergency room visits annually. In  FY 2009, EPA held the Fourth National
   Asthma Forum with more than 250 community leaders and national  program partners to
   build action plans, collaborations, and commitments to achieve asthma health outcomes.
   Participation in EPA's Communities in Action for Asthma-Friendly Environments network
   increased by more than one-third in FY 2009; more than 430 communities are now working
   together to accelerate learning and share best practices.

•  Increased radon  outreach. Approximately 700 premature deaths from lung cancer are
   prevented annually due to mitigations and construction of radon-resistant new homes. In FY
   2009, EPA spearheaded a highly successful National Radon Action Month, comprising more
   than 1,800 unique education and outreach events nationwide.  RadonLeaders.org,  an online
                                   Section I - Page 13

-------
   community EPA launched in September 2008 to promote better communication and
   collaboration, has grown to nearly 500 members.

Challenges

 • EPA's Indoor Air Program relies strictly on voluntary efforts to address public health risks
   from radon, asthma triggers, and other indoor air quality problems. The Agency must work
   effectively with public, private, and nonprofit partners and coordinate regulatory and
   community-based risk-reduction activities. The Indoor Air Program leverages a significant
   network of public health partners to achieve results, and it depends on innovation and
   coordination to maintain momentum and maximize limited resources.

Objective 3—Protect the Ozone Layer

Key Achievements

•  Supermarket-EPA partnership. EPA launched its partnership with the supermarket
   industry to promote technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce supermarket
   emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases. In FY 2009,
   the number of participants in EPA's GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership
   (www.epa.gov/greenchill) grew to include more than 6,500 stores in 47 states. In 2008, the
   most recent year for which  EPA has data, the program partners reduced their aggregate
   emissions by 8.5 percent.

•  Responsible Appliance Disposal Program. EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal
   Program (www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad) is a partnership program that protects the
   ozone layer and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through the recovery of ozone-
   depleting chemicals from old refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. In
   2008, the most recent year for which the Agency has data, EPA's 21 industry partners
   disposed of more than 1 million refrigerant-containing appliances, which will result in
   reductions of over 550 ozone depleting-weighted tons and over 4 million metric tons of CO2
   equivalent greenhouse emission reductions.

Challenge

•  In September 2007, the 195 Parties to the Montreal Protocol reached a milestone
   agreement to accelerate the recovery of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and prevent
   large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA continues to  address the challenges
   associated with identifying acceptable substitutes to ozone-depleting substances. For
   example, the Agency's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
   (www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/) is working to identify alternatives with low or no impact on the
   climate system and increase the menu of options for key economic sectors.

Objective 4—Radiation

Key Achievements

•  Radiological emergency response exercises. In FY 2009, EPA planned, conducted, and
   participated in several major radiological emergency response exercises to increase
   preparedness in responding to potential dirty bomb attacks on U.S. cities. The exercises
                                   Section I - Page 14

-------
   deployed and integrated federal, state, and local resources and focused on command and
   control, data flow, coordination, and outreach.

•  Radiological laboratory capacity. To increase its radiological laboratory capacity and
   radioanalytical capability, in FY 2009 EPA awarded grants to four state radiation laboratories
   (Connecticut, Texas, Washington, and Kansas). These labs will improve their existing
   radioanalytical capability by adding laboratory instruments and supplies, providing training
   on laboratory incident response operations, and conducting proficiency testing studies and
   audits of laboratory emergency response operations.

Challenges

•  EPA is working to ensure that it is ready to respond to a radiological emergency and meet
   its homeland security goal of being prepared for and able to respond to five simultaneous
   radiological events. However, EPA's radiological laboratories face a challenge in fully
   staffing, equipping, and training personnel to meet a large-scale event during this period of
   constrained resources.

Objective 5—Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Key Achievements

•  California waiver to enforce greenhouse gas emissions standards. EPA granted
   California's waiver request enabling the state to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions
   standards for new motor vehicles, beginning with the current model year. The first California
   waiver request, made in December 2005, was denied in March 2008 based on an
   interpretation of the Clean Air Act finding that California did not have a need for its
   greenhouse gas emission standards to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions."
   Shortly after taking office in January, President Obama directed EPA to assess the
   appropriateness of denying the waiver. EPA received a letter from California on January 21,
   2009, raising several issues for Administrator Jackson to review regarding  the denial. In FY
   2009 EPA granted the waiver to tackle air pollution and protect human health.

•  Greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles. The U.S. Department of
   Transportation and EPA jointly proposed a rule establishing a historic national program to
   improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases. Under the proposed program,
   which covers  model years 2012 through 2016, automobile manufacturers would be  able to
   build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as
   California  and other state standards. The proposed program includes miles per gallon
   requirements under Department of Transportation's Corporate Average Fuel  Economy
   Standards (CAFE) program and the first-ever national emissions standards under EPA's
   greenhouse gas program. EPA and the Department of Transportation plan to issue  a final
   rule in  FY2010.

•  New mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. In 2009, EPA  issued the greenhouse gas
   reporting rule which, beginning in 2010, requires sources such as electricity generators and
   large industries that emit 25,000 million metric tons or more of greenhouse gas emissions
   per year to report on their levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The mandatory greenhouse
   gas reporting rule is intended to collect accurate and comprehensive emissions data to
   inform  future policy decisions.
                                   Section I - Page 15

-------
•  Industry Climate Leaders. Climate Leaders is an EPA-industry-government partnership
   which develops comprehensive climate change strategies and includes a goal-setting
   component. By the end of FY 2009, the program had expanded from 11 charter members to
   284 companies, representing more than 8 percent of total annual U.S. greenhouse gas
   emissions. Program partners comprise a broad range of industry sectors and represent a
   combined annual revenue equal to 12 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

•  Energy savings with ENERGY STAR. EPA introduced ENERGY STAR in 1992 as a
   voluntary market-based partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through increased
   energy efficiency. More than 15,000 organizations have partnered with ENERGY STAR.
   Data for 2008, which EPA obtained this year, demonstrate that ENERGY STAR was
   associated with a prevention of 43 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions—
   equivalent to the annual emissions from 29 million vehicles—and more than $19 billion on
   utility bills.

•  New EPA-Department of Energy partnership. EPA and the Department of Energy have
   developed a new partnership agreement on energy efficiency that replaces the existing one.
   Under the new agreement EPA will be the brand manager for ENERGY STAR products and
   buildings, and the Department  of Energy will be the lead on a new National Building Rating
   Program.

Challenges

•  FY 2010 will be the first year in which sources of greenhouse gases will track their
   emissions. EPA must prepare for implementing the greenhouse gas reporting rule, including
   developing a database for reporting and ensuring that data are complete.

Objective 6—Enhance Science and Research

Key Achievements

•  Research on air quality. In  FY 2009, investigators partially funded by EPA compiled data
   on life expectancy and other factors for more than 200 county units in 51 U.S. metropolitan
   areas with matching data on fine particulate air pollution.1 The study quantified the
   association between reductions in fine particulate matter  levels and mean life expectancy.
   Reductions in air pollution accounted for as much as 15 percent of the overall increase in life
   expectancy in the study areas.

•  Research on the link between particulate matter and diseases. Recent research
   indicates that different-sized  particles collected from the same airshed can affect different
   organ systems. EPA's epidemiological and clinical findings indicate that smaller particles
   affect the cardiovascular system, while larger particles have an impact on the lungs. This
   research will inform local and federal decisions in protecting and improving air quality.

Challenges

•  Measuring the results of research is a challenge not only  for EPA, but also for the broader
   research community. EPA is co-leading an interagency effort to improve the assessment  of
   research effectiveness. To facilitate dialogue, EPA co-sponsored a workshop in October
1 http://content.neim.Org/cqi/content/full/360/4/376
                                  Section I - Page 16

-------
   2009 during which research and development agencies presented their best practices in
   prioritization, management, and evaluation.
                        Strategic Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water

 Ensure that 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 published a Notice of Data
Availability as part of a new regulation to allow for the
underground storage of greenhouse gases in a manner that
protects ground water sources of drinking water and ensures that
drinking water is safe. Additionally, the Agency reported that a
cumulative 2,505 waterbodies that were listed as impaired in 2002
are now fully attaining water quality standards.
                                                                  (Total Measures = 36)
   Goal 2 FY 2009
Performance Measures
Met = 22 Not Met = 7
 Data Available After
November 16, 2009 = 7
Objective 1—Protect Human Health

Key Achievements

•   Protecting drinking water. In FY 2009, 92.1 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 given the daily challenges community water
    systems face in applying existing drinking water regulations and implementing standards for
    new contaminants.

•   Evaluating drinking water contaminants. In FY 2009 EPA released its third list of drinking
    water contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may
    require regulation. EPA will continue to evaluate and collect data on the contaminants and
    determine by 2013 whether or not to propose drinking water regulations. The list identifies
    104 chemical contaminants or groups and 12 microbes,  including pesticides, disinfection
    byproducts, Pharmaceuticals, chemicals used in commerce, waterborne pathogens, and
    algal toxins. After evaluating approximately 7,500 chemicals and microbes, the Agency
    selected these 116 candidates based on their potential to pose health risks through drinking
    water exposure.

•   Monitoring beaches.  During calendar year 2008, the most recent year for which EPA has
    data, 35 states and territories monitored more than  3,740 beaches to ensure that they were
    safe for swimming. Of  the more than 714,070 beach season days during the year, coastal
    and Great Lakes beaches stayed open 95 percent of the time.

Challenges

•   Climate change continues to raise concerns about reliable sources of drinking water.  Over
    the coming years EPA expects that new patterns of rainfall and snowfall will alter water
                                   Section I - Page 17

-------
   supply for drinking and other uses, leading to changes in pollution levels. In addition, 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.

Objective 2: Protect Water Quality

Key Achievements

•  Recovery Act funds. EPA continued to manage the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
   (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) base programs while obligating
   additional funding provided under the Recovery Act. Of the $2 billion in DWSRF Recovery
   Act funds, 100 percent have been obligated through grants or Interagency Agreements, and
   7 percent have been executed. Of the $4 billion in CWSRF Recovery Act funds, 99 percent
   have been obligated through grants and Interagency Agreements, and 31  percent of those
   have been executed. Because most of the DWSRF and CWSRF programs operate
   distinctly, the execution rates for ARRA funding are not directly comparable.

•  Mountaintop mining.  In 2009, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
   Department of Interior and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to minimize the adverse
   environmental consequences of mountaintop coal mining. Plans include short-term actions
   to be completed in 2009 and longer-term actions to consider policy and regulatory actions to
   reduce impacts from mountaintop coal mining. EPA  has assessed the potential for all
   pending surface mine projects to cause significant environmental harm and designated 79
   mines as warranting Enhanced Coordination Procedures to reduce impacts. This process is
   currently underway for several projects.

•  Restoring impaired waters. EPA continues to make strong progress in restoring impaired
   waters. By the end  of FY 2009, a total of 2,505 waterbodies that were listed as impaired in
   2002 are now attaining water quality standards. Waters that meet quality standards are safe
   for drinking, fishing, and swimming.

•  Reducing nonpoint source pollution. States made significant progress in restoring waters
   impaired by nonpoint source pollution, tackling this difficult  problem by developing and
   implementing watershed-based  plans that assess the sources of pollution and identify
   solutions. In  FY 2009, states remediated 50 waters that had been impaired by nonpoint
   source pollution, bringing the total number of remediated waters to 147. Detailed summaries
   of each of these successful remediation projects may be reviewed at
   www.epa.gov/nps/success.

•  Waterbody pollutant reduction plans. By the end of FY 2009, EPA and  states completed
   more than 38,000 EPA-approved waterbody pollutant reduction plans (Total Maximum Daily
   Loads, or TMDLs).  A TMDL is a plan for ensuring that a waterbody meets the Agency's
   water quality standards for specific pollutants.

•  National Lakes Assessment. In August 2009, EPA released the National Lakes
   Assessment Report for public comment. Conducted through a state-tribal-EPA partnership,
   the National  Lakes  Assessment is the most extensive and comprehensive of its kind in the
   United States. It provides data on the extent of lakes supporting healthy biological
   communities and information on recreational indicators of lake condition, such as
   microcystins, an algal toxin which can lead to skin rashes, eye irritations, and respiratory
                                  Section I - Page 18

-------
   symptoms. The final report, to be published in December 2009, will establish a baseline
   assessment against which changes in water quality condition in lakes can be tracked.

•  Improving coastal and ocean waters. EPA continues to maintain and monitor ocean
   dumping sites. By the end of 2009, 99 percent of ocean dumping sites will have achieved
   environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan and
   measured through onsite monitoring).

Challenges

•  States assess about one-third of the nation's waters and almost half, 46 percent, of these
   waters do not meet state standards for fishing, swimming, and other uses. In fact, states are
   adding more waters to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters than they
   are taking off by a rate of 2 to 1. Between 2002 and 2008, states added 4,346 waterbodies
   to the list of impaired waters while removing 2,505.

•  Nonpoint source pollution continues to be the leading cause of water quality impairment in
   the United States. Agricultural activities, urban development and runoff, and hydro- and
   habitat modification  present  major challenges to protecting and cleaning up watersheds.
   EPA is continuing to encourage watershed-based planning as the most effective means of
   identifying the technical solutions that will be needed to solve nonpoint source pollution
   problems.

Objective 3—Enhance Science and Research

Key Achievements

•  Water quality analysis. EPA's research provides the Agency and others with information
   and tools to help protect and restore water bodies that sustain human health and aquatic
   life. To offset the high cost of technological approaches, EPA's research program partnered
   with stakeholders  to study natural ecosystems' ability to reduce nutrient inputs, such as
   nitrogen and phosphorus, to the Chesapeake Bay. EPA's Water Quality Analysis Simulation
   Program is widely used by EPA Regions, states, and their contractors for Total Maximum
   Daily Load (TMDL) analyses. In FY 2009, EPA updated the program to improve its
   application to estuaries and headwater watersheds while expanding its scientific capabilities,
   improving its performance, and making it more accessible to users. The update will enable
   states and water quality managers  to better assess mercury TMDL analyses and the
   impacts of eutrophication (an increase in the concentration of chemical nutrients in an
   ecosystem).

•  Reducing exposure to arsenic and waterborne viruses.  In  FY 2009, EPA produced
   scientific methods to more effectively monitor pathogens in drinking water sources,  evaluate
   disinfection effectiveness, and assess microbial health risks. As a result of EPA's research
   on waterborne pathogens, Wisconsin recognized the need to control exposure to viruses
   found in underground sources of drinking water. EPA's treatment technology research and
   demonstration program has  provided states and water utilities with cost-effective solutions
   that small utilities can adopt  to improve drinking water quality,  particularly for mitigating
   arsenic risks.

•  Freshwater habitat research. EPA's  Freshwater Habitat Project completed research
   examining how Coho, or silver, salmon use habitats throughout coastal Oregon watersheds.
                                   Section I - Page 19

-------
   This research is assisting recovery of Pacific salmon populations. EPA scientists consulted
   with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior,
   and state fish and wildlife agencies to design habitat restoration strategies and apply
   innovative research approaches to imperiled fish populations.

Challenges

•  The quality and availability of drinking water supplies are increasingly vulnerable to stress
   from development, land use, water resource management, and climate change. EPA
   researchers need to provide scientific support to ensure safe drinking water and develop
   cost-effective, energy-efficient, and environmentally sound tools to support future Agency
   regulatory decisions. EPA is exploring more integrated research programs that take a
   holistic, one-hydrosphere perspective of water.
                 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 by ensuring that 97
percent of hazardous waste facilities are permitted and 66.4           Performance Measures
                                                                   Goal 3 FY 2009
                                                                Met = 23  Not Met = 2
                                                                 Data Available After
                                                                November 16,2009 = 2

                                                                 (Total Measures = 27)
percent of the nation's underground storage tanks comply with
regulations. Additionally, EPA protected human health and the
environment by achieving construction completion at 20 Superfund
sites,  108 hazardous waste facilities, and 12,944 leaking
underground storage tank sites. Human exposures to site
contamination were controlled at 11 Superfund sites and 64 hazardous waste facilities, and
ground water protection was achieved at 16 Superfund and 73 hazardous waste facilities.

Objective 1—Preserve Land

Key Achievements

•   Engaging communities in cleanup, emergency response, and managing hazardous
    materials. In 2009, EPA reached out to communities, especially economically
    disadvantaged communities, to engage and prepare local communities for more
    meaningfully participating in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency response,
    and managing hazardous materials and waste.  Greater community involvement will
    strengthen Agency programs by consistently and effectively engaging local communities
    and stakeholders in decision-making processes that produce outcomes which are protective
    and aligned with community goals.

•   Roadmap for sustainable materials management. During FY 2009, an EPA-state work
    group completed a roadmap for planning, Sustainable Materials Management: The Road
    Ahead, which recommends a shift in focus from waste management to materials
    management, cultivating the principles of sustainability, and taking a life-cycle perspective.
                                   Section I - Page 20

-------
•  Preventing coal ash releases. The failure of an ash disposal cell at the Tennessee Valley
   Authority's Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted the issue of coal combustion
   residuals (CCR) impoundment stability. In response, EPA decided to assess the stability of
   impoundments and similar management units which contain wet-handled CCRs. In March
   and April 2009, EPA issued Information Request Letters covering more than 200 facilities
   and more than 500 surface impoundments. EPA has completed assessments and has
   posted on its Web site final reports assessing the structural integrity for 43 CCR surface
   impoundments at 22 facilities, including recommendations to ensure continued stability of
   the 43 units. The Agency is also finalizing its strategy for assessing the remaining surface
   impoundments managing CCRs and taking steps to improve the overall management of
   CCRs.

•  Permitting hazardous waste facilities. In FY 2009, 97 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
   ground water contamination and safely remove or isolate hazardous waste. More than 100
   facilities were issued initial approved controls or updated controls during FY 2009.

•  Preventing releases from underground storage tanks. EPA set an aggressive FY 2009
   goal of reducing the number of confirmed releases of hazardous substances in ground water
   from underground storage tanks to no  more than 9,000. EPA exceeded this goal, with actual
   confirmed releases from underground storage tanks in FY 2009 down to 7,168.

•  Reduced municipal solid waste. Although 2009 data will not be available until 2010,  EPA
   is on track for meeting its recycling and waste reduction goals. In 2008, the U.S. population
   generated a daily per capita average of only 4.5 pounds of MSW, which met EPA's 2008
   target of 4.5 pounds. The U.S. per capita waste generation rate has now declined in back-
   to-back years (2007 and 2008).

Challenges

•  Many states are finding it difficult to address their backlog of hazardous waste facilities
   awaiting permits. Nationally, about half the states are undergoing furloughs or reducing staff
   in their permitting programs. While only a small percentage of hazardous waste facilities
   remain to be permitted, these sites often involve more complex permit actions. For example,
   large and complex federal facilities can contain nonstandard treatment units that treat
   mixtures of hazardous waste and high- or low-level radioactive materials, which require
   more time for evaluating technical information, addressing risks,  and dealing with public
   concerns.

•  One of the challenges facing EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program is inspecting every
   underground storage tank across the country—approximately 233,000—every three years,
   as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. States implementing the program continue to
   face myriad economic and management issues, affecting their ability to hire, train, and retain
   qualified  inspectors.
                                   Section I - Page 21

-------
Objective 2—Restore Land

Key Achievements

•  Cleanup agreements reached at federal facilities. In FY 2009, EPA signed seven
   enforceable agreements with the Department of Defense for cleanup of federal facility sites
   on the Superfund National Priorities List. The agreements provide a detailed roadmap of the
   proposed cleanup, including a schedule with project milestones. Once an agreement is in
   place,  EPA monitors the project schedule and oversees requirements to ensure a timely and
   protective cleanup, consistent with the terms of the agreement.

•  Libby  public health emergency. In June 2009, EPA determined that a public health
   emergency exists at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site in Northwest Montana. This was the
   first time EPA made a determination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
   Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) that conditions at a site constitute a public health
   emergency. EPA has made progress in removing the asbestos threat to the land and air,
   which is linked to increased risks of lung cancer, asbestosis, and respiratory problems.
   EPA's  cleanup efforts have greatly reduced exposure; however, actual and potential
   releases of amphibole asbestos remain a significant threat to public health in the area.

•  Pursuing financial responsibility under CERCLA. CERCLA—commonly called
   "Superfund"—directs  EPA to establish financial  responsibility requirements for classes of
   facilities "consistent with the degree and duration of risks associated with the production,
   transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances." In July 2009, EPA
   published a Federal Register notice  identifying classes within the hard rock mining industry
   for which EPA will first develop financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section
   108(b). The July notice also committed EPA to evaluate additional classes for possible
   financial responsibility requirements, and EPA will publish another Federal Register notice
   identifying those additional industry classes.

•  Completed cleanups at 20 Superfund sites. In FY 2009, EPA completed cleanup
   construction ("construction complete") at 20 Superfund sites while facing a shrinking and
   more complex universe of eligible National Priorities List sites. Since the Superfund
   Program's inception, EPA has completed construction at 1,080 sites.

•  Addressed risks at Superfund sites. Protecting health by controlling peoples' exposure
   and protecting the environment by controlling migration of contamination by ground water
   are top priorities for EPA's Superfund Remedial Program. In FY 2009, EPA increased the
   number of sites where human exposures are under control by a net of 11 sites and the
   number of sites where the migration of contaminated ground water is under control by a net
   of 16 sites.

•  Superfund sites ready for anticipated use. Cleaning up Superfund sites helps
   communities return some of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites to safe and productive
   uses. In FY 2009, the Agency determined that 66 Superfund sites were ready for anticipated
   use,  exceeding the annual target of 65. 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 is 409.
                                   Section I - Page 22

-------
•  Controlled contamination at RCRA corrective action facilities. In FY 2009, 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 hazardous waste
   facilities requiring cleanup or "corrective action" under the Resource Conservation and
   Recovery Act. Human exposure to contaminants is now under control at more than 64
   facilities. The migration of contaminated ground water is under control at more than 73
   facilities. Final cleanup remedies have been constructed for more than 108 of these
   facilities.

•  Cleanup of leaking underground storage tank sites. In FY 2009, EPA's state and tribal
   partners cleaned up 12,944 leaking underground storage tanks, including 49 in Indian
   Country. Petroleum and other hazardous substances released by leaking underground
   storage tanks are considered major potential sources of ground water contamination.

Challenges

•  While EPA's Superfund Remedial Program met all of its FY 2009 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
   munitions at National Priorities List facilities are delaying cleanups at federal  facilities.

•  In FY 2009, EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program
   expanded its focus from 1,968 high-priority facilities to all 3,746 facilities expected to need
   corrective action. The Agency has set an ambitious goal of constructing final  remedies at 95
   percent of these sites by FY 2020. In addition, providing final remedies for this large number
   of facilities—more than the Agency has addressed in a single year so far—represents a
   significant challenge. Working with its state partners, EPA has developed plans to meet the
   annual targets and prepare for its 2020 goal.

Objective 3—Enhance Science and Research

Key Achievements

•  New ground water treatment technology. EPA partnered with a community site manager
   to develop a ground water treatment methodology which helped remediate ground water
   contamination for a community in Nebraska. In comparison with other technologies, this in
   situ chemical oxidation technology worked more quickly, minimized the impact on the
   community, and will  save over $70 million. EPA will promote this technology with other
   communities by training EPA Regional office staff and state remediation groups.

•  Using nanomaterials to clean up pollution. In FY 2009, EPA and its partners developed
   approaches to use nano-scale iron to detoxify contaminated ground water. The Agency also
   developed other cleanup technologies using nano carbon, iron, and bimetallics and used
   them to clean up 26 contaminated sites across the United States. EPA research continues
   to evaluate both remediation and environmental transport and fate of the nano-scale
   treatment agents.
                                   Section I - Page 23

-------
Challenges

•  Approaches and technology to clean contaminated ground water and contaminated
   soils are costly. EPA is working with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to develop
   and apply cost-effective technologies to treat contaminated sediments and ground
   water.
                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 2009, EPA announced a comprehensive approach to
enhancing chemical management under existing laws and
released a set of essential principles for reforming chemical
management legislation to help inform efforts to strengthen the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA continued to ensure
that pesticides are used to protect people and the environment        November 16,2009 - 18
                                                                   Goal 4 FY 2009
                                                               Performance Measures
                                                               Met = 38  Not Met = 23
                                                                Data Available After
                                                                (Total Measures = 79)
from exposure while providing a safe and abundant food supply.
In addition, the Agency helped restore and improve 103,507 acres
of wetlands; provided wastewater sanitation for 43,594 houses
along the U.S.-Mexico border; and continued to provide the basic research, tools, and models
that contribute to the sound science supporting all of the Agency's strategic goals.

Objective 1—Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

Key Achievements

•  Toxic Substances Control Act reform. The Administrator announced a comprehensive
   approach to enhancing chemical management under existing laws2 and released a set of
   essential principles3 for reforming chemical management legislation to help inform efforts to
   strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

•  Reducing risks of chemicals used in commerce. In FY 2009, EPA increased its use of
   regulatory authorities currently provided under the TSCA and other mechanisms to reduce
   risks from chemicals of concern and is evaluating risk management actions4 on a number of
   chemicals, including lead, mercury, formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
   certain carbon nanotubes. Also in FY 2009, the Agency shifted from developing risk-based
   prioritizations under the Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) to
   begin implementing a more streamlined approach to assess hazards posed by chemicals
   currently in use. These hazard characterizations (see the "chemical assessment" section of
2 Enhancing EPA's Chemical Management Program:
www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/enhanchems.html
 Essential Principles for Reform of Chemical Management Legislation:
www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/principles.html
 New Regulatory Risk Management Actions:
www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/enhanchems.htmltfnewreg
                                   Section I - Page 24

-------
   Objective 4.1) will be the basis for discussion in FY 2010 with stakeholders on how to
   prioritize chemicals for future risk management action.

•  Reducing exposure to lead-based paint. EPA's Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule,
   which becomes effective in April 2010, requires renovation contractors to receive training
   and be certified in the use of lead-safe work practices when renovating housing and child-
   occupied facilities built prior to 1978. In FY 2009, the Agency accredited  80 training
   providers who will train and certify renovation, repair, and painting firms and individuals in
   using lead-safe work practices. EPA expects more than 200,000 contractors to be certified
   by April 2010. This rule is aimed at reducing  lead exposures in millions of children by
   preventing exposures in homes, child  care facilities, and schools built before 1978.

•  Reducing perfluorooctanoic acid levels. In FY 2009, EPA released its second annual
   progress report on the Perfluorooctanoic Acid Stewardship Program. Perfluorooctanoic acid,
   a chemical used in many products including Teflon and microwavable popcorn bags, has
   been shown to be extremely persistent in the environment and may have adverse health
   effects in humans. The report showed substantial  progress in reducing perfluorooctanoic
   acid and related chemicals from product content and emissions; four of eight participating
   companies reported reducing emissions more than 95 percent.

•  Advancements in pesticide registration review. In 2009, EPA's ongoing multi-year review
   of existing pesticides on the market, Registration Review, is well underway. The  pace of this
   program is increasing, with more pesticides reviews being initiated every year. Most
   importantly,  EPA is beginning to make Registration Review decisions, putting in  place
   improved public health and environmental protection. Registration Review decisions directly
   contribute to achieving many the strategic measures identified in EPA's Strategic Plan, such
   as reducing  occupational poisoning and  certain  pesticides in urban water sheds.

•  Tests for hormone-altering effects in chemicals. In FY 2009, after extensive public
   comment, EPA published the policies  and procedures that will be used in the Agency's
   Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program and listed the first 67 chemicals—active and  inert
   pesticide ingredients—to be the subject of Test Orders. The Agency is working to develop
   future lists, which will include additional chemicals. EPA will screen these chemicals to
   determine whether they interact with human and wildlife hormone (endocrine) systems,
   potentially affecting reproduction and development.

Challenges

•  In its January 22, 2009 biennial update, the Government Accountability Office  (GAO) added
   EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals to its list of federal
   programs, policies, and operations that are at "high risk" for waste, fraud, abuse, and
   mismanagement or in need  of broad-based transformation. GAO noted that EPA "requires
   additional authority than currently provided [in the Toxic Substances Control Act] to obtain
   health and safety information from the chemical industry and to shift more of the burden to
   chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of their products." Pending Congressional
   action, EPA  is acting as aggressively as possible using authorities currently provided under
   the Act to reduce known risks for priority chemicals of concern and to obtain needed
   information to assess hazards posed by chemicals currently in use.

•  Implementation of the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program is influenced by a complex
   array of external factors,  including public involvement,  international coordination, a
                                   Section I - Page 25

-------
   technically complex, mandated assay validation process, and contractor support.
   Collectively, these factors increase uncertainty in program timelines and estimated
   completion  dates. EPA will strive to complete program milestones within estimated
   timeframes, recognizing that these external factors will continue to influence completion
   schedules.

Objective 2—Communities

Key Achievements

•  Environmental justice grants. In March 2009, EPA awarded approximately $800,000 in
   grants to address environmental and public health issues in communities facing
   environmental justice challenges. Projects include educating youth in Chicago, Illinois, about
   the harmful effects of toxic substances such as asbestos and lead paint; conducting
   residential energy efficiency workshops and training for Spanish-speaking communities in
   Kansas City, Missouri; and ensuring that citizens of Barrow, Alaska, have a voice in the
   decision-making on local oil and gas development projects.

•  Revitalizing Brownfields properties. In FY 2009, EPA obtained FY 2008 results for its
   Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program. These results showed that 1,453 properties
   were assessed  and 78 properties were cleaned up, creating 5,484 jobs and $1.5 billion in
   cleanup and redevelopment funding and exceeding the Agency's FY 2008 targets. In
   addition, 4,404 acres were made ready for reuse through site assessment or property
   cleanup.

•  Drinking water and wastewater services along the U.S.-Mexico border. Data that
   became available this year show that in FY 2008, 1,584 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,  nine water and wastewater projects were approved for construction in the border
   region which, when completed, are expected to benefit more than 90,000 people.

•  Improving  drinking water in the Pacific Island Territories. As of June 30, 2009, 80
   percent of the Pacific Island Territory population served by community water systems
   received drinking water meeting all applicable health-based drinking water standards, up
   from a baseline of about 39 percent in 2003. As a result of work conducted over the past
   several years and aggressive enforcement by EPA, by the end of FY 2009 nearly 70 percent
   of the population of the island Saipan (in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
   Islands) received 24-hour water delivery, up from a low of 25 percent in 2005. Saipan
   remains the only community of its size in the United States without 24-hour water delivery.

Objective 3—Ecosystems

Key Achievements

•  Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. In May 2009,  President Obama  signed an Executive
   Order (E.O. 13508) for the Chesapeake Bay "to protect and restore the health, heritage,
   natural resources, and social and economic value of the nation's largest estuarine
   ecosystem  and  the natural sustainability of its watershed." The Order directed formation of a
   Federal Leadership Committee, chaired by EPA's Administrator and charged with
                                   Section I - Page 26

-------
developing 1) recommendations to improve several important resource and programmatic
areas for the Chesapeake Bay, 2) a coordinated strategy for implementing
recommendations that achieve environmental goals, and 3) an annual Chesapeake Bay
Action Plan that describes how federal funding will be put toward Bay restoration in the
future. Development of the coordinated strategy began in FY 2009; EPA expects to release
a draft strategy in November 2009 and a final strategy in May 2010. As part of its report on
water pollution control strategies, the Agency is also exploring how to make full use of its
authorities under the Clean Water Act, revising guidance and regulations as necessary, to
protect and restore the Bay and its tributaries.

Reducing nutrient pollution loads to Chesapeake Bay.  Based on 2008 results which
became available in FY 2009, at least 34.9 million fewer pounds of nitrogen and 5.9 million
fewer pounds of phosphorus have entered the Chesapeake Bay each year from 1985 to
2008, improving water quality for submerged aquatic vegetation, fish, and shellfish.

Restoring streamside buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Data for 2008 that
became available in FY 2009 show that between 1996 and 2008, 6,172 miles of forest buffer
was planted along streams and shorelines throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
improving water quality in local streams and rivers and reducing nutrient and sediment
pollution loads to the Bay.

Restoring and enhancing wetlands. EPA and its partners are making progress in restoring
and enhancing wetlands. In FY 2009, 103,507 wetland acres were restored or enhanced
through Five-Star Restoration Grants, the National Estuary Program, Section 319 nonpoint
source grants, and Brownfield grants.

Upgrading Florida Keys wastewater infrastructure. Monroe County and other local
governments are making significant progress in upgrading  inadequate wastewater
infrastructure  in the Florida Keys. As of June 2008, the latest year for which EPA has data,
about 32,138  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 since 2000, when only 250 households were connected to
systems meeting state requirements.

Reducing toxics and improving wetlands in the Columbia River Basin. EPA, states,
and tribal partners are working on reducing toxics in the Columbia River  Basin. In May 2009,
a DDT fish advisory in the Yakima River was lifted as a result of implementing the Yakima
River Total Maximum  Daily Load. In the Lower Columbia River Basin, 15,700 acres of
wetland and upland habitat have been protected, enhanced, or  restored, exceeding the
Agency's 2009 target of 10,000 acres.

Restoring habitat in the Puget Sound Basin. The Puget Sound Partnership, composed of
local,  state, tribal, and federal representatives, reached another milestone in July when EPA
approved its Action Agenda as the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan,
authorizing it to receive National Estuary Program funding.  In 2009, harvest restrictions for
164 acres of shellfish were lifted and 1,338 acres of estuarine wetlands were restored. From
FY 2006 through the end of FY 2009, EPA and its partners restored 5,751 acres of tidally
and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands in the Puget  Sound Basin.
                               Section I - Page 27

-------
Challenges

•  Based on 2008 monitoring results available in FY 2009, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
   has achieved 42 percent of its long-term goal to restore 185,000 acres of submerged
   aquatic vegetation and 16 percent of its long-term goal to attain dissolved oxygen water
   quality standards in all tidal waters of the Bay. However, the Agency and its partners will  not
   meet the 2011 target of attaining 40 percent of the long-term goal for dissolved oxygen. To
   address this challenge, EPA is developing the nation's largest and most complex Total
   Maximum Daily Load for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed, due to be completed by
   December 2010.  In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council pledged to put in place all
   Bay management mechanisms necessary to restore the Bay by 2025.  Part of this new
   strategy to speed up the  pace of Bay restoration  includes setting specific two-year
   milestones for each jurisdiction to reduce pollution to the Bay and its rivers  and
   "contingencies" and "consequences" for falling short.

Objective 4—Enhance Science and Research

Key Achievements

•  Responding to climate  change. In FY 2009, EPA completed a major assessment of the
   impacts of climate change on regional air quality in the United States. Findings demonstrate
   that climate change has the potential to produce  significant increases in ground-level ozone
   in many regions. Climate change can also lengthen the ozone season, suggesting that air
   quality managers may need to extend the time over which they monitor ozone
   concentrations and be prepared to issue air quality alerts earlier in the spring and later in the
   fall.

•  Managing chemical risk. EPA and organizations worldwide use the Agency's ToxRefDB
   database (www.epa.gov/ncct/toxrefdb/), which provides more than 30 years and $2 billion of
   animal testing results for a variety of research and regulatory applications, including EPA's
   ToxCast™ (www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/) chemical screening program. ToxCast can screen
   thousands of environmental chemicals and help set priorities for further testing.  ToxCast
   generated comprehensive bioactivity profiles for more 300 chemicals in hundreds of assays
   mapping to human toxicity pathways and disease processes. In FY 2009, EPA launched the
   screening of 700 additional chemicals and partnered with Pfizer to leverage $100 million  in
   toxicity data.

•  Improving the safety of water sampling. Pathogenic microorganisms which may be
   present in drinking water pose a significant public health concern. Currently, microbial
   detection analytical methods require transportation of large volumes of potentially
   contaminated water samples, presenting a safety concern for transporters,  laboratory
   personnel, and the public. In response,  EPA developed a device that can rapidly
   concentrate the microbes contained in a 26-gallon sample into a less than 2-cup
   concentrated sample, which can  be easily and safely transported to a laboratory for further
   analysis. This technology received a 2009 R&D 100 Award from R&D Magazine, a mark of
   excellence awarded to industry, government, and academia indicating that  the development
   is one of the most innovative ideas of the year, nationally and internationally.

•  Producing tools to inform decisions. EPA completed work on an "Ecosystem Services
   Tools Database" which catalogs and describes more than 235 decision support tools that
                                   Section I - Page 28

-------
   can be applied in analytic-deliberative decision support processes. These tools will help
   scientists and others in making decisions about the delivery of ecosystem services.

•  Using science to prioritize research. EPA researchers developed and applied new
   informatics-based methods to estimate the effects on aquatic life of human pharmaceutical
   residues in wastewater. These methods are helping EPA prioritize future research efforts by
   narrowing the number of Pharmaceuticals of concern and suggesting which aquatic
   organisms should be first evaluated. The Society of Toxicology cited EPA's research among
   the top 11 2008 scientific papers related to ecological risk assessment.

Challenges

•  The Government Accountability Office has identified EPA's Integrated Risk Information
   System (IRIS) as a management challenge for the Agency. To address this challenge, EPA
   is implementing a new process for developing IRIS assessments and working to increase
   the number of assessments completed in a timely manner.
             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.
In 2009, EPA undertook major initiatives to enhance transparency of enforcement data as part
of a broader effort to engage stakeholders and ensure our
                                                                    Goal 5 FY 2009
                                                                 Performance Measures
                                                                 Met =14  Not Met = 2
                                                                  Data Available After
                                                                 November 16, 2009 = 5

                                                                  (Total Measures = 21)
enforcement efforts are targeted at the most serious violations. In
June 2009, the Administrator announced her intention to retool and
reinvigorate the Clean Water Act enforcement program, including a
renewed effort to hold states—and EPA where it implements the
law—accountable for performance. In addition, EPA took
enforcement actions to secure commitments from polluters to spend
an estimated $5.4 billion on pollution control activities. These
pollution control activities will result in an estimated 570 million
pounds of pollution reductions.

Objective 1—Achieve Environmental Protection Through  Improved Compliance

Key Achievements

•   Improving Clean Water Act enforcement. In July 2009,  the Agency announced that it
    would develop an action plan to address the challenges confronting EPA and the states'
    Clean Water Act enforcement programs. EPA released the final plan on October 15, 2009,
    with the following recommendations: 1) revamp the water  enforcement program to focus on
    pollution sources that present the greatest threat to water  quality; 2) strengthen oversight of
    state permitting and enforcement programs to improve results and provide greater
    consistency; and 3) improve transparency by using 21st century technology tools to provide
    more accurate and useful information to the public and increase pressure for better
                                   Section I - Page 29

-------
compliance performance. EPA solicited ideas from the public and conducted outreach to
states, tribes, community groups, industry, academia, and environmental organizations
through meetings, calls, written submissions, and an online discussion forum. To support
the goal of increased transparency, EPA posted detailed information on the current state of
clean water compliance and enforcement in each state, as well as the latest clean water
enforcement performance reports for each state to the agency's Web site. EPA also
launched new Web-based tools to help the public search, assess, and analyze.

Protecting the Chesapeake Bay. To address non-compliance with federal environmental
laws and associated environmental impacts to the Chesapeake Bay, EPA has developed a
draft Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. The draft strategy guides the
use of EPA's compliance and enforcement tools to target sources of pollution impairing the
Bay. The multi-year, multi-state, multimedia strategy addresses violations of federal
environmental laws that result in nutrient and sediment pollution. The strategy identifies
industrial, municipal, and agricultural sources releasing significant amounts  of nutrients,
sediments, and other pollutants in excess of the amounts allowed by the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, and other applicable environmental laws. In addition, the draft strategy
identifies appropriate opportunities for compliance and enforcement activities related to the
Clean Water Act Section 404 program, which regulates dredge and fill operations, as well as
compliance and enforcement opportunities related to federal facilities; Superfund sites,
including remedial action and removal sites; and RCRA corrective action facilities.

Reducing, treating, and eliminating pollutants. In FY 2009, under EPA's environmental
compliance programs,  EPA negotiated commitments in enforcement settlements for an
estimated 570 million pounds of pollutants to be reduced, treated, or eliminated in the first
year after pollution controls are installed. Of these actions:

o  9 percent air cases in air non-attainment areas for pollutants reduced.
o  22 percent water cases in impaired waters that reduced pollutants.

Investments in pollution control technology. In FY 2009, in compliance with EPA
requirements, regulated entities committed to invest a total of $5.4 billion in  pollution control
and abatement equipment and technologies to improve their environmental  performance or
environmental management practices.

Enhancing criminal enforcement. Criminal enforcement is EPA's strongest sanction
against polluters, and in FY 2009 the Agency significantly exceeded judicial outcomes for
defendants charged, incarceration, and fines/restitution over FY 2008 levels. The criminal
enforcement program also took significant steps to better align its resources with the
Agency's enforcement goals. Three hundred and eighty-eight (388) new environmental
crime cases were opened, an increase of approximately  18 percent over FY 2008.  Almost
one-third of the new cases opened in FY 2009 were in priority and "high-impact" areas,
including 33 National Enforcement Priority cases (including 13 cases with repeat civil
violators) and 22 cases under the new OCEFT Import-Export Initiative, which targets the
illegal shipment of electronic wastes (e-wastes) to third world nations. The program also
implemented strategies to improve the quality and timeliness of its cases, increase
prosecutorial support from the Department of Justice, and accelerate its hiring strategy to
have 200 special agents investigating environmental crimes by the end of FY 2010.
                                Section I - Page 30

-------
•  Commitments to reduce harmful air pollutants. The largest stationary source air
   enforcement cases will result in estimated commitments to reduce approximately 230 million
   pounds of harmful air pollutants in the first year after pollution controls are installed, with
   human health benefits estimated to be over $4.0 billion. Estimated health benefits include:

   o   Reducing approximately over 450 premature deaths in people with heart or lung
       disease.
   o   58,000 fewer days of missed work or school.
   o   790 fewer emergency room visits due to respiratory illnesses, such as asthma.

•  Actions to protect people from  discharges. As a result of EPA's enforcement and
   compliance work, EPA estimates:

   o   26 million people protected who live within 100 meters of air toxics facilities.
   o   96,000 people protected who  live within 100 meters of hazardous waste facilities.
   o   9 beaches protected from excessive bacteria discharges.

Challenges

•  The American public has a right to know what the threats are to water quality, where
   violations are occurring, and what EPA is doing about them. Moreover, the vastly increased
   and dispersed numbers of pollution sources require the Agency to target enforcement to the
   biggest problems. EPA will work toward both goals by requiring reports to be submitted
   electronically. Using 21st century technologies will allow the Agency to devote more
   resources to tackling pollution problems. At the same time, EPA can provide more complete,
   accurate, and timely information to both regulators and the public, enlisting an informed
   public as a powerful ally to press for stronger  performance and accountability from the
   regulated community.

•  Over the last 30 years, water enforcement focused mostly on pollution from the biggest
   individual sources, such as factories and sewage treatment plants. While these efforts have
   helped to reduce pollution from these sources, the regulated universe has expanded from
   the roughly 100,000 traditional point sources to nearly a million far more dispersed sources
   such  as animal feeding operations and stormwater runoff. Many of the nation's waters are
   still not meeting water quality standards, and the threat to drinking water sources is growing.
   To address these challenges, EPA will revamp federal and state enforcement to tackle
   sources posing the biggest threats to water quality while intensifying vigorous civil and
   criminal enforcement against traditional end-of-pipe pollution.

•  EPA is responsible for ensuring that the protections of the Clean Water Act extend to all
   citizens. Many states have strong water quality protection and enforcement programs, but
   the vigor of state compliance and enforcement efforts is uneven. Wthout consistent
   enforcement by EPA and states, there exists an unlevel playing field for businesses that do
   comply with  the law, and also for citizens who are not provided equal protection under the
   nation's environmental legal framework. States labor under different political and resource
   constraints;  nonetheless, EPA must ensure that states protect water quality and consistently
   apply the law by issuing protective permits and by pursuing vigorous enforcement. EPA will
   clearly articulate where the bar is for acceptable state programs, and consistently hold
   states—and EPA where it implements the law—accountable. Where states are not meeting
   these expectations, EPA needs to strengthen water quality protection by disapproving
                                   Section I - Page 31

-------
   permits that are not protective and by pursuing federal enforcement against serious
   violators.

Objective 2—Environmental Stewardship and Pollution Prevention

Key Achievements

•  Eliminating priority chemicals in waste. 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 2009 goal of eliminating 1  million pounds of these chemicals by achieving a 7 million
   pound reduction of chemicals.

•  Identifying green product choices for consumers. EPA's Design for the Environment
   Program labels products that  the Agency has reviewed and found to be safer for human
   health and the environment. In FY 2009, Design for the Environment recognized nearly 750
   products from 96 partners. The Design for the Environment label is now on more than 1,500
   products, and consumers  and institutions have purchased tens of millions of these products.

•  Federal Electronics Challenge Program. Data obtained this year show that, under EPA's
   Federal Electronics Challenge Program, the federal government conserved 0.28 million
   metric tons of carbon dioxide  equivalent and saved $38.9 million in FY 2008. The  Federal
   Electronics Challenge Program assists federal agencies and facilities in improving
   electronics stewardship. The program's FY 2008 results, which are more than double its FY
   2007 results, are attributable to partners' increased reporting and improved electronics
   stewardship activities by partners.

•  Community results through pollution prevention.  Results from EPA's FY 2009 Regional
   Pollution Prevention Grant Program showed that all grantees combined reduced 154.4
   million pounds of pollutants, conserved  883 million gallons of water, conserved 0.168 million
   metric tons of carbon dioxide  equivalent, and saved $58.7 million.

 Challenges

•  In FY 2009, EPA's Pollution Prevention Program received advice from the Agency's Science
   Advisory Board on how to measure environmental outcomes produced over multiple years.
   The  board found that the program has taken a conservative approach to measurement and
   has consequently under-reported its results. EPA will begin implementing improvements
   suggested by the board to better communicate its performance and the results it has
   achieved.

Objective 3—Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country

Key Achievements

•  Recognizing the right of tribes as sovereign nations. In FY 2009, Administrator Jackson
   reaffirmed the Agency's Indian Policy, which recognizes that the United States has a unique
   legal relationship with tribal governments based on treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and
   court decisions. EPA recognizes the right of tribes as sovereign governments to self-
   determination and acknowledges the federal government's trust responsibility to tribes. More
   information is available at www.epa.gov/tribalportal/basicinfo/epa-policies.htm.
                                   Section I - Page 32

-------
•  Internet tool for reporting progress in Indian Country. EPA's General Assistance
   Program (GAP) provides grants to federally recognized tribes and tribal consortia for
   planning, developing, and establishing environmental protection programs in Indian Country,
   as well as for developing and implementing solid and hazardous waste programs on tribal
   lands. In FY 2009, the Agency successfully launched the Internet tool "GAP Online" for
   creating work plans and reporting progress in Indian Country. More information is available
   at www.epa.gov/indian/gap.htm.

Objective 4—Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability Through Science and
Research

Key Achievements

•  Helping communities manage waste more efficiently. In FY 2009, EPA scientists
   continued to develop and refine a decision support tool for managing materials and
   municipal  solid waste. More than 50 communities have used the Municipal Solid  Waste
   Decision Support Tool to consider life-cycle environmental trade-offs and costs holistically
   and identify more efficient strategies for material and waste management. Current users
   include the states of California, Delaware, and Minnesota; Covanta Energy; Wake County
   North Carolina; and the World Bank. EPA is developing a web-accessible version of the tool
   that will provide easier access.

•  Improving technology to remediate contaminated sites. In FY 2009, EPA developed Life
   Cycle Assessment and Impact Assessment methodologies to evaluate technologies to
   remediate contaminated  sites. These methodologies have been applied to a cleanup site in
   San Francisco  and have  resulted in improved evaluation  of the remedial alternatives. In
   FY 2010, the Agency will submit a peer-reviewed journal  article on this technology.

•  Understanding the impact of biofuels. In FY 2009, EPA applied a MARKAL (MARKet
   Allocation) energy modeling system to better understand how increased biofuel  use will
   impact energy  production and use patterns in the United States and identify any  unintended
   environmental  implications of crop production and energy conversion options.  EPA's Region
   7 is using  this tool to consider the environmental impacts of increased biofuel production
   and how best to respond.

•  Applying  metrics to inform decision-makers. Working with the National  Park Service,
   EPA developed and tested a set of four science-based metrics useful for regional planning
   in the San Luis Basin of south-central Colorado. By helping define and monitor the region's
   environmental  sustainability, the project demonstrated how a set of metrics can be applied
   to determine the sustainability status of a particular geographic region and how local
   environmental  managers can use these metrics to inform their decisions. Using the lessons
   learned from this project, EPA is now considering how to apply sustainability metrics to
   managing more complex regional ecosystems.

 Challenges

•  EPA's increasing emphasis on green building, sustainable energy systems, and material
   flow management evidences the Agency's sharpened focus on sustainability. In 2009,  the
   Board of Scientific Counselors (a Federal Advisory Committee of scientists and engineers)
   reviewed EPA's Sustainability Research Program. The board recognized the positive impact
   of EPA's research in sustainability, but also observed that "[t]here is a need for a better
                                   Section I - Page 33

-------
    method to deliver information on sustainability with a true partnership among all
    stakeholders, including industry. The expertise and the will to fill this critical need within EPA
    are there, and the current leadership and plan are in place to make this transition"
    (www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/sust0907rpt.pdf). EPA will focus on addressing this challenge in
    2010 and 2011.

EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act) to restore jobs for American
workers, put vital resources back into
communities, and restore stability to the  nation's
economy. The Act seeks in part to spur
technological advances in  science and health and
to invest in environmental  protection and other
infrastructure that will provide long-term economic
benefits and accelerate critical environmental
improvement actions. The Recovery Act entrusts
EPA with $7.22 billion for programs and  projects
for which the Agency has legislative authority and
oversight responsibility. Recovery Act funds
provided to EPA will promote "green" jobs and a
healthier environment and allow the Agency to leverage the investments it makes to maximize
environmental progress.

             EPA Programs Receiving Funding Under the Recovery Act
                    Massachusetts Uses Recovery Act Funds
                              for Harbor Cleanup

                    EPA's swift allocation of Recovery Act funds
                    has helped spur new jobs and economic
                    opportunities in sites across the country.

                    In New Bedford, Massachusetts, the
                    Recovery Act is accelerating the pace of the
                    harbor cleanup that was scheduled to take
                    almost four decades.  This cleanup of one of
                    the nation's busiest fishing ports will create
                    and save jobs  and potentially generate
                    millions of dollars in tourism, development,
                    and shipping in the years ahead.
                 5-300 mill 01
                 Reductions in
                em'ssions ~^am
                 d'e&el engines
1100 million
Brovjnfields
 program
      ml ion
Hazardous waste
  cleanup a:
Supetfund sites
$200 mi 11 ion
 C eanup of
  leaking
Linda-ground
storage tanks
  $$ bi lor
Water qua hy,
 wastewaier
inf'ast'uctupe
and dr'nkirg
   water
fnfra Sturm r*
                                    Section I - Page 34

-------
                                  The Recovery Act is geared toward accelerating job
                                  creation and stimulating the economy, as well as
                                  providing unprecedented transparency.  In implementing
                                  the Act, EPA carefully considered how best to track
                                  programmatic results specifically associated with Act
                                  dollars (apart from tracking recipient results under Section
                                  1512 of the Act). Relying on programs' existing
                                  performance measures, the Agency has developed both
                                  short-term  output and long-term outcome measures to
                                  track the progress of Act-funded programs. In developing
                                  these measures, the Agency involved stakeholders at all
                                  levels and  focused on the need to show short-term
                                  results. Recovery Act  performance measures are
                                  highlighted in the four-year performance results tables
                                  included under each goal in Section II of this report.

                                  EPA is awarding designated Recovery Act funds to states
                                  and under  competitive grants as quickly as possible. To
                                  ensure transparency, grant announcements are posted
on www.recovery.gov. All funding is being monitored by EPA's Inspector General, and the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received $20 million in Recovery Act funding for oversight
and review.

The Agency also developed a comprehensive Recovery Act Stewardship Plan to fulfill its
responsibilities for identifying risks (programmatic and administrative) and specific mitigation
actions, while ensuring transparency and accountability for its Recovery Act activities. The plan
addresses seven functional areas: Grants Management, Interagency Agreements, Contracts,
Payroll/Human Capital, Budget Execution, Performance Reporting, and Financial Reporting.
The risks identified in the stewardship plan are based on various internal control objectives
referenced in Office of Management and Budget  guidance for implementing the Recovery Act.

       American Recovery and Reinvestment Budget  Status As of October 1, 2009
  California Uses Recovery Act
    Funds for Removing Toxic
  Materials at Iron Mountain Mine

At the Iron Mountain Mine in
Redding, California—one of the
nation's most polluted sites—EPA
used recovery funds to halve the
time needed for cleanup. Prior to
EPA action, more than a ton of toxic
material was discharged from the
Iron Mountain Mine into the waters of
the Sacramento River every day.

The Iron Mountain Mine cleanup will
create or save close to 250 jobs.
Once the cleanup is completed, the
local hydroelectric power plant will
use the restored waters to produce
more clean energy for the area.
Appropriation
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
Subtotal STAG
LUST
LUST
Subtotal, LUST
EPM (management
and oversight)
SF
IG
Total Available
Agency Total
Program Project
Description
Clean Water SRF
Drinking Water SRF
Diesel Emissions Grants
Brownfields

LUST Cooperative
Agreements
LUST / UST


Superfund: Remedial
Audits, Evaluations, &
Investigations


Total
Appropriation
$3,979,533,000
$1,969,467,000
$294,000,000
$96,500,000
$6,339,500,000
$190,700,000
$6,300,000
$197,000,000
$81,000,000
$582,000,000
$20,000,000
$7,179,250,000
$7,220,000,000
Expenditures
$95,967,335
$44,785,513
$4,709,930
$214,140
$145,676,918
$658,068
$0
$658,068
$7,508,785
$38,983,006
$1,629,241
$194,456,018
$194,456,018
Total Obligated
YTD
$3,971,936,532
$1,969,467,000
$293,996,311
$82,270,596
$6,317,670,439
$190,226,145
$1,347,022
$191,573,167
$12,463,042
$564,688,210
$1,767,626
$7,088,162,484
$7,088,162,484
Percent
Obligated
99.8%
100.0%
100.0%
85.3%
99.7%
99.8%
21.4%
97.2%
15.3%
97.0%
8.8%
98.7%
98.2%
Percent
Expended
2.4%
2.3%
1.6%
0.2%
2.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
9.2%
6.7%
8.1%
2.7%
2.7%
                                   Section I - Page 35

-------
            Recovery Act Funding for a Cleaner, Healthier Environment
                             EPA Program Highlights
Water Projects. In FY 2009, EPA awarded $86,811,000 to the New York State
Department of Health. The Recovery Act funds will help New York state and local
governments finance many overdue improvements to water projects that are essential to
protecting public health and the environment.

Brownfields Program. EPA awarded at $200,000 Brownfields cleanup grant to the Town
of Sanford to cleanup the Sanford Mill site. The mill is located in the downtown area of
Sanford and the site will be redeveloped for mixed-use commercial and housing. EPA
awarded approximately $87 million in recovery funds for: 104 assessment grants, 39
cleanup grants, 3 Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants, 14 new Job training grants, and
supplemental funds to more than 40 existing RLF  recipients.

Clean Diesel. The East Tennessee Clean Fuels Coalition  was awarded $581,849 to
reduce emissions from truck stop engine idling. This clean diesel project will create jobs
while  protecting East Tennessee's air quality. The project involves installing 50 truck
electrified parking spaces to reduce nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter emissions
caused by truck drivers who idle the heavy-duty long haul  trucks while resting. An
estimated 270 tons of nitrogen oxides and 7.8 tons of fine  particulate matter will be reduced
over a 10-year period. In addition to creating or retaining some 40 jobs, the clean diesel
projects will reduce premature deaths,  asthma attacks, and other respiratory ailments
every year.

Superfund Cleanups. By day 200 after passage of the Recovery Act, EPA had met its
goal of initiating or accelerating cleanup work at 20 of the contaminated Superfund sites on
the National Priorities List and had obligated more than $400 million to accelerate ongoing
cleanup activities or initiate new construction projects. Superfund sites are often found in
industrial areas hit hardest by the recession. Additional Superfund cleanup work  made
possible through Recovery Act funding will boost local economies by creating and
maintaining jobs and protecting communities and the environment from unacceptable risks.

Underground Storage Tank Cleanups. EPA awarded $1,436,000 to Maine to assess and
clean  up underground storage tank leaks of petroleum. Maine has expeditiously begun
spending Recovery Act funds and in the last quarter of FY 2009 initiated over a half dozen
assessments and cleanups. This money is part of $200 million appropriated under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to address shovel-ready sites
nationwide contaminated by petroleum from leaking underground storage tank sites.

 For more information on EPA and the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, visit
                       www.epa.gov/recovery/index.html.
                               Section I - Page 36

-------
       FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION

EPA's Sound Financial Management: Good for the Environment, Good for the Nation

EPA continues to carry out its mission to protect human health and 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.

•  Audit opinion. For the 10th consecutive year, EPA's OIG issued an unqualified or "clean"
   opinion on the Agency'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 Agency's numbers are reliable.

•  Compliance with federal financial systems requirements.  EPA is compliant with the
   Federal  Financial Management Improvement Act, meaning that the Agency'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 the use of Agency resources.

•  President's Quality Award.  In December 2008, 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.

•  Recovery Act. EPA developed a Stewardship Plan, which is an Agency-level  risk mitigation
   tool that identifies the Agency's Recovery Act risk assessment, internal controls, and
   monitoring activities. The Agency developed tracking  mechanisms to distinguish resources,
   obligations, and outlays incurred under the Recovery  Act from similar transactions funded by
   annual appropriations.

In addition to these accomplishments, EPA has made significant achievements in  FY 2009, a
few of which are highlighted below:

•  Balanced checkbook. EPA's checkbook is balanced—the Agency 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.

•  Financial performance. EPA improved monitoring of the Working Capital Fund operating
   results and achieved a  break-even goal with a nominal profit that is less than 1 percent of
   revenues. The Agency  minimized FY 2009 service rate increases and reduced or held
   constant two-thirds of service rates.

•  Indirect rate on interagency agreements. During FY 2009, agreements under the Oil Spill
   Act, the  Economy Act, and Cooperation Authorities collected approximately $1.5 million in
   indirect costs.

•  Timely payments. EPA paid 99.79 percent of its invoices on time and avoided late payment
   penalties. Its improper payment rate was less than 0.06 percent, which means that the right
   amount was paid to the right recipient in nearly every  instance.
                                  Section I - Page 37

-------
•  Expired Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs). During FY 2009, EPA was able to achieve
   ULOs as a percentage of total obligations in expired grants equal to no more than 10
   percent. The Agency also out-performed its annual reduction target of 20 percent for ULOs
   in expired contracts. As a result of EPA's financial data management and reporting efforts,
   the Agency has reduced ULOs by $89.8 million since FY 2006.

•  Allocation Transfers. EPA (Parent Agency) coordinated with the Department of Interior
   (Child Agency) for the return of over $1.1 million in Allocation Transfer funds to the
   Superfund account.

EPA's  Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2009

EPA's  Balance Sheet and Statement of Net Cost Highlight EPA's Overall Financial
Condition

Financial statements are formal financial records that document EPA's activities at the
transaction level, 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, and other potential liabilities; or other reportable financial
activities.

EPA prepares four consolidated statements:  1) Balance Sheet, 2) Statement of Net Cost, 3)
Statement of Changes in Net Position, 4) 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 report.

The Balance Sheet displays assets, liabilities, and net position as of September 30, 2009, and
September 30, 2008. 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.
(Dollars in
Billions)
Total Assets
Total Liabilities
Net Position
Net Cost of
Operations
FY 2009
$ 24,376,273
$ 2,170,782
$ 22,205,491
$ 8,147,351
Restated
FY 2008
$ 17,257,851
$ 1,866,843
$ 15,391,008
$ 7,999,546
Increase
(Decrease)
41%
16%
44%
2%
                                   Section I - Page 38

-------
Assets—What EPA Owns and Manages

EPA's assets were worth $24 billion at the end
of FY 2009. More than 92 percent of EPA's
assets fall 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.
Liabilities—What EPA
Owes
          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.
                              16-,
                              12-
                              10-
                              6-
                      D Fund Balance with
                       Treasury

                      • Investments
                                                                         D All Other
EPA's liabilities were $2
billion at the end of FY
2009, an increase of $304
million from the FY 2008
level. EPA's largest liability,
its combined accounts
payable and accrued
liabilities, includes $942
million and represents 43
percent of what the Agency
owes. The next largest
category, representing 26
percent of EPA's liabilities, covers Superfund cashout advances which include funds paid by
EPA to fund cleanup of contaminated sites under the Superfund program. The remaining two
categories represent 31  percent of the Agency's liabilities. Payroll and benefits payable include
salaries, pensions, and other actuarial liabilities. Other liabilities include EPA's debt due to
Treasury, custodial liabilities which are necessary to maintain assets for which EPA serves as
custodian, environmental cleanup costs, and other miscellaneous liabilities. The charts below
compare FY 2008 and FY 2009 liabilities by major categories.
                                                                        Dollars in billions.
                                      2008
                                                      2009
                   FY2008
                                ] Accounts Payable and
                                Accrued Liabilities
                               • Cashout Advances,
                                Superfund

                               D Payroll and Benefits
                                Payable

                               D Other Liabilities
                                                                FY 2009
                                    Section I - Page 39

-------
Net Cost of Operations—How EPA Used Its Funds

The charts below show how EPA divided its funds among its five program goal areas in FY
2009 and FY 2008:
                  FY 2009  Net Cost by Goal
                       $814,243
                         10%
             D $1,342,869
                  16%
               O $1,525,964
                   19%
 D $1,043,780
     13%
      D $3,420,495
          42%
        Source: FY 2009 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
              Q CLEAN AIR
              • CLEAN & SAFE WATER
              0 LAND PRESERVATION
              D HEALTHY COM M & ECOSYSTEM S
              • COMPLIANCE
                    FY 2008 Net Cost by Goal
                       $762,888
                         10%
D $977,400
    12%
              D $1,346,414
                  17%
               D $1,425,668
                   18%
    • $3,487,176
         43%
       Source: FY2008 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                Q CLEAN AIR

                • CLEAN & SAFE WATER
                D LAND PRESERVATION

                D HEALTHY COM M & ECOSYSTEM S
                • COMPLIANCE
 Goal areas: clean air and global climate change, clean and safe water, land preservation and
    restoration, healthy communities and ecosystems, and compliance and environmental
                                  stewardship.
                                Section I - Page 40

-------
Responsible Financial Stewardship

EPA serves as a steward on behalf of the American people. In FY 2009, EPA devoted $3.3
billion to its stewardship activities, as shown in the pie chart below.
                             Stewardship Numbers
                                 (Dollars in thousands)
                    D $720,182
                       22.04%
                                   D $323, 0.01%
           D $53,723, 1.64%
D Land


• Infrastructure


D Human Capital


D Research and
  Development
                                                      $2,493,814 ,
                                                       76.31%
•  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 $2.5 billion to
   projects to ensure that Americans have clean, safe drinking water.

•  Research and development activities enable EPA to identify the most important sources of
   risk to human health and the environment. This critical research investment helps ensure
   the scientific integrity of EPA's efforts to protect children's health and at-risk communities,
   drinking water, and the nation's ecosystems. Further, the Agency's integral toxicology
   research leverages millions of dollars from outside organizations, resulting in more efficient
   and timely research.

•  Human capital includes EPA's educational outreach and research fellowships, both
   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 since its quality is well below any usable and
   manageable standards. 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.
                                   Section I - Page 41

-------
A detailed discussion of this information is available in the Required Supplementary
Stewardship Information located in Section III, Financial Statements, on page 111-63.

Financial Management Challenges

During the financial statement audit, OIG identified three material weaknesses, one relating to
prior year obligation transfers in the Superfund Special Accounts, another to recording of prior
year accounts receivable for a bankruptcy settlement, and the third regarding FY 2009
calculations used to reconcile unearned revenue for Superfund State Contract (SSC) costs.
EPA has already taken steps to correct the prior year weaknesses by restating its FY 2008
financial statements. The Agency expects to complete the remaining corrective actions for
these weaknesses in fiscal year 2010.

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 land, water, air, and ecosystem issues.

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 skills to meet tomorrow's financial challenges:

•  EPA constantly trains its people in financial analysis and forecasting, in addition to
   processes. Staff needs not only to understand the financial data but also 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.

Systems: EPA's Integrated Financial Management System has served the Agency well for 19
years, but the system is not able to accommodate new technology. EPA's new system, CGI
Momentum, is targeted to launch in early FY 2012. This reflects a one-year delay as the Agency
re-baselined the project through the IT Investment Subcommittee and the Office of Management
and Budget. 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) Web site, 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 2009, the Agency continued to maintain its green status in eight of the nine
performance metrics. The red rating on the "Delinquent Accounts Receivable From the Public
                                   Section I - Page 42

-------
Over 180 Days" metric is a long-standing issue which EPA is addressing internally and
externally. Although improvement is being realized through litigation debt collections made by
the Department of Justice on EPA's behalf, EPA plans to review internal debts with high dollar
values or inactive collection activity to determine and remedy obstacles that may be preventing
collection.
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 180
Days
Rating
September
2008
^
X
Rating
September
2009
^
X
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 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 should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the
U.S. government, a sovereign entity.
                                   Section I - Page 43

-------
                IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS

Office of Inspector General Audits, Reviews, and Investigations

EPA's 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; developing recommendations for
improvements and cost savings; and providing oversight and advisory assistance in helping
EPA carry out its Recovery Act objectives. In FY 2009, OIG identified key management
challenges and internal control weaknesses and provided recommendations accounting for
more than $83 million in potential savings and recoveries. Appendix A lists OIG program
evaluations and reviews completed in FY 2009 in support of each of the Agency's five strategic
goals.

OIG also contributes to the integrity of and public confidence in the Agency's programs and to
the security of its resources by preventing and detecting possible fraud, waste, and abuse and
pursuing judicial and administrative remedies. For example, in response to OIG
recommendations, the Agency deobligated $6.5 million in unliquidated obligations and
established various procedures for monitoring interagency agreements to ensure that they are
closed out timely and that unneeded  funds are deobligated.

Grants Management

EPA has met or exceeded major performance metrics under its Grants Management Plan,
including grant closeout and competition goals.

Based on the substantial  progress made over the past seven years, the Agency has 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 eligible
grants closed out
Percentage of new grants
subject to the competition
policy that are competed
Target
99%
90%
90%
Progress in FY 2008
99.7% in 2006 and earlier
95.5% in 2007
95%
Progress in FY 2009
99.6% in 2007 and earlier
92.9% in 2008
97%
Data Quality

EPA's 2009 performance data are complete and reliable. There continue to be predictable
delays in obtaining data, often due to the time-intensive work involved in collecting, analyzing,
and quality-checking environmental monitoring data. Missing data, however, are provided on a
consistent schedule, and the data tables included in Section II of this report provide the date the
performance result will be available.

EPA often uses third party data, including state-generated data, for measuring performance. An
important means for catching potential errors in data is to obtain stakeholder feedback. EPA has
a formal error correction process in place to investigate and react to public notification of errors
in its publications, including this Performance and Accountability Report.
                                  Section I - Page 44

-------
EPA has made exciting progress in documenting how it verifies and validates environmental
achievements, largely spurred by public expectations for reporting Recovery Act-funded results.
The Agency developed an electronic data quality record, to be completed for each performance
result, which describes quality assurance/quality control procedures in place and assigns
individual and organizational responsibility for certifying the quality and reliability of the data.
The electronic data quality record was developed in consideration of the full intent of EPA's
Quality Policy and Information Quality Guidelines. Data quality records will be available for
future Performance and Accountability Reports.

Section II of this report provides examples of trends for some measures. These examples
display annual targets in relation to performance results (highlighting exceptions where targets
were missed) and show progress from a baseline to a long-term goal. The examples discuss
data quality as it may affect the trend, clarify what the data convey, and identify any limitations.
The discussion may provide details about data collection, analysis, assumptions, and known
biases, when such information is important for interpreting the trend, and the effect of the trend
on human health and the environment. Historical data are particularly useful in illustrating the
Agency's progress over time.
                                    Section I - Page 45

-------
  EPA HOLDS ITSELF ACCOUNTABLE: SYSTEMS, CONTROLS, AND
                             LEGAL COMPLIANCE

Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act

The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires agencies to conduct an annual
evaluation of their internal controls over programs (FMFIA Section 2) and financial systems
(FMFIA Section 4) and report the results to the President and Congress. In addition, 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 OMB Circular A-123.

Every year, all of EPA's national program and Regional offices conduct assessments and
submit annual assurance letters attesting to the soundness of the internal controls within their
organizations. These assurance letters provide
the basis for the Administrator's annual
statement of assurance on the adequacy of
EPA's internal controls over programmatic
operations and financial systems. The
Administrator's FY 2009 statement of assurance
is provided below. Based on the results of the
Agency's FY 2009 evaluation, the Administrator
can provide reasonable assurance on the
adequacy and effectiveness of EPA's internal
controls over programs and financial systems.
                                                          Material and Agency Weaknesses
                                                              Remaining at Year End
                                                                         n Material
                                                                                 Agency
                                                                               ffl
                                                     2000  2001  2002 2003  2004 2005  2006 2007  2008  2009
To evaluate its internal controls over financial
reporting (as required by OMB Circular A-123,
Appendix A), the Agency reviewed 10 key
financial processes and tested 235 key controls.
During its financial statement audit process,
OIG identified several incongruities in the
reporting of unearned revenue and accounts receivable that are required to be reported as
material weaknesses. EPA has already taken steps to correct these weaknesses and expects to
complete the remaining corrective actions by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2010.
Based on the results of this evaluation and the OIG's findings, the Administrator can provide
reasonable assurance that, with the exception of the weaknesses noted, EPA's internal controls
over financial reporting were operating effectively.
                                  Section I - Page 46

-------
Management Assurances
                             Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Assurance Statement
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) management is responsible for establishing and
 maintaining effective internal control and financial management systems that meet the objectives of the
 Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).  EPA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of
 internal control over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and
 regulations in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control.

 Based on the results of this evaluation, no material  weaknesses were found in the design or operation  of the
 Agency's internal controls over programmatic operations and no financial management system non-
 conformances were identified. Therefore, I can provide reasonable assurance that as of September 30,
 2009, the Agency's internal controls over programmatic operations were operating effectively and the
 financial systems conform to government-wide standards.

 In addition, EPA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting,
 which includes safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance
 with the requirements of Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123. Based on the results of this evaluation, no
 material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting  as of
 June 30, 2009. Subsequently, during the financial statement audit process, the Agency's Inspector General
 identified several incongruities in the reporting of unearned revenue and accounts receivable that are
 required to be reported as material weaknesses. EPA has already taken steps to  correct these weaknesses
 by restating its FY 2008 financial statements. The Agency expects to complete the remaining corrective
 actions by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. As a result, I can provide reasonable assurance
 that, except for the unearned revenue and accounts receivable weaknesses, EPA's internal controls over
 financial reporting were operating effectively as of September 30, 2009, and no other material weaknesses
 were found in the design or operation of the internal controls over financial reporting.
               Lisa P. Jackson
               Administrator
                                                 EPA's FY 2009 Key Management Challenges
                                                  Identified by the Office of Inspector General
EPA is also addressing a number of less
severe Agency-level weaknesses and
significant deficiencies. Corrective actions are
underway to address five Agency-level
weaknesses and one significant deficiency. In
FY 2009, the Agency closed two Agency-level
weaknesses—Key Applications Need Security
Controls and Redistribution of Superfund
Payments, both identified in FY 2007—and one
significant deficiency—Superfund State Cost
Share, identified in FY 2006 as part of EPA's
review of internal controls over financial
reporting.  (Details about the actions that EPA
has taken to correct these issues, as well as
corrective actions underway to rectify remaining Agency-level weaknesses, are discussed under
"Management Challenges and  Integrity Weaknesses" in Section IV of this report.) EPA will
continue to monitor progress in correcting these issues until they are resolved. The
                                                 1.
                                                 2.
                                                 3.
                                                 4.
                                                 5.
                                                 6.
                                                 7.
                                                 8.
                                                 9.
                                                 10.
Management of Stimulus Funds
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Performance Measurement
Threat and Risk Assessment
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Oversight of Delegation of States
Chesapeake Bay Program
Voluntary Programs
State Reuse of Contaminated Sites
                                     Section I - Page 47

-------
accompanying graph depicts EPA's progress in correcting its material and Agency-level
weaknesses since 2001.

EPA continues to emphasize the importance of maintaining effective internal controls. Beginning
in FY 2010, the Agency will conduct internal program compliance reviews to help inform and
strengthen its  FMFIA implementation. Additionally, the Agency plans to develop and deliver
training, which will include tools and materials to help Agency managers and staff in fulfilling
their roles and responsibilities for maintaining an effective internal controls program.

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) requires that agencies
implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with 1) federal financial
management system requirements, 2) applicable federal accounting standards, and 3) the U.S.
Government Standard General Ledger. Annually, agency heads are required to assess and
report on whether these systems comply with FFMIA.

EPA's FY 2009 assessment included the following:

•  A-127 survey results validated the effectiveness of controls examined in A-123 reviews.

•  The OIG's report on the FY 2009 financial statement audit showed no material weaknesses
   related to financial management systems.

•  The Agency's annual  Federal Information Security Management Act Report did not identify
   any material weaknesses.

•  The Agency  conducted other systems-related activities, including:

   o   Annual recertification  of user access to the Agency's accounting system.
   o   Completion of security self-assessments with the online Automated System Security
       Evaluation and Remediation Tracking (ASSERT) tool for the accounting system and the
       Superfund document  imaging system (SCORPIOS).
   o   Completion of Independent Verification and Validation by the Office of Environmental
       Information for the accounting system and SCORPIOS, which validated the integrity of
       the applications' internal control structure.

Based on the assessment described above, the Agency is in compliance with the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act for FY 2009.

Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988

EPA uses the  results of OIG 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 2009, for example, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
initiated the first in what will be a series of reviews of national program and Regional offices to
promote sound audit management and increase Agency awareness of, accountability for, and
completion of, outstanding unimplemented OIG recommendations.
                                  Section I - Page 48

-------
In FY 2009, EPA was responsible for addressing OIG recommendations and tracking follow-up
activities for 387 audits. The Agency achieved final action (completing all corrective actions
associated with the audit) on 153 audits, which included program evaluation/program
performance,  assistance agreement,  and single audits. This total excludes Defense Contract
Audit Agency  audits issued after January 1, 2009; these audits are discussed in a separate
section below. EPA's FY 2009 management activities for audits with associated dollars are
represented in the following table:
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
(34) and with better use funds (7)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed
costs (90) and with no better use funds (38)
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
(iii) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management
decided should/could not be completed
E. Audits without final action at end of period (C-D)
Disallowed Costs
(Financial
Number
63 $

124 $





187 $

122 $

$
$

$
$
$



65 $
Audits)
Value
63,447,950

3,790,009





67,237,959

1,776,103

148,187
589,969
0
1,037,947
0
0



65,461,856
Funds Put to
Better Use
(Performance Audits)
Number
10 $

45 $





55 $

31 $







$
$

24 $
Value
114,389,201

39,512,127





153,901,328

50,151,122







50,097,923
53,199

103,750,206
EPA's FY 2009 management activities for audits without final corrective action are summarized
below:

•  Final corrective action not taken. Of the 387 audits that EPA tracked, a total of 204
   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 2009. (The 30 audits with management decisions under administrative appeal by the
   grantee are not included in the 204 total; see discussion below.)

•  Final corrective action not taken beyond  one year. Of the 204 audits, EPA officials had
   not completed final action on 51 audits within one year after the management decision (the
   point at which OIG and  the Action Official reach agreement on the corrective action plan).
   Because the issues to be addressed may be complex, Agency managers often require more
   than one year after management decisions are reached with OIG to complete the agreed-on
   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/2009par.

   o   Audits of program performance. Final action for program performance audits occurs
       when all corrective actions have been implemented, which may require more than one
                                   Section I - Page 49

-------
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
2008-P00055  Emergency Response Business Plan

Office of Air
2005-P00010  Evaluation of CAA Title V Operating Permit Quality
2007-P00028  Effectiveness of Energy Star
2006-P00025  Mercury Hot Spots Analysis Under CAMR

Office of the Chief Financial Officer
2008-P00116  Superfund Expenditures at NPL TRA Sites

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
2001-P00013  State Enforcement Effectiveness—National Audit
2005-P00024  Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
2007-P00026  Status of Superfund Alternative Sites With No Signed Agreement
2007-P00027  Benchmarking Other Organizations Statistically Valid Compliance
2008-P00141  EPA Needs to Track Compliance w/SF Clean-up Requirements

Office of Environmental Information
2005-P00011  Remote Access Servers and Configurations Management
2007-P00007  Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
2007-P00008  EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe Software
2007-P00030  EPA's Implementation of Electronic Data Collection
2007-P00035  EPA's Protection of PI I  and Privacy Program

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
2006-P00009  Impact of Data Gaps on EPA's Implementation of FQPA

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response
2003-P00012  EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse
2006-P00013  SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
2006-P00016  EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
2006-P00038  Hurricane Katrina
2006-P00007  More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
2007-200003  Superfund Cooperative Agreement Obligations
2007-P00005  Review of RCRA Interim Status Permits
2007-P00002  Asbestos Cleanup in Libby Montana
2008-P00055  Emergency Response Business Plan

Office of Water
2002-P00012  Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
2004-P00030  EPA's Pretreatment Program
2006-P00016  EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
2006-P00007  More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
2007-P00036  Planning for Future TMDL Reviews
2008-P00083  AA—Tribal Grants Results
                           Section I - Page 50

-------
   Region 2
   2007-P00039 OIG Congressional Request-Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund
   2007-P00016 Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site

   Region 3
   2007-P00031 Chesapeake Bay Land Use
   2008-P00049 Chesapeake Bay Point Sources

o  Single audits. Final action for single audits occurs when non-monetary compliance
   actions are completed. Achieving final action may require more than a year if the
   findings are complex or 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 11 single audits
   for the period beginning  October 1, 2008.

   Region 9
   2006-300185 Guam Waterworks Authority FY 2004

   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
   2006-300085 Stevens Village Council FY 2003
   2006-300167 State of Alaska—FY  2003
   2006-300168 State of Alaska—FY  2004

o  Audits of assistance agreements. Reaching final action for assistance agreement audits
   may require more than one year, as the grantee may appeal, refuse to repay, or be
   placed on a repayment plan that spans several years. EPA is tracking three audits in this
   category:

   Office of Grants and Debarment
   2004-400014 Consumer Federation of America Foundation—Costs Claimed

   Region 3
   2001-100101 Center for Chesapeake Communities (CCC) Assist. Agreements

   Region 5
   2008-200039 Village of Laurelville, Ohio

o  Re-opened audits. During a recent review, OIG identified two audits for which Final
   Action was taken although all corrective actions had not been completed. As a result,
   these audits have been reactivated:

   Office of the Chief Financial Officer
   08-1-0032    Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated  Financial
                Statements
                               Section I - Page 51

-------
      Office of Environmental Information
      2004-P-00013 EPA's Administration of Network Firewalls Needs Improvement

   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 2009, 30 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.

Defense Contract Audit Agency Audits

Prior to January 1, 2009,  Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits of EPA contracts were
requested  by OIG and the results included in OIG's Semi-annual Report on Audits. EPA will
continue to track and report on these DCAA audits along with other OIG audits until they are
resolved and final action taken; they are included in the summary above. Beginning January 1,
2009, however, EPA's Office of Acquisition Management assumed responsibility for requesting
DCAA audits. Accordingly, these audits are now reported separately from OIG audits. Following
is an overview of DCAA audit activity for the 9-month period from January 1, 2009, through
September 30,  2009.

Summary of Audit Activities for the Period Ending September 30, 2009

During this reporting  period, EPA management was accountable for monitoring 23 DCAA audits.
The Agency achieved final action on four audits. EPA's FY 2009 management activities for
DCAA audits with associated dollars are represented in the following table:
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
(4)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed
costs (0)
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
(iii) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management
decided should/could not be completed
E. Audits without final action at end of period (C-D)
Disallowed Costs
(Financial Audits)
Number
0 $
4 $
4 $
4 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
0 $
Value
0
64,401
64,401
64,401
35,071
0
0
29,330
0
0
0
Funds Put to Better Use
(Performance Audits)
Number Value
0 $
0 $
0 $
0 $
$
$
0 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                  Section I - Page 52

-------
Final Corrective Action Not Taken on DCAA Audit Reports: Of the 23 DCAA audits EPA
tracked, a total of 19 audits were without final action and not yet fully resolved at the end of FY
2009.

DCAA Audits Awaiting Decision on Appeal: As of September 30, 2009, there were no
management decisions in administrative appeal status.
                                 Section I - Page 53

-------
                        EP>VsFY2009
         Performance and Accountability Report

                            Section II
                    Performance Results
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-B-09-001), published on November
16, 2009. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2009 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:
ncepimal@one.net.
                            Section II - Page 1

-------
              INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION

This section provides performance information for each of EPA's five strategic goals: 1) Clean
Air and Global Climate Change, 2) Clean and Safe Water, 3) Land Preservation and
Restoration, 4) Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and 5) Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship.

Each goal chapter is introduced by a "Goal at a Glance," which compares goal program costs
with those of other EPA goals and summarizes performance results—offering a snapshot of
overall progress. A discussion of the goal purpose follows; it describes the public benefits
provided, the Agency's progress toward achieving each of the strategic objectives supporting
the  goal, and the challenges we face.  This general information provides an overview of EPA's
FY 2009 performance and progress toward its longer-term goals and objectives. To exemplify
EPA's progress over time, this section also includes a brief discussion of data trends for a
selected performance measure.

An objective-by-objective discussion follows. For each objective, the discussion addresses the
performance measures achieved and the cost of the objective in comparison to the total goal
costs. Detailed performance information, including tables outlining FY2009 resources for the
program projects supporting the objective, is provided. Additional information related to the
objective, including a summary of grants, Web links, and program evaluation updates, appears
at the end of each  objective section.

EPA provides a table of performance results for each goal. 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 2006 through FY 2009 results for
each annual performance measure included in EPA's FY 2009 Annual Plan and Budget.
Explanations are included for missed or significantly exceeded targets or missing data.
Measures that are also being used to  assess the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009 are identified by an asterisk. For a full set of ARRA measures, please visit the
Web site: http://epa.gov/recovery/plans.html.
                                   Section II-Page 2

-------
                                       GOAL1  AT A GLANCE
                  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 emissions by enhancing partnerships with
  businesses and other sectors.
                                 How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                                         (Dollars in Thousand;)
         FY 2009
       Performance
         Measures

           Met = 2
         Not Met = 0

         Stewardship

         $605.240.6


and Ecosystems
 $1.455.733.9
    6%
Clean Air and Global
 Climate Change
  $ 1.3 76,040 J
        Data Available
     After 11/16/09 = 28
    (Total Measures = 30)
                                   Source: ?Y 30Q9 Siatement of Net Cost by Goal
                               Goal 1 FY 2009 Pe
                                                                            Goal I Performance Measures
                                                                                 (FY2QG9)
                          n      EL
                    Objective I C»|istl»y*2 Obt«lrve 3 Ol^-airo •» Ct^ectneS Qbft*irvt.



                             Goal I Performance Measure*
                                and Resource:
                               Strategic Objective
                                                     FY2009
                                                    Obligations
                                                   (in thousands)
                                                 %of
                                                 Goal 1
                                                 Funds
  Objective 1—Healthier Outdoor Air: Protect human health and the environment by attain-
  ing and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic
  air pollutants.
                                                     $992,246.6
                                                 72%
  Objective 2—Healthier Indoor Air: Healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
                                                      $51,319.3
                                                  4%
  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.
                                                      $19,174.1
                                                  1%
  Objective 4—Radiation: Working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radia-
  tion and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should
  unwanted releases occur.
                                                      $43,174.4
                                                  3%
  Objective 5—Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Through EPA's voluntary climate protec-
  tion programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annu-
  ally to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by 2012.
                                                     $151,512.3
                                                  11%
  Objective 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.
                                                     $118,613.4
                                                  9%
  Goal 1 Total
                                                    $1,376,040.1
                                                 100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 1
                                           Section II - Page 3

-------
Goal Purpose

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 high levels of 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, and 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 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 specialized 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 funding. In its 2008 Report to Congress on the  Benefits and Costs of Federal
Regulations, the federal government looked back at 10 years of major rules  and found 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 change will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the changes 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 critical parts 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
continues to participate actively in developing international stratospheric ozone protection
policies.
                                   Section II - Page 4

-------
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.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Reduction of Air Emissions

For almost four decades, EPA and state programs have successfully reduced air emissions of
harmful pollutants during a period of 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.
140%
120% -


100%-


 80% -


 60%-


 40% -


 20%-


  0%


-20% -


-40% -
-60%
f

                                             126%
                                    91%
              32%
                                    34%
                       29%
                                             -54%
                                                                        Gross Domestic Product
                                                              Aggregate Emissions
                                                              (Six Common Pollutants)
                I   I            I         I      I

    80  90  95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03 04 05 06 07 08
                                   Section II - Page 5

-------
Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
               FY2009 Obligations: Objective 1.1
                         (in thousands)
                    Objective 6
             Objective 5
         Objective 4
         Objective 3j

         Objective
                                 Objective 1
                                  $992,246.6
                                    72%
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.1

       Met = 0
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
November 16, 2009 = 16
      (Total = 16)
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, and 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 FY 2009, after a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA
issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger
public health or welfare. The proposed finding identified six greenhouse gases that are at
unprecedented  concentrations as a result of human emissions  and pose a potential threat to
current and future generations—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.  EPA completed a public comment period in June,
receiving more than 400,000 comments, and expects to issue a final finding in FY 2010.

Air Quality Standards for Lead: EPA dramatically strengthened the nation's air quality
standards for lead, improving public health  protection, especially for children. New standards
issued in November 2008 tighten the allowable lead level in ambient air by  10 times, to 0.15
micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air (ug/m3). (Previously,  1978 standards set levels at 1.5
ug/m3.)  EPA strengthened the standards after thoroughly reviewing the science on lead,
soliciting advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and considering public
comments.
                                    Section II - Page 6

-------
EPA's action, which marks the first change in the lead standards in 30 years, sets two
standards: a primary standard at 0.15 |jg/m3 to protect health, and a secondary standard at the
same level to protect the public welfare, including the environment. Because the existing
monitoring network for lead was not sufficient to  determine whether many areas of the country
meet the revised standards, EPA also finalized new requirements for a revised monitoring
network to assess compliance. No later than October 2011, EPA will designate areas that must
take additional steps to reduce lead air emissions. States have five years to meet these new
standards after designations take effect.

Schools Air Toxics Monitoring: As part of a new air toxics monitoring initiative, in 2009, EPA
and 22 states began collecting air monitoring information in communities near 63 schools to
determine whether certain pollutants in outdoor air around the selected schools might pose a
health concern for school-age children, school staff, or the surrounding community. EPA and its
state and local partners are sampling outdoor air near selected schools over 60 days, analyzing
the samples, and reporting on levels of air toxics found and their potential for long-term health
impacts. The results of this work will help EPA identify follow-up action that may be needed to
ensure that nearby industries are in compliance with clean air regulations.

Increasing the Supply of Renewable Fuels: In FY 2009, EPA issued a proposed rule detailing
its strategy for implementing the revised national renewable fuel standards as mandated under
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In 2022, when fully implemented, EPA
estimated that the greater volumes of biofuel  mandated by the revised national renewable fuel
standards would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by a total of
approximately 150 to 160 million tons per year (carbon dioxide equivalent emissions) and
displace about 11 percent of annual gasoline and diesel consumption.

Decreasing Diesel Emissions: Authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA's Diesel
Emissions Reduction Program is a multi-faceted grant program aimed at lowering diesel
emissions from the 20  million diesel engines currently existing in this country. In FY 2009, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act, or ARRA) provided $300 million, in
addition to the $60  million provided in FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act,  in new funding for
national and state programs to support a variety  of cost-effective technologies that can
dramatically reduce harmful emissions,  save fuel, and help  the nation  meet its  clean air and
sustainability goals. In  addition to saving and creating jobs and stimulating the  economy, these
Recovery Act projects  will reduce criteria pollutants, air toxics, and pollution by many thousands
of tons.

Emissions From Ships: In 2009, EPA proposed a rule under the  Clean Air Act that sets tough
engine and fuel standards for U.S. flagged ships, harmonizing with international standards and
leading to significant air quality improvements throughout the country. The proposal  is part of a
coordinated strategy to slash harmful emissions  from ocean-going vessels.

The  rule follows a March 2009 proposal by the United States and Canada to designate
thousands of miles of the two countries' coasts as an Emission Control Area. The International
Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency, is considering the plan,  which would result in
stringent standards for large ships operating within 200 nautical miles  off the coasts of Canada
and the United States.

Air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships,  is expected to grow rapidly as
port traffic increases. By 2030, this domestic and international strategy is expected to reduce
                                   Section II - Page 7

-------
annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons
and particulate matter emissions by about 143,000 tons. When fully implemented, the
coordinated effort would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent and particulate
emissions by 85 percent, compared to current emissions.

Emission reductions from the proposed coordinated strategy would yield significant health and
welfare benefits reaching beyond U.S. ports and coastlines to inland areas. EPA estimates that
by 2030, this effort would prevent between 13,000 and 33,000 premature deaths, 1.5 million lost
work days, and 10 million minor restricted-activity days. The estimated annual health benefits in
2030 as a result of reduced air pollution are valued between $110 billion and $280 billion at an
annual projected cost of approximately $3.1 billion. The 2030 benefits outweigh  the costs by at
least a factor of 32 and could be by as much as a factor of 90.

The proposed rulemaking is designed to reflect the International Maritime Organization's
stringent emission control area standards and broader worldwide program. The  rule adds two
new tiers of nitrogen oxide standards and strengthens EPA's existing diesel fuel program for
these ships.  It represents another milestone in EPA's decade-long effort under the National
Clean Diesel Campaign to reduce pollution from  new and existing diesel engines.

Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program: More than 102 million Americans  are breathing
cleaner air due to decreases in smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). In 20 eastern
states and the District of Columbia, 2008 summertime NOx emissions from power plants and
industrial sources were down by 62 percent compared to 2000 levels (before the trading
program was implemented) and by 75 percent compared to 1990 levels (before  the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments were implemented).

The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program is a market-based cap-and-trade partnership
between federal and state governments to reduce the regional transport of NOx during the
ozone season. It provides facilities  with flexibility to choose control options, such as installing
control technologies, optimizing existing controls, and switching fuels. Stringent  monitoring,
reporting, and automatic penalties have led to a compliance rate of more than 99 percent.

The program has helped improve air quality in 95 percent of nonattainment areas in eastern
states, with 64 percent of these areas now below the ozone standard. Total NOx emissions
emitted by trading program sources during the 2008 ozone season were 9 percent below the
2008 regional cap of 528,000 tons. The average NOx emission rate1 for the 10 highest electric
demand days2 has fallen consistently every year of the program, from 0.277 pounds  per million
British thermal units  (Ib/mmBtu) in the initial 2003 season to 0.156 Ib/mmBtu in 2008. High
electric demand days often coincide with National Ambient Air Quality Standards exceedences.

EPA and state and local programs  have been contributing to the decrease in NOx and  ozone
levels since 1990. The NOx trading program has contributed the most to improved ozone levels
since 2003. In 2009, the NOx trading program was replaced by the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) NOx ozone season program, which started requiring emission reductions in an
expanded geographic area on May 1, 2009.
1 Emission rate is the measure of how much pollutant (NOx) is emitted from a combustion units compared
to the amount of energy (heat input) used. A lower emission rate represents a cleaner operating unit—
one that is emitting fewer pounds of NOx per unit of fuel consumed.
2 Electric demand is measured as aggregate megawatt hours of generation for all nitrogen trading
program sources in the region.


                                   Section II - Page 8

-------
Acid Rain Program: Established under Title IV of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Acid
Rain Program requires the electric power industry to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and NOx, the primary precursors of acid  rain. Emission reductions achieved through the
program thus far have led to important environmental and public health benefits, including:

•  Reductions of 9.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide from the 1980 baseline and 3.7 million tons of
   nitrogen oxides from the 1990 baseline.

•  Reductions in acid deposition from the 1990 baseline of at least 35 percent for sulfur and 15
   percent for nitrogen.

•  Measurable  progress toward recovery from acidification in fresh water lakes and streams.

•  Improved visibility and reduced risk to forests, materials, and structures.

A national cap-and-trade program, the Acid Rain Sulfur Dioxide Program, is an acclaimed model
for cost-effective market-based air pollution control. It sets a permanent cap on the total amount
of SO2 that may be emitted by electric generating units in the contiguous United States. The
phased-in program sets the final 2010 SO2 cap at 8.95 million tons, a level about one-half of the
emissions from the power sector in 1980. Under the program, sources reduced annual SO2
emissions by 56 percent compared to 1980 levels and 52 percent compared to 1990 levels.

In 2008, the most recent year for which EPA has data, total annual SO2 emissions from affected
electric generating units totaled 7.6 million tons, already below the statutory cap set for 2010.
The sharp decrease in SO2 emissions during 2008, a 15-percent decline from 2007, is due
primarily to a large increase in the number of facilities employing flue gas desulfurization
(scrubbers). The number of units with scrubbers climbed by 20 percent, from 246 in 2007 to 295
in 2008, most likely reflecting early compliance planning for the CAIR program. Banked pre-
CAIR vintage Acid Rain Program allowances (i.e., for 2009 and earlier) can be used to offset
emissions on a 1:1  basis in 2010 and beyond for CAIR compliance, whereas Acid Rain Program
allowances with later vintage years are subject to increased retirement ratios under CAIR (i.e.,
2:1 in 2010 through 2014). Both the Acid Rain  Sulfur Dioxide Program and the Nitrogen Oxides
Budget Trading  Program achieved 100 percent compliance for 2008.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 1: Objective 1 -Healthier Outdoor Air
Program Project
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
FY 2007
Obligations
$205,599.0
$11,175.5
$27,339.6
$619.6
FY 2008
Obligations
$232,504.1
$11,724.9
$28,838.0
$2,357.7
FY 2009
Obligations
$227,877.6
$13,659.5
$31,569.1
$929.7
                                   Section II - Page 9

-------
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Program Project
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
Recovery Act Management and Oversight
Total
$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
$0.0
$601,207.6
$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
$9,265.3
$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
$5,134.3
$252.9
$573.0
$296.1
$2,962.1
$6,979.6
$29,798.9
$1,738.1
$0.0
$685,982.5
$29,588.3
$105,849.5
$26,353.0
$77,376.0
$828.6
$2,426.1
$2,587.6
$395.4
$473.1
$162.2
$11,544.8
($5.2)
$1,092.7
$4,333.3
$3,546.6
$52,145.1
$4,154.5
$5,689.6
$701.0
$33,612.5
$5,307.1
$1,797.3
$3,698.1
$265.2
$510.4
$231.8
$3,474.1
($329.3)
$337,772.9
$1,775.1
$853.4
$992,246.7
              Additional Information Relating to Goal 1, Objective 1
EPA Web Site
Information:
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/
                                Section II-Page 10

-------
Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 1.2
                        (in thousands)
                     Objective 6
            Objective 5
          Objective 4

          Objective 3

     Objective 2
     $51,319.3
       4%
                                           Objective 1
                 Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.2

        Met = 0
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 5
      (Total = 5)
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., the American Medical Association and 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.

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—approximately 40,000—have effective indoor air quality management programs in
place that are grounded in  EPA's program guidance.3 In FY 2007, the most recent year for
which the Agency has data, 1,300 additional schools began implementing indoor air quality
management programs based on the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program.

Environmental Asthma Triggers: Asthma is a respiratory disease that affects more than 22
million Americans, including 6.8 million children, and which in some cases can  be serious or
even life-threatening. Over the past 30 years rates of asthma rose sharply, particularly among
 Everett Jones, Alisa Smith, Lani Wheeler, and Tim McManus (2009). School Policies and Practices That
Improve Indoor Air Quality. Journal of School Health (in press).
                                   Section II - Page 11

-------
children aged 5 to 14, but rates now appear to be leveling off.4 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,  the latest year for which the Agency has data,
an estimated 4.5 million people took all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers, thereby avoiding  approximately 64,000 emergency room visits
annually. EPA exceeded its goals in FY 2007 and is on track to meet its  FY 2008 goals.
Performance data for FY 2008 will be available in 2009; FY 2009 data will be available  in 2012.

Radon Exposure: 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.5 EPA's indoor radon
program promotes voluntary action to reduce risks from radon. EPA estimates that in FY 2007
(the most recent year for which the Agency has complete data), retrofitting homes with  radon
mitigation systems and building homes with radon-resistant techniques—two voluntary  actions
encouraged by the Agency—could prevent about 700 premature deaths from lung cancer.

Radon is an invisible radioactive gas that travels  up from underground sources of uranium and
seeps into homes undetected through foundation cracks. Radon can reach harmful  levels if
trapped indoors. EPA estimates that 1 in 15 homes has a radon level of 4 picocuries per liter
(pCi/L) of air or more in the living area of the home. Four picocuries  per liter is the level at or
above which EPA recommends remediation action definitely be taken, due to the very high
lifetime risks of exposure to these levels and the  straight-forward and very cost-effective
mitigation methods available. Through Radon Leaders Saving Lives, EPA is working with the
American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, the Conference of Radiation
Control Program  Directors, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,  and radon
professionals  across the country to reduce the radon risk in existing and new homes. Radon
preventive actions have prevented an estimated  6,000 premature deaths from lung  cancer in
the last 20 years, and EPA's goal is to double that number over the next five years.  At the 2008
national radon meeting, Radon Leaders Saving Lives partners unveiled a new Web portal
(www.radonleaders.org) to facilitate achieving the 2012 goal. EPA launched a new "green"-
themed public service campaign during National  Radon Action Month in  January 2009.
Information on this campaign is available at: www.epa.gov/radon/nram/index.html.

Radon Program Challenges: In a June 2008 report (Report No. 08-P-0174),  EPA's Office of
Inspector General recommended that EPA identify limitations in the  authorities authorized by
Congress, as  well as other limitations that would  preclude achieving the  long-term Indoor Radon
Abatement Act goal, and report these limitations  to Congress as  appropriate. EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation does not believe the current statutory goal is technologically feasible. The office
is developing  an updated strategy that considers an  alternative goal and alternative approaches
for increasing progress on radon.

Further, in May 2009 (Report No. 09-P-0151), the Office of Inspector General concluded that
"EPA does not provide oversight of radon testing accuracy and reliability." While EPA agrees
with the Office of Inspector General's finding that unreliable testing procedures would limit the
Agency's ability to achieve the goals of the program,  EPA's measurement recommendations
4 See the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Asthma Web site at: www.cdc.gov/asthma/.
5 See EPA's Radon Health Risks Web page at www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html. Also see: EPA.
(2003, June). EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, EPA-402-R-03-003, at:
www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/402-r-03-003.pdf.
                                   Section II-Page 12

-------
raise the probability that high homes will be identified and fixed. Accuracy and reliability reside
in the overall measurement approach, designed to maximize the amount of public risk reduction
as well as the need for test devices that are easy to obtain, inexpensive, and simple to
administer.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures exactly due
to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Indoor Air: Asthma Program
Indoor Air: Environment Tobacco Smoke
Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace
Program
International Capacity Building
Research: Air Toxics
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
FY 2007
Obligations
$7,314.2
$0.0
$0.0
$72.5
$176.8
($74.7)
($11.9)
$5,614.3
($54.6)
$30.8
($548.4)
$38.7
$9.4
$776.0
$73.6
$326.1
$269.0
$4,694.0
$255.0
$405.6
$49.4
$3,199.3
$365.6
$120.0
$274.5
$22.2
$37.5
$18.5
FY 2008
Obligations
$10,032.1
($9.7)
$0.0
$58.6
$151.0
($107.6)
($26.9)
$5,735.4
($108.8)
$3.2
($30.3)
$45.1
$11.0
$1,042.7
$76.0
$339.4
$189.9
$4,288.1
$303.1
$406.6
$66.1
$2,858.4
$385.1
$134.5
$384.4
$20.8
$44.2
$22.8
FY 2009
Obligations
$8,415.3
$0.0
($5.4)
$64.9
$182.6
$10.7
$5.0
$5,770.5
$12.7
$1.8
($21.2)
$37.0
$12.7
$1,294.1
$85.8
$354.3
$251.7
$4,464.6
$325.2
$431.9
$52.3
$2,854.9
$426.5
$144.1
$170.5
$22.0
$40.0
$18.1
                                   Section II-Page 13

-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$528.6
$22,586.9
$135.7
$46,704.6
$602.3
$24,673.5
$133.9
$51,724.9
$646.0
$25,111.7
$139.0
$51,319.3
              Additional Information Relating to Goal 1, Objective 2
EPA Web Site
Information:
Indoor Air Quality: www.epa.gov/air/basic.htmltfindoor
Asthma: www.cdc.gov/asthma/children.htm
Radon Program: www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html
National Radon Month:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/nram/index.html
                               Section II - Page 14

-------
 Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 1.3
                        (in thousands)
                    Objective 6
             Objective 5
  Objectives  Objective 4
  $19,174.1 —
     1%
          Objective 2
                                         Objective 1
                Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.3

        Met = 0
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 0
      (Total = 0)
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Scientific
evidence amassed over the past 30 years has shown that ozone-depleting substances used
around the world damage the stratospheric ozone layer and contribute to climate change.
Overexposure to increased levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation due to ozone layer depletion is
expected to raise the incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses, as well as
damage aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops. EPA works with many stakeholders in a
wide variety of voluntary programs and partnerships that promote practices to reduce emissions
of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases.

GreenChill Program: GreenChill6 is an EPA cooperative alliance with the supermarket industry
and suppliers to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce
emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases. Since its November 2007
launch, the GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership has quadrupled the number of
participants and continues to rapidly expand. The program now includes more than 6,500 stores
in 47 states.

GreenChill partners are improving equipment leak tightness, developing best practice
guidelines, and setting goals to convert more supermarkets to advanced refrigeration
technologies. To chart their progress in the future, GreenChill's supermarket partners provide
baseline measurements of corporate-wide refrigerant emissions, develop refrigeration
management plans to reduce those emissions, and now are reporting their annual emissions.
Compared with the rest of the supermarket industry, GreenChill partners are emitting fewer
ozone-depleting refrigerants and greenhouse gases than their competitors, and they are saving
money at the same time. If every supermarket in the nation joined GreenChill and reduced
emissions to the  current GreenChill average, the industry could annually prevent the release of
 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/qreenchill.
                                   Section II - Page 15

-------
240 tons of ozone-depleting substances, equal to 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMTCO2E)—about the annual emissions from more than 4 million cars.

Responsible Appliance Disposal: EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal Program7 is a
partnership program that protects the ozone layer and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases
through the recovery of ozone-depleting chemicals from old refrigerators, freezers, air
conditioners, and dehumidifiers. Program partners dispose of more than 1 million refrigerant-
containing appliances annually, which result in a reduction of more than 550 ozone-depleting
potential-weighted tons and more than 4 MMTCO2E of greenhouse emission reductions. In
2008, the most recent year for which EPA has data, Responsible Appliance Disposal Program
partners saved landfill space by recycling more than 74 million pounds of metals and more than
10 million pounds of plastic, glass, and rubber, in addition to preventing the release of
hazardous materials such as mercury. Replacing old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers
reduces the amount of electricity needed to power the appliances and, therefore, the amount of
indirect greenhouse gas emissions released. The 2008 partners reduced electricity consumption
by more than 2.3 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) through the collection of old refrigerators and
freezers, stand-alone freezers, and air conditioners. Consumers in 2008 reported saving an
estimated $282 million, with each household avoiding about 700 kWh per year in energy bills.

Phaseout of Ozone-Depleting Substances: In 2007, the United States helped the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol agree to more aggressively phase out ozone-depleting substances, which
will accelerate restoration of the ozone layer and prevent the emission of large quantities of
greenhouse gases. Under the next phaseout cap in the treaty, by January 1, 2010, the United
States will impose further restrictions on the production and import of bulk
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). EPA will restrict the production and import of bulk HCFCs
through its system of tradable allowances and will impose restrictions on the uses allowed for
these HCFCs. In addition to restrictions on the production, import, and use of bulk HCFCs, EPA
will also restrict the import, export, and sale of appliances that are pre-charged with ozone-
depleting HCFC refrigerants starting January 1, 2010.

Alternatives to Ozone-Depleting Substances: EPA continues to assess and identify
acceptable substitutes to ozone-depleting substances that offer lower overall risks to human
health and the environment through the Significant New Alternatives  Policy (SNAP) Program8.
The program considers such environmental risk factors as ozone-depleting  potential; global
warming potential; flammability; toxicity; contributions to smog,  aquatic and  ecosystem effects;
and occupational effects. As the accompanying graph illustrates, the SNAP Program is
increasing the menu of options for key sectors with the goal of identifying a  greater number of
alternatives with low or no impact on the climate system.
7 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad.
8 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
                                   Section II -Page 16

-------
      12
      2
      •
      uj
              Number of Ozone-Friendly Substitutes
                       by  Industry (Cumulative)
      1
      w
      •5
      3
1000
 900
 800
 700
 600
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
    0
                                a
ffl
                     m Fire Suppression

                     • Sterilants, Solvents, Aerosols, Adhesives, Coatings & Inks

                     D Foam Blowing

                     • Refrigeration & Air Conditioning
The SunWise Program: Because the ozone layer is not expected to recover until the middle of
this century at the earliest, the public continues to be exposed to high levels of UV radiation.
Skin cancer, one of the few cancers on the rise, is the most common cancer diagnosed in the
United States, killing one American every hour. Melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, is
the most common cancer for young adults ages 25 to 29. Through FY 2009, EPA continued
education and outreach to encourage school children and their caregivers to change their
behaviors to reduce UV-related health risks. The SunWise Program9 has been taught in all 50
states, in more than 20,000 schools, and has reached more than a million students with
important sun protection messages. In 2009, EPA joined the National Council on Skin Cancer
Prevention to launch a national sun safety day the Friday before Memorial Day. Through radio,
television, magazine, newspaper, and schools, the "Don't Fry Day" public health campaign
reached more than  an estimated 1 million Americans with SunWise messages as they kicked off
their summers.
 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/sunwise.
                                Section II - Page 17

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures exactly due
to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$18.3
$73.0
$5,376.0
$11,315.0
$9.8
$2.4
$401.2
$13.7
$49.3
$68.0
$1,477.8
$92.5
$139.2
$19.9
$1,200.4
$92.8
$32.1
$127.1
$2.8
$9.5
$4.7
$21.8
$34.3
$20,581.6
FY 2008
Obligations
$14.7
$66.4
$5,040.0
$9,683.0
$11.3
$2.8
$446.3
$13.6
$49.7
$47.7
$1,301.5
$113.5
$146.1
$27.1
$1,099.2
$97.0
$37.4
$139.0
$0.5
$11.1
$5.7
$55.6
$33.6
$18,442.8
FY 2009
Obligations
$14.5
$72.7
$5,881.8
$9,697.0
$8.3
$2.9
$595.2
$14.3
$46.7
$56.5
$1,222.1
$106.6
$142.1
$19.8
$985.6
$96.4
$34.1
$67.9
$1.6
$9.0
$4.1
$63.7
$31.2
$19,174.1
Additional Information Relating
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Ozone Depletion:
to Goal 1, Objectives
www.epa.qov/Ozone/strathome.html

Section II-Page 18

-------
Objective 1.4: Radiation
               FY 2009 Obligations: Objective 1.4
                        (in thousands)
                     Objective 6
             Objective 5
    Objective 4
     $43,174.4 -A
       3%


         Objective 3
         Objective 2'
                                            Objective 1
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.4

       Met = 0
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 4
      (Total = 4)
EPA's Radiation Protection Program minimizes unnecessary releases of radiation and, if
unwanted releases occur, helps mitigate impacts to human health and the environment. The
program manages a nationwide environmental radiation monitoring program, RadNet, and
actively responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material when they
occur. 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.

Collaboration With Other Agencies: 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
(WIPP). EPA's waste characterization program inspects DOE radioactive waste generator sites
and supports the department's goals for disposal of defense-related transuranic radioactive
waste at the WIPP. Since its opening in 1999 through FY 2009,  DOE has made approximately
7,800 waste shipments of transuranic waste to the WIPP. EPA's Radiation Protection Program
is also providing technical support to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission  in applying EPA's
final public health and safety standards for the proposed facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Radiation Protection Program continues to
coordinate with other federal agencies and states to develop mechanisms for controlling
industrial materials with a radioactive component. EPA will also continue its work developing
waste management regulations to facilitate the disposal of low-activity mixed waste by
combining existing  mandated requirements with traditional radiological waste management
components.

Radiological Emergency Response Program: EPA's Radiological Emergency Response
Program generates policy, guidance, and procedures that the Agency uses during radiological
emergency response under the National Response Framework and the  National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA maintains its own Radiological
                                   Section II-Page 19

-------
Emergency Response Team, is a member of the Federal Radiological Preparedness
Coordinating Committee, and also supports the Federal Advisory Team for Environment, Food,
and Health (the "A-Team"). EPA responds to radiological emergencies, conducts national and
regional radiological response planning and training, and develops response plans for
radiological incidents or accidents. In addition, EPA's Radiological Emergency Response
Program continues to participate in planning and implementing international and national table-
top and field exercises, including radiological anti-terrorism activities with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, DOE, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department
of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. EPA also continues to train state, local,
and federal officials and provide technical support to federal and state radiation, emergency
management, solid waste, and health programs that are responsible for radiological emergency
response and for developing their own preparedness programs. Through personnel and asset
training and exercises, EPA continues to enhance and maintain its state-of-readiness for
radiological emergencies.

Radiation Lab Preparedness: Although accidental release of radioactive materials is rare,
EPA is ready to respond to protect public health and the environment and works with state and
local officials to enhance their response capabilities. In  a FY 2009 pilot project, EPA awarded
cooperative agreements totaling $3.95 million to four state radiation laboratories to improve
collection of important data. The awardees are the Connecticut Department of Public Health
Laboratory, the Texas Department of State Health Services Radiological  Laboratory, the
Washington Department of Health Public Health Laboratories, and the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment Radiological Laboratory. These labs will improve their existing radio
analytical capability by adding laboratory instruments and supplies,  providing training on
laboratory incident response operations, conducting proficiency testing studies, and conducting
audits of laboratory emergency response operations.

Monitoring Systems: In FY 2009, EPA continued to enhance  RadNet and strengthen the
existing system's response capabilities, 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. EPA tracks its progress by measuring the percentage of the most populous U.S.
cities with RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring systems, which will provide data to assist in
protective action determinations. In FY 2009, EPA's RadNet system expanded to reach 98
percent of the most populous cities. Wth 107 monitors in place, the system is reaching 51
percent of the population and providing 62 percent geographical coverage. Once all 134
purchased monitors are in place, EPA will achieve geographical coverage of 70 percent of the
continental United States.
                                   Section II-Page 20

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures exactly due
to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 4 - Radiation
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$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
$856.6
$75.0
$281.1
$242.7
$5,775.6
$1,070.3
$807.7
$126.9
$4,819.3
$483.7
$176.9
$271.1
$4.8
$58.8
$30.4
$300.2
$178.3
$47,736.6
FY 2009
Obligations
$78.1
$4,939.8
$321.8
$15,661.2
$6,307.1
$48.0
$20.5
$952.4
$85.3
$286.5
$308.5
$5,896.2
$1,220.7
$878.4
$105.1
$4,732.5
$520.1
$175.2
$115.6
$11.2
$51.8
$23.5
$254.7
$180.2
$43,174.4
Additional Information Relating to Goal 1, Objective 4
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Radiation and Radioactivity:
www.eDa.aov/ebtDaaes/radiationandradioactivitv.html
Section II-Page 21

-------
Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
               FY 2009 Obligations: Objective 1.5
                        (in thousands)
       Objective 5    Objective 6
        $151,512.3
          11%
        Objective
       Objective 3

       Objective 2
                                         Objective 1
                Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.5

       Met = 0
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 3
      (Total = 3)
EPA plays a key leadership role in moving the country toward the President's vision for a low-
carbon economy. While the Agency contributes by developing regulatory tools, it also works to
direct the creative energy of voluntary programs and help prepare society to meet the energy
and climate challenge. It will take decades to develop sufficient clean, renewable energy
supplies and shift away from current reliance on fossil fuels; however, EPA has made great
strides in pushing the regulated community to provide cleaner energy and fuels and less
polluting vehicle and equipment engines, encouraging energy conservation and efficiency, and
helping to build more sustainable communities.

The first of EPA's climate protection programs was launched in 1991. Since then, these
programs have worked to reduce emissions of carbon  dioxide and other potent greenhouse
gases, such as methane and perfluorocarbons, and they 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 benefits through 2012 and  beyond. EPA currently estimates that, based on equipment
investments resulting from EPA's programs, organizations and  consumers across the country
will receive net savings of about $130 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more
than 800 MMTCO2E over the next 10 years.10 These programs continue to offer highly
cost-effective approaches for delivering environmental benefits across the country.

New Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule: On September 22, 2009, EPA issued the
Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which establishes the first
comprehensive national system for reporting greenhouse gas emissions from major sources.
This rule will allow EPA to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform policy
development under the Clean Air Act and  in response to potential climate legislation. The new
10
  2006 estimated annual results.
                                   Section II-Page 22

-------
program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and
apply to roughly 10,000 facilities. Data collection for the rule will begin in 2010, with the first
annual reporting required in March 2011.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Automobiles: In FY 2009, the U.S. Department
of Transportation and EPA jointly proposed a rule establishing a historic national program to
improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases. Under the proposed program,
which covers model years 2012 through 2016, automobile manufacturers would be able to build
a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as California and
other state standards. The proposed program includes miles per gallon requirements under
Department of Transportation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) program
and the first-ever national emissions standards under EPA's greenhouse gas program. EPA and
the Department of Transportation plan to issue a final rule in FY 2010.

California Waiver to Enforce Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Standard: In FY 2009, EPA
granted California's waiver request enabling the state to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions
standards for new motor vehicles, beginning with the current model year. The first California
waiver request, made in December 2005, was denied in March 2008 based on an interpretation
of the Clean Air Act finding that California did not have a need for its greenhouse gas emission
standards to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions." Shortly after taking office in
January,  President Obama directed EPA to assess the appropriateness of denying the waiver.
EPA received a letter from California on January 21, 2009, raising several issues for
Administrator Jackson to review regarding the denial.  EPA granted the waiver to tackle air
pollution and protect human health.

International Efforts: 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.

Market-Based Programs: EPA manages a number of efforts, such as ENERGY STAR and
The SmartWay Transport Partnership, to remove marketplace barriers and accelerate the
adoption  and deployment of energy efficiency technology 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, such as lack of clear and
objective information on technology opportunities; lack of awareness of products, services, and
transportation choices; few incentives to manufacturers for research and development; split
incentives; and high transaction costs.

ENERGY STAR: EPA's most recent estimates show that in 2007 the ENERGY STAR program
was associated with savings of $16 billion on energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those of 27 million vehicles. Introduced in 1992,  ENERGY STAR is a voluntary
market-based partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through increased energy
efficiency. The ENERGY STAR  program, a partnership between EPA and DOE, 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.
                                  Section II-Page 23

-------
Energy use in commercial buildings and manufacturing plants accounts for nearly half of the
anthropogenic 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.

Over the past year, the number of commercial buildings and  manufacturing plants to earn the
ENERGY STAR label for superior energy efficiency has risen by more than 25 percent,  and
EPA's partners report that carbon dioxide emissions have been  reduced by more than 25 billion
pounds—an all-time high. 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. Through 2007, nearly 4,100
buildings and manufacturing plants had earned the ENERGY STAR  label; more than 1,400 of
them in 2007. These included about 1,500 office buildings, 1,300 supermarkets, 820
kindergarten through grade 12 schools, and 250 hotels. Also, more than 185 banks, financial
centers, hospitals, court houses, warehouses, dormitories, and—for  the first time—big-box retail
buildings earned the ENERGY STAR label. More than 35 manufacturing plants, such as
cement, auto assembly, corn refining, and, for the first time in 2007,  petroleum refining,  were
also recognized.

In total, these ENERGY-STAR-labeled 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
ENERGY STAR label 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
  $9 Million in Recovery Act Funds for Clean Diesel at the
                   Port of Houston
In August 2009, EPA awarded $9 million in Recovery Act funds
to support the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program in the
Houston-Galveston area. The Recovery Act grant will spur
innovative clean diesel projects that protect air quality and
create and retain jobs through an innovative financing program
that will promote the purchase of new, cleaner or retrofitted
vehicles and equipment at the Port of Houston. The Recovery
Act funds will work to reduce premature deaths, asthma attacks
and other respiratory ailments, lost work days, and many other
health impacts every year.

"Recovery Act dollars will help the port better protect air quality
and the health of nearby communities," said Gina McCarthy,
EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. "Investing in
clean diesel  puts people to work and keeps them working,
which helps our economy and our environment."

Overall, the Recovery Act allotted $300 million for grants under
the National  Clean Diesel Campaign in FY 2009.
buildings. Many of these buildings
excel due to good energy
management practices such as
routine energy efficiency
benchmarking.

SmartWay Transport: 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. Launched in 2004, this innovative collaboration employs partnerships,
financial incentives, policy and technical solutions, and research and evaluation projects to
                                   Section II-Page 24

-------
optimize the transportation networks in companies' supply chains. 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.

As of September 2009, more than 2,060 SmartWay partners had driven approximately 600,000
trucks and traveled nearly 52 billion miles per year. As a result of their three-year commitment to
upgrade trucks with auxiliary power units, fuel-efficient tires, enhanced trailer aerodynamics,
and other improvements, SmartWay partners are saving more than 620 million gallons of diesel
fuel—a cost savings of more than $1.6 billion—and eliminating nearly 6.9 million tons of carbon
dioxide emissions that contribute to global climate change. SmartWay partners will also reduce
nitrogen oxides by 36,400 tons and particulate matter by 946 tons.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures exactly due
to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
FY 2007
Obligations
$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
$161.2
$9,386.4
$803.1
$276.0
$856.8
$27.8
$82.1
$40.4
$570.3
FY 2008
Obligations
$123,247.9
$124.0
$482.1
$95.5
$23.2
$3,523.7
$122.3
$468.1
$401.6
$10,122.2
$900.7
$1,170.6
$217.7
$8,268.2
$811.7
$308.8
$1,088.8
$10.4
$93.4
$48.2
$945.5
FY 2009
Obligations
$120,172.1
$137.0
$586.3
$78.5
$26.9
$4,632.1
$142.7
$492.1
$533.5
$10,615.1
$953.0
$1,277.8
$175.0
$8,329.1
$901.3
$319.1
$524.6
$20.4
$84.7
$38.5
$1,177.8
                                   Section II-Page 25

-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$297.1
$148,352.8
$283.2
$152,757.8
$294.7
$151,512.3
Additional Information
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Energy
Relating to Goal 1, Objective
Star
Program:
www.enerqvstar

5
qov

Section II-Page 26

-------
Objective 1.6: Clean Air Research
               FY2009 Obligations: Objective 1.6
                        (in thousands)

              Objective 6
              $118,613.4
                9%


            Objective 5
         Objective 4
         Objective 3

         Objective 2
                                         Objective 1
                 Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,376,040.1
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.6

        Met = 2
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 0
      (Total = 2)
EPA's clean air research provides state and federal regulators with a sound scientific foundation
for improving air quality.

Mortality Associated With Air Pollution: In FY 2009, investigators partially funded by EPA
compiled data on life expectancy and other factors for more than 200 county units in 51 U.S.
metropolitan areas with matching data on fine particulate air pollution.11 The study quantified the
association between reductions in fine particulate matter levels and mean life expectancy.
Reductions in air pollution accounted for as much as 15 percent of the overall increase in life
expectancy in the study areas.

Ammonia From Animal Production Facilities: EPA scientists have provided state and local
regulators with data and models to improve estimates of ammonia emissions from animal
production facilities, increase the understanding of how much ammonia can be transported
away from farms and become available for aerosol formation in the atmosphere, and better
calculate the  subsequent deposition of ammonia in downwind ecosystems. The data resulting
from this multi-year, ongoing research effort will improve current air quality as well as
atmospheric models that predict particulate matter formation. The results will also be used to
generate information on the local deposition of ammonia from animal production facilities, which
currently does not exist for U.S. sites. The findings are also expected to be used in models that
attempt to quantify the impacts of local sources on ecosystem services. Such ammonia
research will  help inform policy and regulatory decisions by EPA, states, and local communities.
  http://content.neim.Org/cqi/content/full/360/4/376
                                    Section II-Page 27

-------
Particulate Matter and Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases: Research conducted by
EPA and its grantees in FY 2009 has provided improved understanding of the health effects
from exposure to coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate matter. Results demonstrate that
different sized particles collected from
the same air shed can affect different
organ systems. The epidemiological
and EPA clinical findings indicate that
smaller particles affect the
cardiovascular system, while  larger
particles have an impact on the lungs.
This particulate matter research will
assist EPA in establishing health-
based air quality standards.
           EPA and University of Michigan
               Research Health Effects
          of Roadway Pollution on Children

In July 2009, EPA announced a $1.4 million joint study with
the University of Michigan on the health effects of air
pollution on children living near the nation's heavily traveled
thoroughfares. The study is funded through EPA's Science
to Achieve Results program.

Under the cooperative agreement, researchers will study
the types of pollutants common near roadways, how people
are exposed to them, the extent of exposures, and the
types and severity of health effects.  More than 45 million
people in the United States live within 300 feet of a four-
lane road, airport, or railroad.

EPA and the University of Michigan  will study traffic-
associated pollution in Detroit and whether it could lead to
more severe asthma attacks in children ages 6 to 14. The
study will also explore whether traffic exposure has any
effects on the likelihood  of respiratory viral infections and
will help researchers improve the predictive capabilities of
computer models.

The research will be useful for policymakers developing
mitigation plans to reduce exposures to air pollution for
people living or working  near roadways. State highway
planners and environmental agencies can use the science
to assess local impacts of vehicle emissions and determine
the need for and impact of future road projects.
Measurement Methodologies: EPA
improved and applied new
measurement methodologies to more
accurately and effectively characterize
large dispersed sources of air
pollution, such as from forest fires,
concentrated animal feeding
operations, and landfills. Typically,
these sources emit multiple volatile
organic compounds and hazardous air
pollutants at many locations across
the source at very low concentrations,
making conventional measurement
techniques difficult to use. EPA utilized
these advanced measurement
methods and technologies to
characterize emissions from these
sources to help inform regulatory
efforts and associated impact
assessments. In the past, these improved methods and techniques have been successfully
applied to other sources, including oil and gas production operations and petrochemical
transport barges.

Research on Roadway-Related Air Pollution: EPA is conducting and supporting studies to
understand how traffic emissions can lead to adverse health effects for people living, working, or
going to school near large roads and to identify the most effective strategies and tools to control
traffic emission impacts on human health. EPA air quality monitoring studies in Brooklyn, New
York, and Raleigh, North Carolina, examined elevated concentrations of a complex mixture of
pollutants near roadways, the influence of traffic and meteorology on these concentrations, and
the potential role of natural and human-made features near roads to better understand how
these factors impact air quality. EPA's wind tunnel assessments identified how the design of
roadways and the presence of roadside structures influence near-road air quality in urban
areas. Such tools will allow state and local authorities to devise land use and transportation
plans that will minimize potential traffic-related health risks.
                                    Section II-Page 28

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures exactly due
to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 6 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Troposphere Ozone
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Research: NAAQS
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Research: Clean Air
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$456.0
$5,475.5
$172.4
$458.7
$13,810.6
($534.9)
($37.8)
$92.0
$22.4
$1,964.7
$127.2
$455.2
$638.1
$4,245.7
$880.0
$1,274.3
$180.1
$7,476.9
$871.8
$302.6
$625.0
$25.4
$89.1
$43.9
$655.3
$63,025.8
$322.7
$0.0
$103,118.7
FY 2008
Obligations
($100.3)
$0.0
$137.4
$339.6
$1,359.7
($241.8)
($11.9)
$105.8
$25.7
$2,316.6
$125.4
$454.7
$445.0
$7,999.1
$1,070.2
$1,362.9
$255.7
$6,828.1
$903.4
$350.0
$724.5
$2.9
$103.5
$53.5
$584.0
$18,690.1
$313.9
$57,780.5
$101,978.2
FY 2009
Obligations
($87.3)
($195.9)
$159.6
$398.1
$65.1
($108.4)
($11.6)
$91.6
$31.4
$3,471.2
$155.5
$503.2
$619.7
$8,734.9
$1,188.0
$1,574.6
$220.4
$7,318.2
$1,060.6
$377.1
$397.1
$16.5
$98.8
$44.9
$445.7
$523.7
$343.7
$91,177.1
$118,613.5
Additional Information Relating to Goal 1, Objective 6
Grants:
• Air health studies funded through grants provided key
evidence on cardiovascular disease and mortality (death)
due to particulate matter (PM) exposure. These data were
Section II-Page 29

-------

EPA Web Site
Information:
pivotal in decision documents serving as the basis for the
upcoming decisions on the PM NAAQS. A study
published in the New England Journal of Medicine
demonstrated the increase in life expectancy due to air
quality improvements in the United States over the last
three decades.
• Clean Air Research Program:
www.eDa.qov/airscience/accomDlishments-health.htm
www.eDa.qov/airscience/accomDlishments-exDosure.htm
Section II-Page 30

-------
                              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.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
16
Total PMs
16
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.1: Ozone and PM2.5
By 2015, working with partners, improve air quality for ozone and PM2.s.

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 2006
Target
5
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
6
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
8
Actual
Data
Available
EOY 2009
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
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 (ppb)." The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
                                                      Section II-Page 31

-------
                             GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Target (2)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.s in all monitored counties by 6 percent from the 2003 baseline.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(M91) Cumulative percent reduction
in population-weighted ambient
concentration of fine particulate
matter (PM25) in all monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
3
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
4
Actual
Data
Available
EOY 2009
FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The PM25 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate
matter PM25 pollution across all 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/m3). The 2003 baseline is 2,581 million people-ug/m3.
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 PM2 5 reduced since
2000 from mobile sources
FY 2006
Target
73,460
Actual
73,460
FY 2007
Target
85,704
Actual
85,704
FY 2008
Target
97,947
Actual
97,497
FY 2009
Target
110,190
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Tons
Baseline - In FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM2 5 from mobile
sources is 510,552 tons.
                                                   Section II-Page 32

-------
                                GOAL 1:  CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE


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
from mobile sources
FY 2006
Target
2.03
Actual
2.03
FY 2007
Target
2.37
Actual
2.37
FY 2008
Target
2.71
Actual
2.71
FY 2009
Target
3.05
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Tons
(Millions)
Baseline - In FY 2005, the Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 1 1 .8 million tons for
mobile source NOx emissions.
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 2006
Target
1.03M
Actual
1.03
FY 2007
Target
1.20M
Actual
1.20
FY 2008
Target
1.37M
Actual
1.37
FY 2009
Target
1.54M
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Tons
(Millions)
Baseline - In FY 2005, the Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7 million tons for
mobile source VOC emissions.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2018, visibility in eastern Class I areas will improve by 15 percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20
percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.

Strategic Target (7)
By 2018, visibility in western Class I areas will improve by five percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20
percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.

Strategic Target (8)
By 2011, with EPA support, 30 additional tribes (six per year) will have completed air quality emission inventories. (FY 2005 baseline:  28 tribal
emission inventories.)
                                                        Section II-Page 33

-------
                              GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
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
(M90) Cumulative percent reduction
in the average number of days during
the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in non-
attainment areas, weighted by
population.
FY 2006
Target
12
Actual
31
FY 2007
Target
16
Actual
28
FY 2008
Target
19
Actual
Data
Available
December
2009
FY 2009
Target
23
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
Baseline - 2003 baseline is zero.
(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.
17
39
21
42
25
Data
Available
December
2009
29
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline - Baseline was zero in 2003.
(M94) Percent of major New Source
Review (NSR) permits issued within
one year of receiving a complete
permit application.
70
70
75
83
78
Baseline - The baseline for NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit a
(M95) Percent of significant Title V
operating permit revisions issued
within 18 months of receiving a
complete permit application.
91
91
94
81
97
79
78
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Dplication is 61% in 2004.
84.7
100
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 1 8 months of receiving a complete permit application is
100% and the baseline for new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 95%.
(M96) Percent of new Title V
operating permits issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit
application.
83
83
87
51
91
72
95
Data
Available
2010
Percent
                                                    Section II-Page 34

-------
                               GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 1 8 months of receiving a complete permit application is
100% and the baseline for new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 95%.
(N35) Limit the increase of carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources compared to a
2000 baseline.
1.01 M
1.01 M
1.18M
1.18M
1.35M
1.35M
1.52M
Data
Available
2010
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 baseline was 79.2 million tons for mobile source CO emissions. While on-road CO emissions continue to decrease, there is an
overall increase in mobile source CO emissions due to a growth in nonroad CO.
(P33) Tons of PM10 reduced since
2000 from mobile sources
74,594
74,594
87,026
87,026
99,458
99,458
111,890
Data
Available
2010
Tons
Baseline - In FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM10 from mobile
source is 613,000 tons.
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.

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) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY 2006
Target
58
Actual
52
FY 2007
Target
58
Actual
53
FY 2008
Target
59
Actual
Data
Available
2011
FY 2009
Target
59
Actual
Data
Available
2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also 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 1 990-1 993. The baseline is in 1 993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate
inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP
                                                       Section II - Page 35

-------
                               GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
(Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories are
completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(001) Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of toxi city-weighted
(for cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY 2006
Target
34
Actual
38
FY 2007
Target
35
Actual
39
FY 2008
Target
35
Actual
Data
Available
2011
FY 2009
Target
36
Actual
Data
Available
2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The toxi city-weighted emission inventory will also 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 1 990-1 993. The baseline is in 1 993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate
inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP
(Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories are
completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.3: Chronically Acidic Water Bodies
By 2011, reduce the number of chronically acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by two percent from 1984 levels.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce national annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from utility electrical power generation sources by approximately 8.45 million tons
from the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons, through implementation of the Acid Rain Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule, achieving and maintaining
the Acid Rain statutory SO2 emissions cap of 8.95 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(A01) Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric power
generation sources.
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
Available
2009
FY 2009
Target
8,000,000
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Tons
Reduced
                                                      Section II-Page 36

-------
                                 GOAL 1:  CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
        Baseline - The baseline year is 1980. The 1980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 17.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was
        developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and is used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act
        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.
        Sulfur and nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life. Reductions in
        sulfur and nitrogen deposition are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies.
(S01) Remaining U.S. consumption of
HCFCs in tons of ozone depleting
potential (OOP).
<9,900
6,205
<9,900
6,296
<9,900
5,667
<9,900
Data
Available
2010
OOP MTs
        Baseline - The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II
        hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ozone-depleting substance (ODS) is weighted based on the
        damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is its ozone-depletion potential (OOP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of
        2.8 percent of the domestic OOP-weighted consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1989 plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.
        Consumption equals production plus import minus export.	
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.

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.

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.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
5
Total PMs
5
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.
                                                           Section II-Page 37

-------
                             GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R1 5) Number of people taking all
essential actions to reduce exposure
to indoor environmental asthma
triggers.
FY 2006
Target
4,100,000
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2007
Target
No FY07
Target
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2008
Target
No FY08
Target
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
5,300,000
Actual
Data
Available
2012

Unit
People
Baseline - 2003 baseline is 3,000,000. This measure sets targets in three-year increments.
(R50) Cumulative number of existing
homes with an operating mitigation
system (HOMS) compared to the
estimated number of homes at or
above EPA's 4 pCi/L action level.
No Target
Est.
9.4
No Target
Est.
10.3
11.1
11.1
11.5
Data
Available
2009
Percent
Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 6.9%.
(R51) Total number of all new single-
family homes (SFH) built in high
radon potential areas (zone 1)
compared to new homes in zone 1
built with mitigation-ready systems
(radon-reducing features).
No Target
Est.
27.4
No Target
Est.
28.6
30.0
Data
Available
December
2009
31.5
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 21%.
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.
                                                   Section II-Page 38

-------
                              GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R16) Percent of public that is aware
of the asthma program's media
campaign.
FY 2006
Target
>20
Actual
33
FY 2007
Target
>20
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2008
Target
>20
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
>20
Actual
Data Not
Available

Unit
Percent
Baseline - No tracking study was done for this measure in FY2007, therefore the percentage of public awareness is not known.
(R17) Additional health care
professionals trained annually by EPA
and its partner on the environmental
management of asthma triggers.
2,000
3,582
2,000
4,582
2,000
4,558
2,000
Data
Available
2010
Health Care
Professionals
Baseline - Through 2006, 4.2 million people are estimated to be taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental triggers and
approximately 60,000 emergency room visits are avoided annually.
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 2006
Target
1,200
Actual
1,200
FY 2007
Target
1,100
Actual
1,346
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Actual
1,614
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Schools
Baseline - The nation has approximately 118,000 (updated to include new construction)* schools. Each school has an average of 525 students, faculty,
and staff for a total estimated population of 62,000,000. The indoor air quality (IAQ) "Tools for Schools" guidance implementation began in 1 997.
Results from a 2002 IAQ practices in schools survey suggest that approximately 20 to 22% of U.S. schools report an adequate effective IAQ
management plan that is in accordance with EPA guidelines.
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.
                                                    Section II-Page 39

-------
                               GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
0
OBJECTIVE: 1.4: RADIATION

Through 2011, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the
environment should unwanted releases occur.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
4
Total PMs
4
Strategic Target (1)
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
(R35) Level of readiness of radiation
program personnel and assets to
support federal radiological
emergency response and recovery
operations.
FY 2006
Target
78
Actual
78
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
83
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
87
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for the emergency response program readiness was 50%.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, the  radiation program will maintain  a  90 percent level of readiness of radiation program  personnel and assets to support federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations. (2005 baseline is a 50 percent level of readiness.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R36) Average time of availability of
quality assured ambient radiation air
monitoring data during an emergency.
FY 2006
Target
1.9
Actual
1.9
FY 2007
Target
1.3
Actual
1.3
FY 2008
Target
1.0
Actual
0.80
FY 2009
Target
0.8
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Days
Baseline - The baseline is 2.5 days for average time of availability of quality assured air monitoring data during an emergency.
(R39) Level of readiness of national
environmental radiological laboratory
7
7
20
21
35
37
50
Data
Available
Percent
                                                      Section II - Page 40

-------
                            GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
capacity (measured as percentage of
laboratories adhering to EPA quality
criteria for emergency response and
recovery decisions).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual
2010

Unit

Baseline - The baseline for the emergency response program readiness was 50 percent.
No Strategic Target
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 2006
Target
67
Actual
67
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
92
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline is 55%.
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.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
3
Total PMs
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.1: 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 2006
Target
26.5
Actual
30.10
FY 2007
Target
29.4
Actual
36.10
FY 2008
Target
32.4
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2009
Target
35.5
Actual
Data
Available
2010

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
                                                  Section II - Page 41

-------
                                GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
        change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on
        similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy
        Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2)
        emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in
        the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 (www.gcrio.org/CAR2002).
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.2: Industrial Sector
Industry Sector. By 2012, 99 MMTCE will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).

No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(G16) Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the industry sector.
FY 2006
Target
57.5
Actual
68.7
FY 2007
Target
62.6
Actual
72.90
FY 2008
Target
67.7
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2009
Target
72.9
Actual
Data
Available
2010

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 (CO2)
emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in
the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 (www.gcrio.org/CAR2002).
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 2006
Target
0.6
Actual
0.60
FY 2007
Target
4.2
Actual
1.15
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Actual
1.60
FY 2009
Target
2.6
Actual
Data
Available
2010

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
                                                         Section II-Page 42

-------
                           GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy
Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in
the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 (www.acrio.ora/CAR2002).
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.
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
2
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H05) Percentage of NAAQS program
publications rated as highly cited
papers
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
35.7
Actual
32.9
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
33.9
Actual
34.1

Unit
Percent
Baseline - As of FY 2007, 32.9% of NAAQS program publications were rated as highly cited papers.
(H35) Percent planned actions
accomplished toward the long-term
goal of reducing uncertainty in the
science that supports standard setting
and airauality management
decisions.
100
94
100
100
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 science that
supports the standard-setting and air auality 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.
                                                Section II-Page 43

-------
                                       GOAL 2 AT A GLANCE
                                CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
  Ensure that 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.
                                How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                                         (Dollars inThousands)
          FY 2009
       Performance
         Measures

          Met = 22
         Not Met = 7
        Data Available
     After 11/16/09 = 7
    (Total Measures = 36)
        Compliance and
        Environmental
         Stewardship

         J80S.240.6
  Healthy
 Communities
and Ecosystems
 $1.455733.9
Clean Air and Global
 Climate Change
  $1,376.040.1
Goal 2 Performance Measures
                                                                   Objective
                                   Source: FY 2009 Statement of Net Cost b/ Goal
                                Goal 2 FY 2009 Performance and Resources
                               Strategic Objective
                                                      FY 2009
                                                     Obligations
                                                    (in thousands)
                                                  %of
                                                  Goal 2
                                                  Funds
  Objective 1—Protect Human Health: Protect human health by reducing exposure to con-
  taminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish,
  and in recreational waters.
                                                    $3,215,682.0
                                                  36%
  Objective 2—Protect Water Quality: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a
  watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
                                                    $5,564,021.4
                                                  62%
  Objective 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.
                                                      $155,846.9
                                                   2%
  Goal 2 Total
                                                     $8,935,550.3
                                                  100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                          Section II - Page 44

-------
Goal Purpose

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
and other watershed related plans; strengthening the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit program, particularly through the issuance of high-priority and stormwater
permits; and implementing practices to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. EPA also works
with stakeholders across the water sector to promote Sustainable Water Infrastructure through
changes in management practice and by providing infrastructure funding assistance through the
Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds.

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.

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.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure:  Number of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) That Are Established or Approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a Schedule
Consistent With National Policy (Cumulative)

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.
                                   Section II - Page 45

-------
                Number of TMDLs that are established or approved
                by EPA on schedule consistent with national policy
                                   (cumulative)
         45000
                                                      I Annual Target
                                                      I End-of-Year Results
                  2006
2007
2008
2009
What This Shows: A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and
an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. Water quality standards are set by
states, territories, and tribes. National policy is to complete TMDLs for impaired waters within
eight to 13 years from their date of initial Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listing and all consent
decree TMDL commitments. TMDLs are one of the many tools used to help reduce nutrient
pollution. The number of TMDLs needed to address outstanding causes of impairment changes
with each 303(d) list cycle; therefore, a baseline as such is not appropriate for is measure. As
shown by the graph, EPA continues to exceed its annual targets for TMDL development. In FY
2009, the program  measure was exceeded primarily because Pennsylvania developed more
than 2,900 TMDLs  to meet consent decree obligations.

Source: State-submitted and EPA-approved TMDLs and EPA-established TMDLs are the
underlying data for these measures.  Electronic and hard copies are made available by states
and often linked to  EPA Web sites. More specifically, the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and
Environmental Results (WATERS) system allows search for TMDL documents at
www.epa.qov/waters/tmdl/tmdl document search.html.

Data Limitations:  To meet the increasing need for readily accessible Clean Water Act
information, EPA continues to improve the Assessment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS) database and oversee quality review of
existing data. Data quality has been improving and will continue to improve as existing data
entry requirements and procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry
practitioners. ATTAINS is available at http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir.
                                 Section II-Page 46

-------
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
               FY2009 Obligations: Objective 2.1
                       (in thousands)
                     Objective 3
                                 Objective 1
                                $3,215,682.0
                                   36%
               Goal 2 Total Obligations = $8,935,550.3
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 2.1

       Met = 7
      Not Met = 4
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 2
      (Total = 13)
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.

Public Drinking Water Supplies

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 2009,
92.1 percent of Americans were served by community water systems that met applicable health-
based drinking water standards.

Small Drinking Water Systems: Water systems, particularly small systems, must ensure
reliable delivery of water to their customers, as well as meeting existing national health-based
standards for more than 90 chemical,  radiological, and microbial contaminants, while
implementing several more recent standards. In FY 2009, EPA continued to support states in
their efforts to improve small systems' technical, managerial, and financial capacity to
consistently meet regulatory requirements. In addition, the Agency promoted the use of cost-
effective treatment technologies, proper disposal of treatment residuals, and compliance with
regulatory requirements for arsenic, radio-nuclides, microbial pathogens, and disinfection
byproducts. EPA supports small drinking water system efforts to optimize treatment technology
under the drinking water treatment Areawide Optimization Program. This program is a highly
successful technical assistance training program that enhances the ability of small systems to
meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection byproduct standards. In
addition,  EPA promoted operation and maintenance best practices to small systems in support
of long-term compliance success with existing regulations.

Underground Injection Control: The EPA Underground Injection Control program continues to
make progress in addressing significant violations for Class I, II, and III wells. In addition, the
                                   Section II - Page 47

-------
program is identifying and closing or permitting high-priority Class V wells, including motor
vehicle waste disposal wells, in community water system source water protection areas.

In FY 2009, EPA continued efforts to develop regulations for the underground sequestration of
carbon dioxide in a manner that protects underground sources of drinking water. Program
activities included reviewing public comments and data, publishing a Notice of Data Availability
as a supplement to the 2008 proposed rule for public comment, and further developing  a draft
final rule and supporting documents. Geologic sequestration is the process of injecting captured
carbon dioxide from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, through a
well into deep subsurface geologic formations of the earth. Carbon capture and geologic
sequestration could play a major role in isolating and thereby reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide to  the atmosphere. Future management challenges include finalizing 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.

Drinking Water Contaminant List: Throughout FY 2009, EPA worked to complete the
Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL3). EPA re-examined scientific data and prepared
information to address comments received in response to the publication of the proposed  CCL3.
With the signing of the final CCL3 in September 2009,  EPA has identified a list of unregulated
contaminants to prioritize for potential research, data collection, and consideration for
regulation.

Water Utility Emergency Response Programs: In FY 2009, EPA expanded the contamination
warning system pilot program by awarding grants to two additional drinking water utilities.  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.

In FY 2009, EPA continued to fulfill its responsibilities as a Sector Specific Agency for the
nation's drinking water and wastewater systems. Activities included providing training on
emergency response and preparedness  to several hundred utilities, states, and emergency
responders; developing a consequence management guide to equip drinking water utilities with
a systemic plan for evaluating, responding to, and recovering from a contamination incident;
establishing mutual aid and assistance compacts in 43 states; validating the five methods for
contaminants of concern in drinking water; delineating  EPA's role with respect to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers under the National
Response Framework; and developing numerous reports (e.g., Sector-Specific  Plan) and  other
deliverables (e.g., a list of high-risk facilities) for the Department of Homeland Security.
                                   Section II-Page 48

-------
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
2009, 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 contaminant levels in fish
tissue have improved sufficiently to revise
those advisories. In 2009 the Agency issued
the 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish
Advisories. EPA also continued to  implement
its outreach strategy for non-English speakers
on the joint EPA-Food and Drug
Administration mercury fish consumption
advisory. The Agency developed 30-second
and 60-second public service announcements
and placed them on five Chinese radio
stations throughout the country.

Safe Swimming Beaches

Through its Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH
Act) Program,  EPA is working with state, tribal,
and local governmental partners to make
beach advisory information available to the
public. The act 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. In 2009, EPA awarded  $10 million in grants to 30 states, five territories, and two tribes
to implement monitoring and advisory programs.

Water Quality at Beaches: 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 Program, 35 states and territories
monitored 3,740  beaches to ensure that they were safe for swimming. During calendar year
2008, coastal and Great Lakes beaches were open 95 percent of beach season days, meeting
EPA's FY 2009 goal. Of the 714,070 beach season days during the year,  fewer than 5 percent
were restricted because of contamination-related closings or advisories. Most (91 percent) of
beach notification actions reported during the 2008 swimming season lasted a week or less, and
60 percent lasted just one or two days. This represents an improvement from 2007 when only
50 percent of the actions were limited to one or two days in length.

Beach Management: In FY 2009, EPA's Office of Water and Office of Research and
Development combined efforts to create new software that predicts recreational water quality
Chemical Residues in Long Island Sound
and State Fish Consumption Advisories

With funding from EPA's Long Island Sound
Office in Region 2, Connecticut and New York
are determining the status of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), mercury, and other chemical
residues in selected indicator fish species to
assess their existing consumption advisories for
fish in the Long Island Sound.

The first phase of the study assessed striped
bass and bluefish. In addition to measuring PCB
and mercury concentrations, the study analyzed
temporal and spatial changes in PCB levels in
striped bass. The second phase includes an
assessment of PCBs, mercury, cadmium, and
chlorinated dioxin and furans in American
lobster.

Preliminary analyses show that PCB levels in
striped bass and bluefish sampled in 2006 and
2007 have decreased by 50 percent compared
to levels from the 1980s.

As a result, in June 2009 the Connecticut and
New York Departments of Health updated their
fish consumption advisories for Long Island
Sound. The updates provide advice depending
on a consumer's gender and age, and well as
the size of the fish. For example, New York
advice for women of childbearing age and
children under 15 changed from one meal every
two months to one meal per month of striped
bass greater than 20 inches.
                                   Section II-Page 49

-------
and allows for timelier decision-making on beach management and closure. The number of
monitored beaches in EPA's Beach Program increased from 3,692 in 2007 to 3,740 in 2008.
EPA and its state partners are improving data collection and reporting to provide a more
complete picture of the nation's beaches. In 2009, two tribes submitted data for the first time,
and EPA received complete annual monitoring data from the states and territories earlier than
any other year.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 1 - Protect Human Health
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Beach / Fish Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
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
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
International Capacity Building
Pesticides: Field Programs
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
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
$0.0
$2,476.7
$0.0
$233.2
$56.8
$3,924.8
($13.2)
$513.3
$2,332.9
$1,621.5
$24,220.8
$1,123.5
$1,911.2
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
$0.0
$2,174.5
($0.9)
$266.6
$64.7
$5,728.2
($4.8)
$502.3
$2,307.1
$1,121.4
$22,691.3
$1,359.2
$1,941.9
FY 2009
Obligations
$103,423.1
$11,785.3
$0.0
$9,830.2
$5,648.9
$3,062.4
$41,603.1
$103,715.5
$370.7
$27,861.9
$676.7
$2,828,596.1
$3,849.0
$67.4
$0.0
$211.3
$72.5
$6,100.2
$0.0
$551.3
$2,354.1
$3,679.1
$22,671.0
$1,411.3
$1,943.1
                                  Section II - Page 50

-------
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
Recovery Act Management and Oversight
Total
$197.3
$13,971.0
$2,209.0
$692.2
$8,463.5
$170.8
$225.9
$111.2
$1,734.9
$817.7
$0.0
$1,173,327.7
$300.5
$12,811.3
$2,254.2
$741.7
$12,095.8
$172.4
$260.7
$134.7
$2,311.2
$790.9
$0.0
$1,339,980.5
$207.1
$12,264.3
$2,358.3
$777.4
$13,696.6
$160.8
$228.0
$103.5
$2,413.9
$792.9
$3,195.2
$3,215,682.2
                Additional Information Relating to Goal 2, 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 more than $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.	
EPA Web Site Information:
•  Ground Water and Drinking Water Program:
   www.epa.gov/safewater/

•  Shellfish Protection: www.epa.gov/waterscience/shellfish/

•  Water Science: www.epa.gov/waterscience/
                                 Section II - Page 51

-------
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
               FY2009 Obligations: Objective 2.2
                      (in thousands)
                   Objective 3
                Objective 2
                $5,564,021.4
                   62%
                 Goal 2 Total Obligations = $8,935,550.3
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 2.2

       Met =12
      Not Met = 1
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 5
      (Total = 18)
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.

Recovery Act Funds: EPA continued to manage the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) and  Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) base programs while obligating
additional funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Of the
$2 billion in DWSRF Recovery Act funds, 100 percent have been obligated through grants or
Interagency Agreements, and 7 percent have been executed. Of the $4 billion in CWSRF
Recovery Act funds, 99 percent have been obligated through grants and I nteragency
Agreements, and 31 percent of those have been executed. Because the DWSRF and CWSRF
programs operate distinctly, the execution rates for ARRA funding are not directly comparable.

Mountaintop Mining: In 2009, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of  Interior and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to minimize the adverse
environmental  consequences of mountaintop coal mining. Plans include short-term actions to be
completed in 2009 and longer-term actions to tighten regulations over mountaintop coal mining.
EPA has assessed  the potential for all pending surface mine projects to cause significant
environmental  harm and designated 79 mines as warranting Enhanced Coordination
Procedures to  reduce impacts. This process is currently underway for several projects.

Discharges of Pollution Into the Nation's Water: Under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System in FY 2009, permits that implemented standards for industrial sources,
municipal treatment plants, and stormwater prevented the discharge of 185 billion pounds of
pollutants into waterways. EPA and states exceeded their goal of issuing 95 percent of
designated priority National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. EPA approved
93.2 percent of the  new or revised water quality standards that states submitted  for the year,
exceeding the  performance goal of 85 percent. This accomplishment reflects EPA's and states'
continuing efforts to work together more closely during states' formulation of new and revised
standards.
                                   Section II-Page 52

-------
Water Quality: EPA is working with its state and tribal partners on a series of statistically
representative surveys of the aquatic resources of the United States—its streams, rivers, lakes,
coastal waters, and wetlands (www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html). The surveys are
designed to yield unbiased estimates of the condition of each resource, based on a
representative sample of waters.

National Lakes Assessment

In 2009, EPA issued a National Lakes Assessment, the most extensive and comprehensive
report of its kind in the United States. It includes data from approximately 1,150 randomly
selected lakes and establishes a baseline of water quality condition in lakes nationwide. This
information will facilitate efforts to track water quality changes in a statistically valid manner.

Rivers and Streams

During FY 2009, states, tribes, and EPA continued field sampling for a statistically valid
assessment of baseline conditions in rivers and a second assessment of wadeable streams to
determine trends in stream conditions. The Agency will issue a report on the nation's rivers and
streams in 2011.

Coastal Waters and Wetlands

The fifth survey of the nation's coastal waters will begin in 2010, followed by a wetlands survey
in 2011. These statistically representative surveys provide EPA and states with information to
help identify national priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control and prevention
actions.

Assessment of Nation's Waters: States assess about one-third of the nation's waters and
almost half—46 percent—of these waters do not meet state standards for fishing, swimming,
and other uses. In fact, states are adding more waters to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)  list
of impaired waters than they are taking off by a rate of 2 to  1. Between 2002 and 2008, states
added 4,346 waterbodies to the list of impaired waters while removing 2,505.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 2 - Protect Water Quality
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec.
319)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
FY 2007
Obligations
$204,706.7
$303.8
$205,320.3
FY 2008
Obligations
$211,415.7
($21.6)
$252,150.7
FY 2009
Obligations
$221,071.5
($162.4)
$224,140.7
                                   Section II - Page 53

-------
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
Recovery Act Management and Oversight
Total
$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
$0.0
$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
$8,421.4
$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
$14,866.8
$378.7
$479.3
$247.7
$3,368.2
$1,453.8
$0.0
$1,665,689.3
$69.4
$75,570.0
$683.5
$978.8
$18,438.4
$4,676,365.1
$429.3
$13,121.5
$203,089.1
$388.7
$133.3
$10,167.9
$1,089.9
$4,841.2
$7,166.3
$40,899.2
$2,038.4
$3,010.9
$267.0
$19,364.0
$4,116.1
$1,373.3
$23,655.4
$356.3
$419.4
$190.4
$3,700.6
$1,458.5
$5,589.5
$5,564,021.2
                Additional Information Relating to Goal 2, 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. The National
Estuary Grant Program (Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance 66.456) also supports this objective.	
                                  Section II - Page 54

-------
EPA Web Site Information:
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/nep
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
                                Section II - Page 55

-------
Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research
               FY2009 Obligations: Objective 2.3

           Objective 3    
-------
Drinking Water Research

EPA's Drinking Water Research Program provides methodologies, data, tools, models, and
technologies to support regulatory decisions, health risk assessments, and other needs
pertaining to statutory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The program also targets
research at implementing regulatory decisions, addressing compliance issues, promoting the
sustainability of water resources, reliably delivering safe drinking water, and developing
approaches to improve water infrastructure.

Research on Sustainable Water Infrastructure and Drinking Water Distribution Systems

In FY 2009, the Agency completed water infrastructure assessments to identify causes of failure
and to synthesize best practices to assess the condition of and rehabilitate water mains. EPA
also conducted research on the microbiological and physical-chemical reactions that occur
during transmission of water. Scientists identified the effects that disinfection practices and
controlling corrosion have on the accumulation and release of contaminants (such as lead,
copper,  arsenic, and vanadium) within water distribution systems.  These research products will
advance the ability to diagnose and repair water main breaks, inform decisions on optimizing
corrosion control and monitoring within distribution systems, provide data for risk assessments,
and support regulatory decisions related to the Total Coliform Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule,
and the  Disinfection Byproducts Rule.

Microbial Health Risks

In FY 2009, EPA scientists produced methods that will enable more effective monitoring of
pathogens in drinking water sources, evaluation of disinfection effectiveness, and assessment
of microbial health risks. EPA's research has also prompted state  agencies to develop new
guidelines for small ground water systems. These analytical methods can  potentially support
decisions associated with the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule and the Contaminant
Candidate List.

Drinking Water Regulations

In FY 2009, EPA completed more than 10 full-scale demonstration projects to develop
performance and cost data that small utilities can use to implement treatment systems for
controlling arsenic and other contaminants. The Agency also evaluated treatment technologies
for managing risks associated with Pharmaceuticals and personal  care products that may be
present  in sources of drinking water. Research on the chemical composition and toxicity of
disinfection byproducts has provided a framework that can be applied to evaluate how
alternative treatment practices might affect health risks relevant to disinfection byproduct
formation (for example,  reverse osmosis, ozonation, advanced oxidation, and chloramination).
                                   Section II - Page 57

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
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 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
$3,088.0
$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
$965.7
$5.3
$188.6
$97.4
$862.1
$571.9
$145,139.9
FY 2009
Obligations
$3,558.9
$259.0
$646.2
$43,794.6
$65,676.8
($81.1)
$148.7
$51.0
$4,286.5
$252.4
$816.7
$1,005.9
$14,177.9
$1,928.3
$2,555.7
$357.7
$11,878.5
$1,721.5
$612.0
$490.4
$26.9
$160.4
$72.8
$891.3
$557.8
$155,846.8
Additional Information Relating to Goal 2, Objective 3
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Extensive field and epidemiology studies conducted through the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program provided evidence on the
occurrence of viruses in rural ground water supplies and potential
measures to reduce health risks.
• The Drinking Water Research and Water Quality Research Programs:
• http://epa.qov/ord/npd/waterqualitvresearch-mmandtools.htm

Section II - Page 58

-------
•  http://epa.gov/ord/npd/dwresearch-contribution.htm

•  Water Quality Models and Tools: www.epa.gov/waterscience/models/

•  Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
   Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change:
   www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wgm/wrap/pdf/workshop/600r09010.pdf
                 Section II - Page 59

-------
                                           GOAL 2:  CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Ensure that 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.
PMs Met
7
PMs Not Met
4
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
2
Total PMs
13
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.1: Water Safe To Drink
By 2011, 91 percent of the population served by community water systems (CWSs) 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
(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.
FY 2006
Target
93
Actual
89
FY 2007
Target
94
Actual
91.5
FY 2008
Target
90
Actual
92
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
92.1

Unit
Percent
Population
This measure supports work under the Drinking Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY 2010 PAR.
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 byproducts, interim enhanced surface water treatment rule, long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule, arsenic.
                                                        Section II-Page 60

-------
                                          GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(aph) Percent of community water
systems that have undergone a
sanitary survey within the past three
years (five years for outstanding
performance.)
FY 2006
Target
95
Actual
94
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
92
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
87
FY 2009
Target
95
Actual
88

Unit
Percent
Systems
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 80 percent of community water systems in 2004.
Explanation - Sanitary surveys are resource-intensive efforts, as that state staff or contractors must physically visit the system whereas state budget
shortfalls and lack of resources (such as fuel and labor costs) have made it difficult for states to fill positions.
(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
89
89
89.5
89
90
89.1
Percent
Systems
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 - The 90% national target was established ambitiously. While the end of year result was slightly below the target at 89.1 %, the
performance is consistent with the measure's previous years of performance at 89%.
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
(dw2) Percent of person months
during which community water
systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based
standards.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
97
FY 2009
Target
95
Actual
97.2

Unit
Percent
Person
Months
Baseline - In 2005, 95.2 percent of the goal was achieved.
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.)
                                                       Section II-Page 61

-------
                                          GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
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 2006
Target
90
Actual
86.6
FY 2007
Target
87
Actual
87
FY 2008
Target
87
Actual
83
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
81.2

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% 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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ape) Fund utilization rate for the
DWSRF.
FY 2006
Target
83.3
Actual
86.9
FY 2007
Target
85
Actual
88
FY 2008
Target
86
Actual
90
FY 2009
Target
89
Actual
92

Unit
Utilization
Rate
This measure supports work under the Drinking Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY 2010 PAR.
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is a 79.2 percent fund utilization rate in 2003.
(apd) Number of additional projects
initiating operations.
425
This measure supports work under the Drink
of 2009. Projects are beginning, and results
399
433
438
440
445
445
480
Projects
ng Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In 2002, 1 ,538 projects were initiating operations.
(api) Percentage of identified Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells
closed or permitted.




90
88
75
89
Percent Wells
Baseline - In 2007, 85% of Class V Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells were closed or permitted.
(apk) Percentage of Class I, II, and III
wells that maintain mechanical
integrity without a failure that releases
contaminants to underground sources
of drinking water.




98

98
98
Percent Wells
Baseline - In 2006, 98% of Class I wells, 98% of Class II wells and 100% of Class III wells maintained mechanical integrity.
                                                       Section II-Page 62

-------
                                          GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(apl) Percentage of prohibited Class
IV and high-priority, identified,
potentially endangering Class V wells
closed or permitted in ground water
based source water areas.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
96
Actual

FY 2009
Target
86
Actual
82

Unit
Percent Wells
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 byproducts, interim enhanced surface water treatment rule, long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule, arsenic.
Explanation - The Class IV/V measure was eliminated in 2010 and replaced with more accurate language. This FY09 actual represents reporting under
the new measure language for future year reporting.
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].)

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
(fs1) Percentage of women of
childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of
concern.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
5.5
Actual
Data
available
2013
FY 2009
Target
5.2
Actual
Data
Available
2013

Unit
Percent
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 6tn National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals will be the Agency's source of 2009 data, but no firm date has
been given for when the report will be released. The current expectation is that it will be published in 2013.
                                                        Section II-Page 63

-------
                                           GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
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 2006
Target
91
Actual
No Longer
Reported
FY 2007
Target
81
Actual
No Longer
Reported
FY 2008
Target
65-85
Actual
No Longer
Reported
FY 2009
Target
65-85
Baseline - 2003 baseline: 65 to 85 percent of 16.3 million acres of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres estimated to be
sources are approved or conditionally approved for use.
Actual
No Longer
Reported

Unit
Percent
Acres
mpacted by anthropogenic
Explanation - When the measure was developed, the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference planned to develop a centralized database. EPA
planned to use the ISSC database as the data source for this measure. However, the ISSC did not develop the database, and EPA has no authority to
require reporting of the data.
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.)

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 five-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
(ss1) Number of waterborne disease
outbreaks attributable to swimming in
or other recreational contact with
coastal and Great Lakes waters
measured as a five-year average.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
2
Actual
0
FY 2009
Target
2
Actual
Data
Available
2012

Unit
Outbreaks
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].
                                                        Section II-Page 64

-------
                                           GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
Explanation - The Centers for Disease Control report on waterborne disease outbreaks will be the Agency's source of 2009-2010 data, but no firm date
has been given for when the report will be released. The current expectation is that it will be published in 2012.
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 2006
Target
94
Actual
97
FY 2007
Target
92.6
Actual
95.20
FY 2008
Target
92.6
Actual
95
FY 2009
Target
93
Actual
95

Unit
Percent Days
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.
PMs Met
12
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
5
Total PMs
18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
By 2012, use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in more than 2,250  water bodies identified  in 2002 as not attaining
standards (cumulative). (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].)
                                                        Section II - Page 65

-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(L) Number of waterbody segments
identified by States in 2002 as not
attaining standards, where water
quality standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
1,550
Actual
2,165
FY 2009
Target
2,270
Actual
2,505

Unit
Segments
This measure supports work under the Clean Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
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 - The target was exceeded due to submission of overdue lists of impaired waters from 2004, 2006 and 2008 reporting cycles.
(bpb) Fund utilization rate for the
CWSRF.
93.3
94.70
93.4
96.7
93.5
98
94.5
98
Utilization
Rate
This measure supports work under the Clean Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In 2005, fund utilization rate for the CWSRF was 94.7 percent.
(bpc) Percentage of all major publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) that
comply with their permitted
wastewater discharge standards.




86
86
86
86
Percent
POTWs
This measure supports work under the Clean Water SRF Program, which received additional under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In 2005, 3,670 (86.6 percent) publicly owned treatment works complied with their permitted wastewater discharge standards.
(bpk) Number of TMDLs that are
established by states and approved
by EPA on schedule consistent with
national policy (cumulative).
15,428
17,682
20,232
21,685
28,527
30,658
33,540
36,487
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,677 TMDLs in 2000.
Explanation - The program measure was exceeded prima
decree obligations. We will adjust future targets according
(bpl) Percentage of high-priority state
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
that are scheduled to be reissued.
95
96.40
rily because Pennsylvania developed more than 2,900 TMDLs in FY 09 to meet consent
iy.
95
112
95
120
95
147
Percent
Permits
Baseline - 95 percent (measure is annual, Regions required to meet 95 percent of the universe).
         Section II-Page 66

-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual

Unit
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
yeartarget, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
(bpn) Percentage of major
dischargers in significant
noncompliance (SNC) at any time
during the fiscal year.
22.5
20.20
22.5
22.6
22.5
23.90
22.5
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Dischargers
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 22.5 percent of major dischargers in significant noncompliance in 2004.
(bpp) Percentage of submissions of
new or revised water quality
standards from states and Territories
that are approved by EPA.
90.9
89
85
85.60
87
92.5
85
93.2
Percent
Submissions
Baseline - Not applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Explanation - Although EPA exceeded its quantitative goals for the past three years, the results might not be sustainable year after year. Submissions
may vary considerably in size and complexity. 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.
(bps) Number of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA on a
schedule consistent with national
policy (cumulative).
20,275
22,648
25,274
26,844
33,801
35,979
38,978
41,866
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,843 TMDLs in 2000.
Explanation - The program measure was exceeded primarily because Pennsylvania developed more than 2,900 TMDLs in FY 09 to meet consent
decree obligations. We will adjust future targets accordingly.
(bpt) Percentage of waters assessed
using statistically valid surveys.
54
54
54
54
65
65
65
65
Percent
Waters
Baseline - 2000 baseline is 31 percent.
(bpv) Percent of high-priority EPA and
state NPDES permits that are
reissued on schedule.
95
98.50
95
104
95
119
95
144
Percent
Permits
Baseline - 95 percent. (Measure is annual. Regions are 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
yeartarget, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
         Section II-Page 67

-------
                                        GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(bpw) Percent of states and territories
that, within the preceding three-year
period, submitted new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to
EPA that reflect new scientific info
from EPA or sources not considered
in prev standards.
FY 2006
Target
66
Actual
66.10
FY 2007
Target
67
Actual
66.10
FY 2008
Target
68
Actual
62.5
FY 2009
Target
68
Actual
62.5

Unit
Percent
States and
Territories
Baseline - Not applicable because number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Explanation - Some states and tribes have declining resources and technical expert
raised in litigation and in difficult Endangered Species Act consultations. EPA will cc
se to deal with complex science and policy issues, including issues
intinue to work with states and tribes to address these issues.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2012, remove at least 5,600 of the specific causes of water body impairments identified by states in 2002 (cumulative). (2002 baseline: estimate
of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments identified by states.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(bpf) Estimated annual reduction in
millions of pounds of phosphorus from
nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only.)
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
11.80
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
7.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Actual
3.50
FY 2009
Target
4.5
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Pounds
(Millions)
Baseline - 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) Estimated additional reduction
in million pounds of nitrogen from
nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only.)
8.5
14.50
8.5
19.1
8.5
11.30
8.5
Data
Available
2010
Pounds
(Millions)
Baseline - 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) Estimated additional reduction
in thousands of tons of sediment from
nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only.)
700,000
1,200,000
700,000
3,900,000
700,000
2,100,000
700,000
Data
Available
2010
Tons
(Thousands)
Baseline - 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.
                                                     Section II-Page 68

-------
                                           GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(wq2) Remove the specific causes of
waterbody impairment identified by
states in 2002 (cumulative).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
4,607
Actual
6,723
FY 2009
Target
6,891
Actual
7,530

Unit
Causes
Baseline - In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states.
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 (USGS). 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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(wq3) Improve water quality
conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed
approach (cumulative).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
40
Actual
60
FY 2009
Target
102
Actual
104

Unit
Watersheds
Baseline - In 2002, there were 10 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watersheds of focus having 1 or more water bodies impaired.
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.)
                                                         Section II-Page 69

-------
                                            GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Opb) Percent of serviceable rural
Alaska homes with access to drinking
water supply and wastewater
disposal.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
92
Actual
Data
Available
December
2009
FY 2008
Target
94
Actual
91
FY 2009
Target
96
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Percent
Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
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.)

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.)
                                                         Section II-Page 70

-------
                                         GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
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
(co5) Percent of active dredged
material ocean dumping sites that will
have achieved environmentally
acceptable conditions (as reflected in
each site's management plan).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
99
FY 2009
Target
98
Actual
99

Unit
Percent Sites
Baseline - In 2005, 94 percent active dredged material ocean dumping sites had achieved environmentally acceptable conditions.
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.
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
2
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
5
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H66) Percentage of planned outputs
(in support of Water Quality Research
Program [WQRP] long-term goal #1)
delivered.
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal 1 and completed 1 00% of its actions on time. This
measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
(H68) Percentage of planned outputs
(in support of WQRP long-term goal
#2) delivered.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
86
Percent
                                                      Section II - Page 71

-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal 2 and completed 1 00 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 - Research delayed in the following area: production of report on best management practices (BMPs) and other strategies aimed at the
prevention, control and mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms and their toxins.
(H70) Percentage of planned outputs
(in support of WQRP long-term goal
#3) delivered.
100
92
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal 3 and completed 1 00 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.
(H92) Percentage of WQRP
publications in high-impact journals.
(H96) Percentage of WQRP
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
(I34) Percentage of planned risk
management research products
delivered to support EPA's Office of
Water, Regions, water utilities, and
other key stakeholders to manage
public health risk.






No Target
Est.
No Target
Est.

Biennial
Biennial

14.7
15.7
100
13.8
15.2
100
No Target
Est.
No Target
Est.
100
Biennial
Biennial
93
Percent
Percent
Percent
Products
Baseline - In 2008, the program began tracking outputs that measure progress towards completing the Drinking Water Research Program's long-term
goal 2, which supports the Office of Water (OW) in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk
management decisions. The Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) work under this goal also supports OW, Regions, states, utilities, and key
stakeholders in protecting sources of drinking water, managing water availability, improving water infrastructure sustainability, increasing water and
energy use efficiency, and responding to short and long-term water resource impacts of environmental stressors such as climate change, population
growth and land use changes.
Explanation - Research was delayed in the following area: development of models to characterize community level drinking water risks that can be
applied to human calicivirus (HuCV) and pathogen fate and transport in the distribution system.
(I35) Percentage of planned
methodologies, data, and tools
delivered in support of EPA's Office of
Water and other key stakeholder
needs for developing health risk
assessments under the SDWA.




100
100
100
100
Percent
         Section II-Page 72

-------
                                     GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
Baseline - In 2008, the program began tracking outputs that measure progress towards completing the Drinking Water Research Program's long-term
goal 1, which primarily supports the Office of Water in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), regulating/not regulating
contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the six year review, and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. ORD's work under
this goal also supports regions and key stakeholders in meeting simultaneous compliance requirements while also aiding risk assessors in developing
risk assessments that inform regulatory decisions.	
                                                   Section II-Page 73

-------
                                      GOAL 3 AT A GLANCE
                   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.
                               How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                                        (Dollars in Thousands)
         FY 2009
       Performance
         Measures

          Met = 23
         Not Met = 2
        Data Available
     After 11/16/09 = 2
    (Total Measures = 27)
       Compliance an
        Environments
        Stewardship

        $805,240-6
  Healthy
 Communities
and Ecosystems
 $1.455,733.9
Ilean Air and Global


  $1,376,040.1
    8%
Goal 3 Performance Measures
                                                                 Objective 1
                                                                              Objective 2
                                                                                           Objective 3
                                  Source: FY 2009 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                               Goal 3 FY 2009 Performance and Resources
                              Strategic Objective
                                                     FY 2009
                                                    Obligations
                                                  (in thousands)
                                                %of
                                                GoalS
                                                Funds
  Objective 1—Preserve Land: Reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste genera-
  tion, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum
  products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
                                                    $260,598.8
                                                 6%
  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.
                                                  $4,399,904.4
                                                93%
  Objective 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.
                                                     $75,143.4
                                                 2%
  Goal 3 Total
                                                   $4,735,646.6
                                                100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                       Section II - Page 74

-------
Goal Purpose

To achieve its land preservation and restoration goal, EPA has developed a 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 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.

EPA employs a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land, including reducing waste at its
source, recycling waste for its material or energy value, managing waste effectively to prevent
spills and releases of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. EPA works to
ensure that hazardous and solid wastes are managed  safely at industrial facilities. Working with
states, tribes, local governments, and responsible parties, 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 to develop public-private partnerships to conserve resources in key areas. The
Agency collaborates with partners in innovative, nonregulatory 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 conserves 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.

Contributing Programs

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste Management, RCRA Corrective
Action, RCRA Waste Minimization and Recycling, Superfund Emergency Preparedness,
Superfund Remedial, Superfund Enforcement, Superfund Removal, Federal Facilities, Oil Spills,
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Underground  Storage Tank Prevention and Compliance,
Land Protection and Restoration Research, and Homeland Security.
                                 Section II - Page 75

-------
Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) Cleanups in Indian Country
           Cleanups Yet To Be Completed In Indian Country
   500
   400
   300
   200
   100
          2003
2005
2007
2009
Over the past seven years, the LUST cleanup backlog in Indian Country has declined by about
25 percent. This success is due partly to focused efforts by EPA and tribes to complete the
remaining cleanups necessary at older sites and to increase use of the national and regional
Indian Country cleanup contracts. These contracts help evaluate LUST Trust Fund eligible sites;
design corrective action plans; and remediate contaminated sites. However, completing
cleanups and reducing the backlog of sites in Indian Country is likely to become more difficult as
a result of two factors: 1) Several EPA Regions are in the process of conducting comprehensive
surveys to  identify abandoned tanks,  so the backlog may increase as new releases are
discovered, and 2) EPA is addressing more sites that require complex cleanups, which take
more time to  complete.

Reference: Data from Office of Underground Storage Tanks End-of-Year Activity  Reports to
Regional Division Directors.90

www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca  08 34.pdf; www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 07  34.pdf;
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca  06 34.pdf; www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 05  34.pdf;
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca  043 4.pdf;
                                Section II-Page 76

-------
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 3.1
                      (in thousands)     Objective 1
                                       $260,598.80
                                          6%
Objective 3
                Goal 3 Total Obligations = $4,735,646.6
                                                            FY 2009 Performance
                                                           Measures: Objective 3.1

                                                                  Met = 5
                                                                 Not Met = 0
                                                              Data Available After
                                                            November 16, 2009 = 2
                                                                 (Total = 7)
EPA seeks to reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, and ensuring proper management of wastes and petroleum products at facilities in
ways that prevent releases.

Engaging Communities in Cleanup, Emergency Response, and Managing Hazardous
Materials: In 2009, EPA reached out to communities, especially those that are economically
disadvantaged, to engage and prepare local communities to more meaningfully participate in
government decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and managing hazardous
materials and waste. Greater community involvement will strengthen Agency programs by
consistently and effectively engaging local communities and stakeholders in decision-making
processes that produce outcomes that are protective and aligned with community goals.

Roadmap for Sustainable Materials Management: During FY 2009,  an EPA-state work group
completed a roadmap for planning, Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead,
which recommends a shift in focus from waste management to materials management,
cultivating  the principles of sustainability and taking a life cycle perspective.

Preventing Coal Ash Releases: The failure of an ash disposal cell at the Tennessee Valley
Authority's Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted the issue of coal combustion residuals
(CCR) impoundment stability.  In response, EPA decided to assess the stability of
impoundments and similar management units that contain wet-handled CCRs. In March and
April 2009, EPA issued Information Request Letters covering more than 200 facilities and more
than 500 surface impoundments. EPA has completed assessments and has posted on its Web
site final reports assessing the structural integrity for 43 CCR surface impoundments at 22
facilities, including  recommendations to ensure the continued stability of the 43 units. The
Agency also is finalizing its strategy for assessing the remaining surface impoundments
managing CCRs and taking steps to improve the overall management of CCRs.
                                Section II - Page 77

-------
Recycling and Waste Reduction: Although FY 2009 data, and in some cases 2008 data, will
not be available until 2010, EPA is on track for meeting  its recycling and waste reduction goals
through the success of partnership programs such as the Coal Combustion Partnership
Program, WasteWise, and Plug-In To eCycling (www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships). The Agency
expects to meet its FY 2009 municipal solid waste reduction goal of diverting almost 20 billion
pounds per year from disposal. EPA initiated a number  of activities to increase the volume of
waste diverted, including reaching out 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 FY 2009, EPA greatly increased the number of partners with whom the Agency
is collaborating by 24 percent.

The Agency's WasteWise Program focuses on partnerships with businesses; institutions such
as universities and hospitals; nonprofit organizations; and state, local, and tribal governments to
set and achieve waste reduction goals. In FY 2009, the  number of WasteWise members
increased to 2,577 from 2,063 in FY 2008.

EPA's Plug-In To eCycling program partnered with electronics manufacturers, retailers, and
service providers to improve public awareness and expand infrastructure for collection and
responsible recycling of electronics. In 2008 (the latest data available), Plug-In partners
collected 68 million pounds of consumer electronics, including computers, televisions, and cell
phones, for recycling. As a result of these electronics recycling efforts, partners reported
preventing the release of greenhouse gases equal to the annual emissions from approximately
16,800 cars.

EPA's Coal Combustion Partnership Program (C2P2) is a voluntary program that seeks to
increase beneficial use of fly ash. There are numerous benefits associated with the use of coal
combustion products (CCPs) as supplemental cementitious materials, including environmental
benefits from avoidance of new greenhouse gas emissions, economic benefits from replacing
more expensive materials with CCPs, and performance benefits resulting from the enhanced
physical and chemical properties of cementitious materials  containing CCPs. In FY 2009, EPA
had over 180 organizations participating  in the C2P2 program.

Hazardous Waste Control: Reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated is a program
priority; however, any hazardous waste created must be managed  under protective controls. In
FY 2009, EPA established and updated waste management controls at treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities regulated by the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA)
(www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html).

Under the Government Performance Results Act (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-
gpra gplaw2m/), EPA's strategy for preventing releases of hazardous waste  relies on issuing
and maintaining facility permits that mandate approved  controls for each hazardous waste
facility site. During FY 2009, EPA and state partners issued 115 initial approved controls and
updated controls, exceeding the FY 2009 annual target of 100.  In total, 97 percent of the current
2,446 facilities are now under approved controls. Once  a facility is permitted, permits must be
regularly updated and maintained. EPA expects a higher demand in the future for permit
renewals. Facilities that were permitted 10 or more years ago have outdated  controls; their
permits must be renewed to ensure that the waste continues to be  handled properly.

Permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that cease operations could pose threats if
not closed, cleaned up, and monitored properly in accordance with EPA standards. A critical
                                 Section II-Page 78

-------
component of EPA's hazardous waste program is ensuring future protection for communities
and the environment around these facilities. Such protection includes ensuring 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 addressing public concerns.

Many of the 115 hazardous waste
facilities that came under initial
approved controls and updated controls
in FY 2009 presented types of units that
were relatively difficult to address. Many
of the facilities remaining to be
permitted either have units that are
either difficult to permit or have difficulty
meeting the "under control criteria"
because of the large number of units
they include.
Underground Storage Tanks Supplemental Funding

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) provided a supplemental appropriation of $200
million from the Leaking  Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund to EPA for cleaning up releases of
contamination from federally regulated underground
storage tanks. The overall purpose for the ARRA LUST
is to clean up contaminated LUST sites effectively,
while maximizing job creation and retention and
providing economic and  environmental benefits (such
as protecting ground water and cleaning up and
reusing contaminated land). These objectives will be
achieved by overseeing  assessments and cleanups at
shovel-ready sites or directly paying for assessing and
cleaning up sites where the responsible party is
unknown, unwilling, or unable to finance cleanup, or
where the cleanup is an  emergency response.

For FY 2009, the program met its goal of awarding 54
grants to states and territories.

For more information go to:
www.epa.gov/recovery/plans/oust.pdf.
Underground Storage Tanks: Except
in Indian Country,1 the Underground
Storage Tank Program
(www.epa.gov/OUST) 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, and that the
equipment is used, functioning, and
properly maintained. For  FY 2009, EPA and its partners achieved a significant operational
compliance rate of 66.4 percent, exceeding the FY 2009 goal of 65 percent. For FY 2010, the
target is 65.5 percent, and future targets will each represent a 0.5 percent increase over the
previous year's rate of compliance.

EPA and its partners made progress in meeting the Energy Policy Act
(www.epa.gov/swerust1/fedlaws/epact 05.htm) requirement to inspect all underground storage
tank facilities at least once every three years, inspecting 96,000 facilities in FY 2009. The
program expects that over time this increased frequency of inspections will result in improved
rates of facility compliance and fewer releases. Through its compliance activities, EPA and its
partners have succeeded in meeting the Agency's goal of limiting the number of confirmed
releases at underground  storage tank facilities. EPA adopted a more aggressive goal of
reducing the number of confirmed releases from 10,000 in FY 2008 to fewer than 9,000
 Use of the terms "Indian Country," "Indian lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" in this report is not
intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is their use
intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.
                                  Section II-Page 79

-------
beginning in FY 2009. EPA met and exceeded this goal, with only 7,168 confirmed releases in
FY 2009.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 1 - Preserve Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage
Tanks
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST/UST
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
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
$603.5
$1,458.0
$143.8
$201.5
$99.2
$1,006.0
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
$3,432.0
$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
$649.9
$1,572.8
$147.2
$232.6
$120.2
$921.2
FY 2009
Obligations
$77,336.2
$0.0
$5,780.9
$911.7
($77.3)
$329.9
$720.8
$13,469.7
$67,334.7
$10,053.3
$188.1
$64.5
$4,312.9
$484.0
$2,050.4
$1,278.5
$21,211.3
$1,272.5
$1,794.5
$196.7
$11,997.8
$2,046.9
$683.6
$888.4
$140.3
$202.9
$92.2
$1,153.9
                                Section II-Page 80

-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
LUST Prevention
Total
$729.3
$0.0
$243,930.4
$705.6
$0.0
$221,149.8
$705.8
$33,973.8
$260,598.9
                Additional Information Relating to Goal 3, Objective 1
Grants:
•  State and Tribal Assistance Grants were used to make
   competitive awards of five cooperative agreements, up to a
   total of $304,000, to Indian tribal governments and
   intertribal consortia in support of programs that address
   hazardous waste mismanagement in Indian Country.

•  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 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.	
EPA Web Site
Information:
•  Waste Reduction: www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships

•  Resource Conservation Challenge:
   www.epa.gov/waste/rcc/index.htm

•  Energy Policy Act:
   www.epa.gov/swerust1/fedlaws/epact 05.htm
                               Section II-Page 81

-------
Objective 3.2: Restore Land
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 3.2
                      (in thousands)
                   Objective 3
                                   Objective 1
                         Objective 2
                        $4,399,904.4
                           92%
                Goal 3 Total Obligations = $4,735,646.6
                                                             FY 2009 Performance
                                                            Measures: Objective 3.2

                                                                  Met= 16
                                                                 Not Met = 2
                                                              Data Available After
                                                             November 16, 2009 = 0
                                                                 (Total = 18)
EPA's cleanup programs include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) program (www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cercla.html), commonly
known as Superfund; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
Program; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Cleanup
Program (www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html): and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) program. These programs 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 progress in FY 2009.

Cleanup Agreements Reached at Federal Facilities: In FY 2009, EPA signed seven
enforceable agreements with the Department of Defense for cleanup of federal facility sites on
the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The agreements provide a detailed roadmap of the
proposed cleanup, including a schedule with project milestones. Once an agreement is in place,
EPA monitors the project schedule and oversees  requirements to ensure a timely and protective
cleanup, consistent with the terms of the agreement.

Libby Public Health Emergency: In June 2009,  EPA determined that a public health
emergency exists at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site in northwest Montana. This was the first
time EPA made a determination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) that conditions at a site constitute a public health
emergency. EPA has made progress in removing the asbestos threat to the land and air, which
is linked to increased risks of lung  cancer, asbestosis, and respiratory problems. EPA's cleanup
efforts have greatly reduced exposure; however, actual and potential releases of amphibole
asbestos remain a significant threat to public health in the area.

Pursuing Financial Responsibility Under CERCLA: CERCLA directs  EPA to establish
financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities "consistent with the  degree and
duration of risks associated with the  production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of
                                 Section II-Page 82

-------
hazardous substances." In July 2009, EPA published a Federal Register notice identifying
classes within the hard rock mining industry for which EPA will first develop financial
responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b.) The July notice also committed EPA
to evaluate additional classes for possible financial responsibility requirements, and EPA will
publish another Federal Register notice identifying those additional industry classes.

Superfund Sites: At the end of FY 2009, the Superfund program had 1,607 sites listed on the
NPL. Of these, EPA has completed construction of the final remedy at 1,080 sites and has
brought 409 of those sites into sitewide ready for anticipated use. Either designs  are being
developed, assessments are underway, or construction is ongoing at the remaining sites that
have not yet completed construction. Contributing to these totals, the program:

•  Determined that 66 Superfund sites were ready for anticipated use, exceeding the FY 2009
   target of 65. This sitewide ready for anticipated use performance measure tracks
   construction complete sites on the NPL (www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/npl) at which: 1)
   human exposure is under control, 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.

•  Completed construction of remedies at 20 Superfund sites,  achieving the target of 20 private
   and federal sites.

•  Controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current
   land and/or ground water use conditions at a net total of 11  additional Superfund human
   exposure sites, exceeding the target of 10.

•  Controlled ground water migration at a net total of 16 sites,  exceeding the target of 15.

•  Made 400 final site assessment decisions under Superfund, achieving the target of 400.

The Superfund program also engages  in a significant amount of work to screen potential sites
that may require further CERCLA action. This pre-NPL work accounts for a significant amount of
FY 2009 activity in addition to the achievements represented under the previously mentioned
goals.

                    Superfund Remedial Program Supplemental Funding

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $600 million in cleanup funds for the
Superfund Remedial Program, including management and oversight.  The overall objectives for this
funding are to further cleanup at NPL sites across the country, maximize job creation and retention, and
provide environmental and economic benefits. These objectives will be achieved by starting new cleanup
projects, accelerating cleanups at projects already underway, increasing the number of workers and
activities at cleanup projects, and returning affected sites to more productive use. As of September 30,
2009, EPA had achieved physical onsite construction at 22 sites supported with ARRA funds.

For more information go to: www.epa.gov/recovery/plans/superfund.pdf.	

"Enforcement First" Program: EPA's Superfund Enforcement Program
(www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/index.html)  continued to employ its Enforcement
First strategy to locate viable liable parties to clean up sites they were responsible for
contaminating. The Enforcement First strategy enables EPA to  conserve valuable trust fund
                                  Section II-Page 83

-------
resources for use at sites where potentially responsible parties do not exist or where they lack
the resources or capabilities needed to conduct the site cleanup.

EPA continues to use the most appropriate enforcement or compliance tools to address the
most significant problems and to achieve the best outcomes. The Superfund Enforcement
Program also strives to ensure fairness, reduce transaction costs, and promote economic
development. For example, to ensure that responsible parties can meet their cleanup
obligations, EPA has developed a national strategy to assess companies' compliance with
federal financial assurance requirements.

EPA's Superfund enforcement goals for FY 2009 were to:  1) 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 2) address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a
statute of limitations on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.

In FY 2009, cost recovery was addressed at 338  NPL and non-NPL sites, of which 191 had total
costs greater than or equal to $200,000. Of those, 66 had potential statute-of-limitation
concerns. In addition, EPA secured  private-party  commitments for cleanup and cost recovery
and billed private parties for oversight for amounts that exceeded $2.4 billion.
                             FY 2009 Enforcement & Compliance Annual Results
                             Private Party Commitments for Superfund Site Study
                                   & Cleanup, Oversight & Cost Recovery
                                            FY 2005-FY 2009
                                              ($ Millions)
      $2,000-


      $1,800-


      $1,600-


      $1,400-


      $1,200-


   |  $1,000-
   i
       $800-


       $600-


       $400-


       $200-
                 FY2005
                                  FY2006
                                                   FY2007
                                                                    FY2008
                                                                                     FY 2009
            ]Site Study & Cleanup •Oversight nCost Recovery
Data Source: Site Study & Cleanup and Cost Recovery:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &
Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Oversight: Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS)
            In FY2006, the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) changed the reporting requirements for Consent Decrees (CDs)
            to count only CDs that have been entered by the court. In previous years, OSRE gave credit when the CD was referred to the
            Department of Justice, lodged with the court, or entered by the court. The chart shows results based on the new methodology.
                                    Section II-Page 84

-------
Priorities for Facilities: In FY 2009, EPA began working on the full corrective action baseline
of 3,746 facilities and achieved its annual goals: 64 facilities with current human exposures
under control; 73 with migration of contaminated ground water under control; and 108 with final
remedies constructed. The RCRA Corrective Action Program largely owes its success in FY
2009 to the many years EPA and state environmental agencies have spent characterizing high-
priority facilities, working on medium- and low-priority facilities, and moving all the corrective
action facilities toward final cleanups. In FY 2009, these efforts culminated in the control of
human exposures and the containment of contaminated ground water at many of the most
difficult sites, as well as at many medium- and low-priority sites. Meanwhile, the  Agency's
ambitious goal for FY 2020—to complete remedy construction at 95 percent of all 3,746 facilities
believed to  need corrective action—has spurred EPA and states to accelerate remedy
construction efforts. In future years, as EPA and states  begin work on facilities that have had
less characterization and attention, the Agency expects the pace of accomplishments to slow,
because more work will be required to bring each facility into conformance with environmental
indicator criteria or to remedy construction.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
(www.epa.gov/oust/ltffacts.htm) promotes timely and protective cleanups of 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
2009, EPA's state and tribal partners completed 12,944 cleanups of leaking underground
storage tanks (including 49 cleanups in Indian Country2).

Emergency Preparedness and Response: EPA's Emergency Response and Removal
Program is  founded on the National Oil and  Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
commonly called the National Contingency Plan. EPA's mission is to respond to immediate
threats from releases of hazardous substances and oil, and its first priority is to eliminate any
danger to the public. The program has conducted more than 10,000 removals since 1980. In FY
2009, the Emergency Response and Removal Program exceeded both of its targets by
completing  214 Superfund-led removals and 154 voluntary emergency removals.

The Core National Approach to Response measures Regional, EPA Special Teams', and
Headquarters' readiness to respond to major simultaneous events as outlined in the Agency's
National Approach to Response Preparedness Plan. This plan has provided a framework within
EPA to address overall Agency readiness for multiple simultaneous, nationally significant
events. The preparedness plan addresses EPA's overall response readiness by identifying and
then focusing on resource gaps associated with personnel, equipment, and other preparedness
requirements. In  FY 2009, the Agency expanded the Core National Approach to Response
evaluation to include all offices with responsibilities during major responses. As a result, EPA
offices are evaluated on action items listed in the preparedness plan.

The Environmental Response Laboratory Network provides environmental laboratory testing
capability and capacity to meet EPA's analytical responsibilities in response to incidents
involving the release of chemical, biological, or radiological agents. Through nationally
consistent protocols, the laboratory network can assure the public that decisions made during a
large-scale  emergency response are based on reliable  and high-quality analytical data. In FY
2 Use of the terms "Indian Country," "Indian lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this report is
not intended to provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is their use
intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such programs.
                                 Section II - Page 85

-------
2009, the network began to expand its membership to include public and private laboratories
across the nation.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 2 - Restore Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
RCRA: Corrective Action
Superfund: Emergency Response and
Removal
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Federal Facilities lAGs
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal
Agencies
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
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
$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
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
$223,162.3
$11,156.7
$38,258.4
$0.0
$1,873,550.8
$3,691.9
$1,300.0
$803.5
$29,707.0
$2,873.2
$14,346.9
$3,481.4
$80,797.4
$23,014.3
$7,234.7
FY 2009
Obligations
$30,119.1
$5,748.7
$2,918.7
$293.5
$0.0
$800.7
$55,340.8
$2,469.0
$13,209.2
$254,298.6
$32,359.5
$38,452.4
$253,739.1
$212,574.2
$10,812.6
$37,234.6
($1.7)
$3,195,452.9
$5,728.8
$1,032.7
$1,104.1
$36,494.1
$3,097.3
$14,379.8
$4,724.2
$84,186.1
$25,359.9
$6,890.6
                                 Section II-Page 86

-------
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
Recovery Act Management and Oversight
Total
$583.3
$32,218.0
$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
$0.0
$2,715,520.0
$671.6
$30,747.9
$2,071.1
$453.4
$12,816.1
$1,198.2
$1,271.4
$657.0
$3,910.2
$12,185.6
$3,856.6
$0.0
$2,906,534.8
$1,323.5
$31,570.1
$2,083.0
$478.9
$11,602.0
$1,108.3
$1,114.1
$506.0
$3,889.4
$11,140.9
$3,874.8
$2,393.9
$4,399,904.4
Additional Information Relating to Goal 3, Objective 2
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:
www.epa.gov/oust/ltffacts.htm
• Superfund Enforcement Program:
www.eDa.qov/oecaerth/cleanuD/suDerfund/index.html
• EPA Emergency Management:
www.eDa.gov/emergencies/index.htm
Section II-Page 87

-------
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 3.3

           Objective 3  
-------
water and site contamination, EPA scientists suggested that soil vapor extraction would be a
cost-effective treatment for the site. This economical and efficient solution from EPA's scientists
has been integral in restoring the Red Cove wetland.

EPA scientists also partnered with a community in Nebraska to apply in situ chemical oxidation
methods, consisting of the injection of sodium persulfate at the Parkview Well Superfund Site in
Grand Island. The selected soil and ground water treatment methodology will remediate the
source area materials and ground water. When compared to several other remediation
alternatives, this technology  is expected
to reduce the timeframe to remediate
and minimize the short-term  impact on
the community. Further, based on
information in the Record of  Decision
(www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2007070002056.pdf), this treatment
technology is anticipated to save more
than $70 million when compared with the
most costly alternative. EPA  anticipates
starting the in situ chemical oxidation
remedial action by summer of 2010.
     Research Strategy to Study Nanomaterials

EPA outlined a new research strategy to better
understand how manufactured nanomaterials may harm
human health and the environment. Nanomaterials are
materials that are between 1 and 100 nanometers. A
nanometer is approximately 1/100,000 the width of a
human hair. These materials are currently used in
hundreds of consumer products, including sunscreen,
cosmetics, and sports equipment. EPA's role among
federal agencies is to determine the potential hazards of
nanotechnology and develop approaches to reduce or
minimize any risks identified. As part of the strategy,
researchers are investigating widely used nanomaterials,
such as carbon nanotubes (which are used in vehicles,
sports equipment, and electronics) and titanium dioxide
(which is used in paints, cosmetics, and sunscreens).

The research is being conducted in EPA's own
laboratories and by grant recipients as part of a
collaborative effort with other federal organizations and
the international community.
Nanotechnology Research: In 2009,
the Science to Achieve Results Grant
Program and the intramural laboratory
effort supported EPA Regional offices in
applying new cleanup technologies to
contaminated sites. Science to Achieve
Results grantees developed approaches
to using nano-scale iron to detoxify
contaminated ground water, while
scientists in EPA's laboratories developed cleanup technologies using nano carbon, iron, and
bimetallics. Researchers are evaluating remediation performance and environmental fate and
transport of the nano-scale treatment agents. During FY 2009, 26 sites across the United States
used cleanup technologies developed by EPA's nanotechnology research program.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 3: Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
FY 2007
Obligations
$20.1
$95.6
$256.3
FY 2008
Obligations
($59.4)
$44.6
$287.7
FY 2009
Obligations
($107.4)
$86.4
$218.8
                                  Section II-Page 89

-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: SITE Program
Superfund: Remedial
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$66,102.9
$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
$58,618.0
($14.4)
$4,115.6
$58.4
$30.0
$729.5
$69.3
$250.9
$181.4
$4,941.3
$3,773.9
$1,165.3
$72.5
$4,481.0
$330.0
$73.7
$329.2
$1.6
$57.1
$29.5
$676.8
$173.3
$80,416.8
$57,062.0
($86.2)
$3,973.7
$49.6
$17.0
$1,268.7
$84.2
$272.5
$335.6
$4,693.9
$655.0
$853.0
$119.4
$3,963.9
$574.4
$204.2
$159.2
$9.0
$53.5
$24.3
$472.6
$186.1
$75,143.4
Additional Information Relating to Goal 3, Objective 3
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Through Small Business Innovation Research, Membrane
Technology & Research, Inc. developed membranes that
recover and recycle air pollutants from chemical plants, saving
each plant $200,000 to $400,000 annually, reducing pollution by
more than 2,000 tons per year, and creating profits of more than
$100 million. Another successful small business venture is that
of Creare, Inc. Creare developed a process that eliminates
problems from machining shops using cutting fluids, received
additional funds from the Navy, and licensed technology for the
automobile industry.
• www.eDa.qov/nrmrl/Dubs/600r08093/600r08093.htm
• www.eDa.gov/suDerfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007070002056.Ddf
• www.eDa.aov/ada/download/reDorts/600R07139/600R07139.Ddf
• www.eDa.aov/ada/download/reDorts/600R07140/600R07140.Ddf
• www.eDa.gov/athens/onsite
• httD://clu-in.ora/Droducts/nanozvi/
Section II-Page 90

-------
                               GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.

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.
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
2
Total PMs
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 (1)
By 2011, increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris by 6 percent from a baseline of 59 percent in 2003.

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) Percent increase in the
amount of coal combustion that is
used instead of disposed.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
1.8
Actual
-.7
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Actual
Data
Available
November
2009
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Actual
Data
Available
November
2010

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2007, 42.7 percent of coal combustion ash was used rather than landfilled.
                                                      Section II-Page 91

-------
                             GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan by 118 compared to FY 2006.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW8) Number of tribes covered by
an integrated solid waste
management plan.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
27
Actual
28
FY 2008
Target
26
Actual
35
FY 2009
Target
16
Actual
31

Unit
Tribes
Baseline - This is a new measure for FY 2007. The baseline is established as zero, as 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.
Explanation - The results exceed the annual targets because of discretionary activities by tribes and use of General Assistance Program (GAP) funds
to address open dumps.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands compared to FY2006.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW5) Number of closed, cleaned up,
or upgraded open dumps in Indian
Country or on other tribal lands.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
107
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
166
FY 2009
Target
27
Actual
129

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.
Explanation - The results exceed the annual targets because of discretionary activities by tribes and use of GAP funds to address open dumps.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW3) Daily per capita generation of
municipal solid waste.
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
4.60
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4.62
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Actual
4.5
FY 2009
Target
4.5
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Pounds
Baseline - An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 4.5 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation.
                                                  Section II-Page 92

-------
                                GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
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. See updated baseline information associated with annual
measure below.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(HWO) Number of hazardous waste
facilities with new controls or updated
controls.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
115

Unit
Facilities
Baseline - There are an estimated 894 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,450 facilities.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the percentage of underground storage tank 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 .0% over
the previous year's rate (target).
FY 2006
Target
66
Actual
62
FY 2007
Target
67
Actual
63
FY 2008
Target
68
Actual
66
FY 2009
Target
65
Actual
66.4

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2008, the strategic target was modified. The target for 2009 was established at 65% with a 0.5% increase each year thereafter.
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
underground storage tanks.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ST1) No more than 10,000 confirmed
releases per year.
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
Actual
8,361
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,570
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,364
FY 2009
Target
<9,000
Actual
7,168

Unit
Underground
storage tank
Releases
Baseline - Between FY 1999 and FY2008, confirmed UST releases averaged 8,208.
                                                       Section II-Page 93

-------
                               GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
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.
PMs Met
16
PMs Not Met
2
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
By 2011, reduce and control the  risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our nation's capability to
prevent, prepare for, and respond more effectively to these emergencies.

Strategic Target (1)
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 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
55
Actual
96
FY 2008
Target
65
Actual
97.9
FY 2009
Target
75
Actual
98,2

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 96 was the average score of the 10 EPA Regions based on the core emergency response readiness criteria.
Explanation - The Emergency Response and Removal Program is a mature program and the Regions are highly effective in their day-to-day
operations as well as their preparation for significant events. This score will include EPA Special Teams and Headquarters beginning in FY 2010, and
we expect the scores to drop dramatically.
Strategic Target (2)
Between 2006 and 2011, complete 975 Superfund-led hazardous substance removal actions. In FY 2005, 175 of these actions were completed.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(132) Superfund-led removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2006
Target
195
Actual
157
FY 2007
Target
195
Actual
200
FY 2008
Target
195
Actual
215
FY 2009
Target
195
Actual
214

Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 1 57 Superfund-led removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 5,300 completions since 1 980.
                                                      Section II - Page 94

-------
                               GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Strategic Target (3)
Between 2006 and 2011, oversee and complete 650 voluntary removal actions. In FY 2005, 137 of these actions were completed.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(135) Voluntary removal actions,
overseen by EPA, completed.
FY 2006
Target
115
Actual
93
FY 2007
Target
120
Actual
151
FY 2008
Target
125
Actual
157
FY 2009
Target
130
Actual
154

Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 93 voluntary removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 1 ,200 completions since 1980.
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 regulations found to be in
compliance.
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
71
FY 2007
Target
75
Actual
67
FY 2008
Target
78
Actual
66
FY 2009
Target
82
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 - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change in focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance. Due to this
shift, Regions are inspecting facilities that are high risk and tend to be out of compliance.
                                                      Section II - Page 95

-------
                               GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
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 2006
Target
100
Actual
345
FY 2007
Target
200
Actual
335
FY 2008
Target
250
Actual
334
FY 2009
Target
250
Actual
321

Unit
Inspections
and
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
compliance.
100
66
53
40
55
35
58
32
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 50 percent of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations were found to be in compliance.
Explanation - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change in focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance. Due to this
shift, Regions are inspecting facilities that are high risk and tend to be out of compliance.
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. (By the end of FY 2005, a total of 38,770 final site assessment decisions had been made.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(121) Superfund final site assessment
decisions completed.
FY 2006
Target
419
Actual
518
FY 2007
Target
350
Actual
395
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
415
FY 2009
Target
400
Actual
400
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, a cumulative total of 39,288 final site assessment decisions had been made since the program's ince
(CB1) Number of RCRA facilities with
final remedies constructed.






100
108

Unit
Assessments
ption.
Facilities
Baseline - Prior to FY 2009, the RCRA corrective action program's reporting baseline was 1 ,968 "high priority facilities." Beginning in FY 2009, the
universe was expanded to 3,746 to include all facilities.
                                                      Section II-Page 96

-------
                                 GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION


Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, control all identified  unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current land and/or ground water use conditions at
approximately 85 percent (1,316) of 1,543 Superfund human exposure sites (as of FY 2005). (The universe of 1,543 is the number of NPL sites with
potential human exposure pathways as  of  FY 2005  and includes 172  Superfund federal facility  sites. Baseline:  By the end of FY 2006,
approximately 82 percent [1,266] of sites had human exposures under control.) 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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(151) Number of Superfund sites with
human exposures under control.
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
34
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
10
Actual
24
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
11

Unit
Sites
This measure supports work under the Superfund Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). Recovery Act funds will be used to initiate new construction or accelerate ongoing cleanup activities at Superfund sites, boosting
the local economy while protecting public health and the environment. In FY 2009, EPA controlled human exposures to site contamination at two sites,
one in Region 4 and one in Region 6.
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 82 percent (1 ,269) of 1 ,554 final and deleted NPL sites in the
environmental indicator reporting universe in that year.
(CB2) Number of RCRA facilities with
human exposures under control.






60
64
Facilities
Baseline - Prior to FY 2009, the RCRA corrective action program's reporting baseline was 1 ,968 "high priority facilities." Beginning in FY 2009, the
universe was expanded to 3,746 to include all facilities.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, control the migration of contaminated ground water through engineered remedies, natural processes, or other appropriate actions at 74
percent (1,017) of 1,381 Superfund ground water sites. (The universe of 1,381 sites is the number of NPL sites with ground water contamination as
of FY 2005 and includes 166 Superfund federal facility sites. Baseline: By the end of FY 2005, 68 percent [937] of sites had ground water migration
under control.) By 2011, increase to 80 percent the high NCAPS-ranked RCRA facilities with migration of ground water 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.)
                                                        Section II-Page 97

-------
                                GOAL 3:  LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(152) Superfund sites with
contaminated ground water migration
under control.
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
21
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
19
FY 2008
Target
15
Actual
20
FY 2009
Target
15
Actual
16

Unit
Sites
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled ground water migration at 69 percent (958) of 1 ,392 ground water sites in that year.
(CBS) Number of RCRA facilities with
migration of contaminated ground
water under control.






60
73
Facilities
Baseline - Prior to FY 2009, the RCRA corrective action program's reporting baseline was 1 ,968 "high priority facilities." Beginning in FY 2009, the
universe was expanded to 3,746 to include all facilities.
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 ground water migration from 26 percent 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 approximately 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. Baseline: By the end of FY 2005,
62 percent ,or 966 sites, had completed construction.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(112) Number of cleanups completed
that meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and ground
water migration.
FY 2006
Target
13,600
Actual
14,493
FY 2007
Target
13,000
Actual
13,862
FY 2008
Target
13,000
Actual
12,768
FY 2009
Target
12,250
Actual
12,944

Unit
Cleanups
This measure supports work under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In FY 2009, EPA completed 10 leaking underground storage tank cleanups that meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and ground water migration.
Baseline - In FY2006, EPA completed 14,493 leaking underground storage tank cleanups, fora cumulative total of 350,813 cleanups completed since
the inception of the program. Leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed in Indian Country are included in this number.
(1 1 3) Number of cleanups completed
that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and ground water
migration in Indian Country.
30
43
30
54
30
40
30
49
Cleanups
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 43 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian Country, for a cumulative total of 738 leaking
underground storage tank cleanups completed in Indian Country since the inception of this program.
(141) Annual number of Superfund
sites with remedy construction
40
40
24
24
30
30
20
20
Completions
                                                       Section II-Page 98

-------
                                GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
completed.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual


Unit

This measure supports work under the Superfund Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). Recovery Act funds will be used to initiate new construction or accelerate ongoing cleanup activities at Superfund sites, boosting
the local economy while protecting public health and the environment. During FY2009, EPA protected human health and the environment by
achieving construction completion at one site in Region 4.
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had completed construction at 65 percent (1 ,006) of 1 ,557 final and deleted NPL sites in that year.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, ensure that 36 percent (345) of 966 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites are ready for reuse sitewide. (As of July 2006, 20
percent [195] of the 966 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites, including 14 Superfund federal facility sites, met EPA's definition for
ready for reuse sitewide.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(S10) Number of Superfund sites
ready for anticipated use sitewide.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
64
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
85
FY 2009
Target
65
Actual
66

Unit
Sites
Baseline -As of July 2006, 19 percent (194) of the 1,006 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites in that year met EPA's definition of ready
for anticipated use sitewide.
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 responsible parties other than the federal government.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(285) Percentage of Superfund sites
at which settlement or enforcement
action was taken before the start of
remedial action.
FY 2006
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
98
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Actual
100

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 potentially responsible parties before the start of the remedial
action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
                                                       Section II-Page 99

-------
                              GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
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 DOJ, settle, or write off
1 00% of Statute of Limitations cases
for Superfund sites with total
unaddressed past costs equal to or
greater than $200,000 and report
value of costs recovered.
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
98
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 1998, the Agency will have addressed 100 percent of cost recovery at all NPL and 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.
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
2
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H87) Percentage of land publications
in high impact journals.
(H88) Percentage of land publications
rated as highly cited publications.
(H89) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the manage
material streams, conserve
resources, and appropriately manage
waste long-term goal.
FY 2006
Target


100
Actual


100
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Est.
No Target
Est.
100
Actual
Biennial
Biennial
100
FY 2008
Target
25.7
26.8
100
Actual
26.2
18
100
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Est.
No Target
Est.
100
Actual
Biennial
Biennial
100

Unit
Percent
Percent
Percent
                                                   Section II-Page 100

-------
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual

Unit
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-term
stewardship of contaminated sites
long-term goal.
100
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management, and long-term stewardship
of contaminated sites long-term goal; 87 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
               Section II-Page 101

-------
                                      GOAL 4 AT A GLANCE
                 HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
  Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using inte-
  grated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
         FY 2009
       Performance
         Measures

          Met = 38
        Not Met = 23
        Data Available
     After 11/16/09= 18
    (Total Measures = 79)
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
        (Dollars in Thousands)

    Compliance and Clean Air and Global
     Environmental   Climate Change
     Stewardship
Goal 4 Performance Measures
     $805,240.6
                $1,376,040.1
                                                                Objective 1
                                                                          Objective 2
                                                                                   Objective 3
                                                                                             Objective 4
                                  Source: FY 2009 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                               Goal 4 FY 2009 Performance and Resources
                              Strategic Objective
                                                FY2009
                                               Obligations
                                              (in thousands)
                     %of
                    Goal 4
                    Funds
  Objective 1—Chemical and Pesticide Risks: By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide and
  industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
                                                $488,428.0
                     34%
  Objective 2—Communities: Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecologi-
  cal systems that support them.
                                                $323,205.6
                     22%
  Objective 3—Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, and restore the
  health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
                                                $223,447.5
                     15%
  Objective 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.
                                                $420,652.8
                     29%
  Goal 4 Tola I
                                               $1,455,733.9
                     100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                         Section II-Page 102

-------
Goal Purpose

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 Americans' 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  endpoints.

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.

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 fora Renewed Environment (CARE), Computational
Toxicology Research, Endocrine Disrupter Research and Screening Program,  Environmental
Justice, Global Change Research, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Homeland Security Research,
Human Health  and Ecosystem Protection Research, Human Health Risk Assessment,
International Sources of Pollution, 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, Trade and Governance, U.S.-Mexico Border,  Wetlands.
                                  Section II-Page 103

-------
Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Percent of Children (Aged 1 to 5 Years)
With Elevated Blood Lead Levels
                               Elevated Blood Lead Levels
 28.0% -
 14.0%
  7.C
                                                     26%
                                                             8.7%
'Estimate is unstable (relative
standard error is greater than 30% but
less than 40%) See Data Limitations
                        10ug/dL
> 5 ug/dL
                           D 1988-1 994
                                               1999-2002
                                                                D 2003-2006
Background

Lead is a chemical that has been widely used in the past and has far-reaching impacts on
human health. Lead has historically been used in the production of gasoline, ceramic products,
paints, metal alloys, batteries, and solder. While EPA has phased out leaded gasoline and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned the sale of leaded paint, lead-contaminated
dust from  paint used before the ban remains as the primary source of lead exposure.

Lead has been demonstrated to exert "a broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ
systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action. This array of health effects includes effects
on hematological, immune, cardiovascular and renal systems."1 The evidence for which  is
comprehensively described in EPA's Air Quality Criteria Lead document.2 The blood lead level
at which health effects begin to occur is not certain.

The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead toxicity, with the developing
nervous system affected at lower exposures than the mature system.3 Hence, children aged 1
to 5 years have the greatest health risk from lead exposure because they are still developing.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions
in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. October 21, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Dav-28/t25986.pdf
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. September 29, 2006.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions
in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. October 21, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Dav-28/t25986.pdf
                                   Section II-Page 104

-------
For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the Criteria Document,4
provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with
mean blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL), and some
analyses indicate lead effects on intellectual attainment of children for which population mean
blood lead levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 ug/dL. Thus, while blood lead levels in U.S.
children have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have investigated and
reported associations of effects on the neurodevelopment of children with blood lead levels
similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels.5

EPA is coordinating with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal agencies to eliminate childhood lead
poisoning. These federal agencies maintain the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a
public health goal through continued vigilance in addressing the remaining lead-based paint
hazards in older housing stock through implementing the lead-based paint abatement program
and the  renovation, repair, and painting program, and through conducting targeted outreach and
education.

What This Shows

In the 1970s, 88 percent of children had elevated blood lead levels above 10 ug/dL. From 1988
to 2006, the percentage of children with blood lead levels above this level has continuously
declined from 6 percent in 1994 to less than 1 percent in 2006. With approximately 20 million
children in the United States, this represents approximately 190,000 children with blood lead
levels above 10 ug/dL. Adverse effects may occur at blood lead levels at or below 5 ug/L, and
the latest National Health  and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data indicate that 4.1
percent  of children (820,000 children)  in the United States currently have blood lead
concentration above this level. Thus, EPA will begin tracking reductions in  children with elevated
blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL in 2010.

Data Quality

Source: NHANES6 is a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
NCHS is part of CDC and has the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the
Nation.

NHANES7 is a survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children
in the United States. The survey program began in the early 1960s as a periodic study, and
continues as an annual survey. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of
approximately 5,000 men, women, and children each year located across the United States.
The CDC NCHS is responsible for conducting the survey and the release of the data to the
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. September 29, 2006.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions
in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. October 21, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Dav-28/t25986.pdf
 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
7 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
                                   Section II-Page 105

-------
public. The NHANES data are reported periodically as the National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals, which was most recently published in July 2005.8

Data from the CDC's NHANES is recognized as the primary database in the United States for
national blood lead statistics. Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how
many years of data should be combined for an analysis.9 The data used in the performance
measures follow this guidance and are all derived from the NHANES as reported in the National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (pre-2005 data)10 or provided by
ChildStats.gov (2005-2006 data).11 This data source measures blood levels in the same units
(i.e., ug/dL) and  at standard detection limits.

Future performance results will be updated as new versions of CDC reports on human exposure
to environmental chemicals become available.

Data Limitations: Data should be interpreted with knowledge of the NHANES sampling and
statistical analysis methods.12  In the case of the 2003-2006, data  provided above it should be
noted that while  the estimate of children with levels greater than 10 ug/dL is a low percentage,
the estimate is considered unstable (relative standard error is  greater than 30 percent but less
than 40 percent).13
 National Center for Environmental Health. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals. 2005. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.qov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf
9 National Center for Health Statistics. Analytic and Reporting Guidelines. National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines. 2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville,
MD.
10 National Center for Environmental Health. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals. 2005. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf
11 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Children: Key National Indicators of Well-
Being, 2009. 2009.  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp
12 National Center for Health Statistics. Analytic and Reporting Guidelines. National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines. 2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville,
MD.
13 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Children: Key National Indicators of Well-
Being, 2009. 2009.  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp


                                   Section  II-Page 106

-------
Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 4.1
                       (in thousands)
                                 Objective 1
                                  $488,428.0
                                    34%
               Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,455,733.9
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 4.1

       Met = 7
      Not Met = 9
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009=6
      (Total = 22)
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is charged with identifying and managing
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment associated with new chemicals
entering the marketplace, as well as chemicals already being used in U.S. commerce. The
Agency also works to reduce use of and exposure to "legacy" chemicals, such as lead, mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos.

New Chemicals Program: Through its New Chemicals Program, EPA serves as America's
gatekeeper for industrial and commercial chemicals, ensuring that new chemicals introduced
into U.S. commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to humans or the environment. In fiscal
year (FY) 2009,  EPA's chemical assessment experts reviewed approximately 1,100
premanufacture notices, including 30 for nanoscale materials. These premanufacture reviews,
which are conducted under a challenging 90-day statutory clock, help identify the need for
regulatory actions to restrict production, use, and/or disposal or to require detailed safety
testing. Under TSCA Section 5, EPA undertook restrictive actions for approximately 12 percent
of all new chemical submissions in FY 2009.

To assess the effectiveness of these reviews, EPA compares incoming TSCA 8(e) Notices of
Substantial  Risk that are associated with chemicals previously reviewed under the  New
Chemicals Program to determine whether the Agency properly identified and acted on those
risks. This assessment, which used 8(e) notices, submitted in FY 2008, identified no instances
in which previously reviewed chemicals were later found to pose unreasonable risks. This is the
fifth year in  the five-year history of the assessment to find no such instances.

EPA also took an important step to improve the efficiency of the New Chemicals Program in FY
2009 by beginning preparation of a final rule (publication expected in 2010) requiring electronic
submission of premanufacture notices. By the end of its three-year implementation period, the
rule is expected to save EPA hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
                                  Section II-Page 107

-------
Reducing Risks of Chemicals Currently Used in Commerce: EPA identifies and manages
risks associated with the thousands of chemicals that were already in commerce before TSCA
went into effect in 1978. On September 29, 2009, the Administrator announced a
comprehensive approach to enhancing chemical management under existing laws14 and
released a set of essential principles15 for reform of chemical management legislation to help
inform efforts to strengthen TSCA.

In response to this new direction, EPA plans to increase its use of existing TSCA regulatory
authorities and other mechanisms to reduce risks from chemicals of concern. In FY 2009, EPA
shifted from developing risk-based prioritizations under the Chemical Assessment and
Management Program (ChAMP) to begin implementing a more streamlined approach to assess
hazards posed by chemicals currently in use. These hazard characterizations (see the
"chemical assessment" section of Objective 4.1) will be the basis for discussion in FY 2010 with
stakeholders on how to prioritize chemicals for future risk management action.

EPA uses several performance measures to assess its progress in this mission, including the
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model, which combines Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) data with chemical hazard and U.S. Census data to generate production-adjusted relative
risk indices. Although 2009 results will not be available until FY 2011 due to TRI reporting
schedules, cumulative risk reduction through 2006 is 39.5 percent for all  chemicals since 2001.
For high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals (produced in quantities greater than 1 million
pounds per year), cumulative risk reduction through  2006 is 35.3 percent since 1998,

In FY 2009, EPA made progress in a number of areas that helped reduce risks posed by
existing  chemicals.

Data Collection

Increasing its use of TSCA  regulatory authorities to meet critical HPV chemical data needs, EPA
advanced the Final  HPV Test Rule 2, covering 19 chemicals (publication expected 2010);
advanced the Proposed HPV Test Rule 3, covering 29 chemicals (publication expected 2010);
and initiated work on the Proposed HPV Test Rule 4, covering an anticipated 33 chemicals
(publication expected December 2010). EPA also continued collaboration on developing
chemical information through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development by
developing and gaining international acceptance of Screening Information Data Sets for an
additional 67 HPV chemicals.

EPA strengthened its strategy for obtaining data needed to assess the risks and benefits of
nanotechnology. Following a January 2009 interim report on the status of the Nanoscale
Materials Stewardship Program, the Agency initiated work on a Proposed TSCA Section 4 rule
requiring testing of certain nanoscale materials (publication expected 2010) and a Proposed
TSCA Section 8(a) rule to require manufacturers of nanoscale materials to  report to EPA any
information obtained on harmful human health or environmental effects (publication expected
June 2010). The Agency initiated work on two important regulatory actions  aimed at improving
14 Enhancing EPA's Chemical Management Program.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/enhanchems.html
  Essential Principles for Reform of Chemical Management Legislation.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/principles.html
                                  Section II-Page 108

-------
the quality and completeness of data to be reported for 2010 under the TSCA Inventory Update
Reporting Rule (publication expected 2010).

Chemical Assessment

In FY 2009, EPA streamlined its approach to chemical assessment by focusing resources on
current and future assessment of the hazards posed by thousands of existing chemicals,
providing a sound basis for discussions with stakeholders on how to prioritize future risk
management actions. The Agency completed approximately 100 U.S.-sponsored hazard
characterizations as well as approximately 60 internationally sponsored hazard
characterizations in 2009,  bringing the cumulative total to approximately 400 U.S.-sponsored
and 700 internationally sponsored hazard characterizations, out of approximately 2,500 HPV
chemicals.

The Agency also approached a major milestone for one of its critical contributions to homeland
security by developing an additional 27 Proposed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels, bringing
the cumulative total to 273 proposed guidelines levels. Emergency planners and first
responders use Acute Exposure Guideline Levels to prepare for and deal with chemical
emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. The focus is now shifting to finalizing
proposed guideline levels. The Agency advanced four guideline levels from proposed to final in
FY 2009 and expects to complete approximately 14 final guideline levels in FY 2010.

Risk Management

In FY 2009, EPA increased use of regulatory authorities currently provided under TSCA to
reduce known chemical risks. The Agency issued a Proposed Significant New Use Rule
restricting the use of elemental mercury in various measuring devices (published September
2009), issued a Proposed  Significant New Use Rule for carbon nanotubes (published May
2009), and in August 2009 granted a TSCA Section 21 Petition for the Agency to take action
under TSCA Section 6 banning the use of lead wheel weights.

EPA is also evaluating potential regulatory action including  a proposed TSCA Section 6 action
to curtail the use of mercury in certain products and possible action under TSCA to address
formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products. The  Agency also began developing
Action Plans for additional priority chemicals/chemical categories of concern to develop risk
management options for implementation in FY 2010 and beyond.

EPA is continuing nonregulatory risk management actions,  including the global
Perfluorooctanoic Acid Stewardship Program to reduce perfluorooctanoic acid and related
chemicals from emissions and product content. The program's second annual report, released
in October 2008, showed substantial progress, with four of eight participating companies
reporting reductions in perfluorooctanoic acid emissions of more than 95 percent.  EPA expects
this trend to continue with the third progress report, anticipated in the fall of 2009,  as all eight
companies work toward reducing 95 percent of emissions and product content by 2010.
                                  Section II-Page 109

-------
         Region 10's "Vulnerable Population Grant" Increases Awareness of Lead Risks

Okanogan County is in an economically depressed rural area in eastern Washington with more than 60
percent of the housing stock built before 1979 and 21 percent of the population living at or below the
poverty level. Okanogan was identified as one of nine Washington rural counties where children are at a
higher risk for elevated blood levels. Region 10 awarded a grant to Okanogan County to develop and
implement "Lead Risk Awareness" project targeted to children under 6 years of age, including Native
Americans and Hispanics.

The project plan outlined a number of ambitious goals, which were met or exceeded in FY 2009:

1.  Distributed over 1,100 brochures by the county, exceeding the goal to distribute 500 brochures.
2.  Broadcasted over 700 lead-related public service announcement (PSAs) broadcasts in Okanogan
   County, exceeding the goal to air 26 broadcasts.
3.  Performed lead risk assessments in 24 pre-1978 facilities that serve low-income, minority populations
   and children under the age of 6, exceeding the goal of assessing 20 facilities. Participants at the
   facilities were also educated on lead paint hazards.
4.  Ensured information sharing with partners. Partners were updated frequently.

The outcome of this project is increased awareness of childhood lead poisoning and increased risk
assessments in the rural county of Okanogan. Key results in FY2009 include: the PSAs and brochure
distribution made an immediate impact resulting in an increase in questions about lead risk. Several
families requested lead risk assessment on homes they were considering purchasing. Okanogan County,
as a result of this seed grant, plans to continue educating citizens about the health benefits of lead
mitigation in homes.

Lead and Other Legacy Chemicals: "Legacy" chemicals, such as lead, mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs), and asbestos, are remnants from America's industrial
revolution and continue to be used globally. These chemicals are contaminating our homes and
schools and emerging as significant health risks in the outdoors. In partnership with states and
tribes, other federal agencies,  and other nations, EPA has made significant progress in FY
2009, outlined below, to reduce risk associated with these legacy chemicals.

Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning

Along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and other federal agencies, EPA continues to combat childhood lead
poisoning. Elevated blood lead levels cause neurological damage, and lead-based paint is the
primary source of lead exposure for children in the United States.16 Lead poisoning is
preventable; therefore, eliminating it is a cross-Agency priority.

EPA has measured progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with elevated
blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) or higher. Data released in 2009 by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrated major reductions in the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning—from  approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of
children in 2006. The data show that EPA is on track to meet ambitious federal government-
wide goals to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern at blood lead levels
of 10 ug/dL or higher by 2010. Additionally, because of adverse health effects observed at lower
16 Lanphear, B.P. et al. Environ Res. 1998, October. 79(1):51-68, as cited by the American Academy of
Pediatrics at: http://aappolicv.aappublications.0rg/cgi/content/full/pediatrics:116/4/1036.


                                    Section II-Page 110

-------
levels, EPA will begin measuring progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with
elevated blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL or higher.

During 2009, the Agency continued to implement its lead-based paint abatement program by
maintaining a cadre of approximately 35,000 certified and trained lead-based paint
professionals through federally managed programs or through programs in the 43 authorized
states or tribes. EPA is also accelerating efforts to  implement the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Rule, which becomes fully effective in April 2010. This rule will require renovation
contractors to receive training and become certified in the use of lead-safe work practices when
renovating housing and child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978. In FY 2009, EPA developed
materials for training provider accreditation and accredited 80 training providers; the Agency
expects more than 200,000 contractors to be certified by April 2010.

In FY 2009, EPA reached a settlement agreement  with environmental groups that had
petitioned the Agency to review the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule. The agreement calls
for EPA to undertake two separate rulemakings to  revise provisions of the rule and two
additional rulemakings, including an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to address
public and commercial buildings not covered by the rule. EPA started developing all four of
these new rule proposals in FY 2009. EPA issued a proposed rule that would eliminate an opt-
out exemption from the Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule (published October 2009).
In a separate action, environmental groups and others petitioned EPA to lower the residential
lead  dust standards and modify the definition of lead-based paint in its regulations promulgated
under section 401 and 40317 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. On October 22, 2009, EPA
responded to the petition18 agreeing to revisit the current lead dust hazards standard and to
work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to modify the definition of lead-
based paint in its regulations.

The Agency also significantly advanced its work to educate the public about lead hazards and
lead-safe work practices. In December 2008, EPA  formed a partnership with the Coalition to
End  Childhood Lead Poisoning and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
conduct a public service Ad Council advertising campaign to raise awareness of childhood lead
poisoning, including awareness of renovation hazards. The cooperative agreement was
awarded to the Ad Council in June 2009.

Reducing Mercury Use

In FY 2009, EPA made progress in addressing mercury issues domestically and internationally.
Domestically, the Agency updated the mercury products and alternatives database to
encourage individuals, organizations, and businesses to use nonmercury alternatives whenever
possible. EPA also encouraged the phase-out of mercury in glass nonfever thermometers used
in industrial and laboratory settings.  For example, EPA removed 729 mercury-containing
thermometers from their own laboratories in 2009.  EPA's work on the international stage to
control mercury use and emissions is an important complement to our strong domestic actions
on mercury. In February 2009 during the 25th Session of the United Nations Environment
Programme Governing Council  in Nairobi, the United States and 14 other countries agreed to
17 Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, not EPA, with the authority to modify the definition of lead-based paint.
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadhaz.htm
  Lead Dust Hazard Standard and Definition of Lead-based Paint.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/petitions.htmltfpetition5
                                  Section II-Page 111

-------
create a legally binding instrument for the global control of mercury pollution. In addition, EPA
promoted reduced use of mercury-containing products through international Mercury Products
Partnerships, which work to exchange information and best management practices, improve
mercury use and emission  inventories, provide technical assistance, and conduct public
education. EPA is also working with the Basel Secretariat to build capacity in developing
countries to address mercury waste.

Reducing Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Risks

In recent years, EPA has learned that caulk containing PCBs was used in some buildings,
including schools, during the1950s through 1970s. In FY 2009, EPA developed and provided
school administrators and building managers with important information about managing PCBs
in caulk and tools to help minimize possible exposure.19 The Agency will continue to assist
communities in identifying potential problems and, if necessary, assist in developing plans for
PCB testing and  removal. Information on the Agency's work on PCBs in caulk can be found at:
www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk.

Exposure and Risks From Pesticides: 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 2009 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.

•  Protecting workers exposed to pesticides by maintaining or improving on the current low
   incident rate.

•  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.

EPA has completed its last re registration eligibility decision. This multiyear effort identified 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 2009
includes completing 1,770 product reregistrations, as well as registering 15 reduced-risk
chemicals and bio-pesticides, four new active  ingredients,  and 276  new uses.

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: In 1996 under the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA), Congress directed EPA to screen for substances  with the potential to induce hormone-
related health effects. EPA responded by developing the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program to screen pesticides and other chemicals for potential interactions with androgen,
thyroid or estrogen systems. Components of the program include developing and validating
tests for screening chemicals, selecting chemicals to be screened, and developing  and
implementing policies and procedures for screening.
19http://yosemite. epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/dOcf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/28c8384eeaOe67ed85
25763c0059342f!OpenDocument


                                  Section II-Page 112

-------
In FY 2009, EPA completed the work necessary to begin screening by:

•  Completing validation work for all candidate assays for the first tier of testing.

•  Considering public comment and publishing a final list of the first 67 chemicals to be tested.

•  Finalizing and publishing the policies and procedures manufacturers and importers will use
   for Tier 1 screening.

Test orders have been prepared and are expected to be issued in early FY 2010. EPA is
currently validating the more complex tests that will be used in the second tier of testing for
chemicals that test positive for potential to interact with hormone systems in the first tier of
testing.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 1 - Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Lead
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
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
POPs Implementation
Science Policy and Biotechnology
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
TRI / Right to Know
Administrative Law
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
$414.7
$1,208.1
$12,428.7
$8,294.1
$46,152.7
$13,720.3
$14,626.8
$537.4
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
$29.0
$1,650.5
$11,122.0
$6,529.4
$49,709.1
$12,701.7
$15,064.3
$614.1
FY 2009
Obligations
$13,199.1
$14,687.0
$0.0
$31.3
$10,889.1
$856.9
$5,921.9
$3,726.6
$764.6
$22.3
$2,096.9
$12,145.6
$6,835.9
$49,571.4
$14,692.1
$15,431.9
$490.8
                                   Section II-Page 113

-------
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
International Sources of Pollution
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Pesticides: Field Programs20
Pesticides: Registration of New
Pesticides20
Pesticides: Review/Reregistration of
Existing Pesticides20
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk20
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk20
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability20
Total
$130.9
$7,127.4
$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
$0.0
$1,884.8
$22,968.0
$62,365.2
$74,150.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$492,234.7
$149.0
$7,771.7
$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
$2,528.9
$105.3
$600.6
$310.3
$1,932.7
$0.0
$1,821.8
$5,807.0
$1,904.8
$4,441.3
$85,098.3
$53,442.0
$15,294.1
$474,755.0
$168.3
$11,373.2
$932.8
$3,336.1
$3,335.9
$68,151.9
$5,675.0
$7,594.5
$1,030.5
$52,007.7
$5,619.8
$1,972.5
$1,361.2
$153.9
$529.5
$240.5
$2,402.2
$3,783.6
$1,841.7
$44.2
$643.2
$523.7
$86,817.6
$61,696.4
$15,828.7
$488,428.0
Additional Information Relating to Goal 4, Objective 1
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• 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 Toxic
Substances Control Act 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.
• Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics: www.eDa.qov/ODDt

20
  In 2008, the three program projects "Pesticide Registration, Pesticide Reregistration, Pesticide Field,"
were restructured into three new program projects, "Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide
Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability,"
respectively.
                                       Section II - Page 114

-------
New Chemicals Program: www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems
Existing Chemicals Program:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/
Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: http://www.epa.gov/lead/
Lead Renovation Professionals:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/toolkits.htm
Lead Abatement Professionals:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): www.epa.gov/pcbs
Pesticide Registration:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration review/reg review status.
htm
          Section II - Page 115

-------
Objective 4.2: Communities
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 4.2
                       (in thousands)
                             Objective 2
                              $323,205.6
                                22%
               Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,455,733.9
                                                              FY 2009 Performance
                                                             Measures: Objective 4.2

                                                                    Met = 4
                                                                   Not Met = 1
                                                               Data Available After
                                                              November 16, 2009=5
                                                                   (Total = 10)
EnvironmentalJustice Grants: In March 2009, EPA awarded approximately $800,000 in
grants to fund projects aimed at addressing environmental and public health issues in
communities facing environmental justice challenges. The projects will address a variety of
issues including the following: educating youth about the harmful effects of toxic substances
such as asbestos and lead paint in Chicago; conducting residential energy efficiency workshops
and training in Kansas City, Missouri, for Spanish-speaking communities; and ensuring that
citizens of Barrow, Alaska, have a voice in the decision-making on local oil and gas
development projects.

Brownfields and Land Revitalization: EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program
(www.epa.gov/brownfields) 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, petroleum
Brownfields, and other contaminated properties.

Although complete FY 2009 performance information will not be available  until early 2010 due to
grantee reporting schedules,  EPA is on track to achieve its FY 2009  Brownfields performance
goals. FY 2008 results now available show that the program achieved its FY 2008 performance
goals, assessing 1,453 properties,  cleaning up 78 properties, and leveraging 5,484 jobs and
$1.5 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds. In addition, the Agency made 4,404 acres
ready for reuse through site assessment or  property cleanup. FY 2009 accomplishments
include:

•  Completing 16 sustainability pilots across the country to spur innovative thinking about how
   to incorporate a wide range of sustainability concepts into cleanup and redevelopment
   projects. Examples include developing recommendations for green building design,
   analyzing solar energy potential and feasibility on a contaminated site, designing effective
                                  Section II-Page 116

-------
   stormwater management plans and specifications focused on water conservation and
   reusing water on site, and developing a job training curriculum focused on producing skilled
   workers for the new green economy.

•  Awarding 10 new research, training, and technical assistance Brownfield grants, which will
   help communities better understand the health impacts of Brownfield sites and science and
   technology related to Brownfield activities.

•  Awarding more than 150 assessment, revolving loan fund, cleanup, and job training grants
   through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

U.S.-Mexico Border: 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 14.6 million people living along the border. Progress includes improving
wastewater infrastructure systems, creating greenhouse gas emission inventories, removing 4
million scrap tires, reducing mobile sources by retrofitting school buses, establishing a post-
graduate degree program at Mexico's Institute of Public Health,  and implementing 15 sister
cities' emergency response plans to better protect residents along the border.

The program met the FY 2009 target of 1,500 drinking water connections, with a total of 1,584
connections made in 2009. The program fell short of the FY 2009 target of 105,500 additional
homes served with adequate wastewater sanitation, with 43,594 wastewater connections
completed in 2009.
                                            Enhancing and Expanding Support to Achieve
                                                 Results in Vulnerable Communities

                                          In FY 2009, EPA continued to broaden the active
                                          participation of multiple stakeholders to address the
                                          complex and interrelated environmental, public health,
                                          economic, and social problems in local communities
                                          that create environmental justice issues. For example,
                                          EPA awarded five, one-time awards of $160,000 to
                                          eligible state agencies to strengthen their efforts to
                                          promote and integrate approaches that will result in
                                          meaningful and measurable environmental and/or
                                          public health improvements  in vulnerable populations
                                          and communities disproportionately exposed to
                                          environmental harms and risks. In addition, EPA
                                          continued to make progress toward significant
                                          environmental improvements in communities with
                                          disproportionately high and adverse environmental
                                          and/or public health effects through increased
                                          outreach and  collaboration. Additional information on
                                          these efforts can be found at:
                                          http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/offices/oei.html.
Pacific Island Territories: For the
second straight reporting year (as of June
30, 2009), 100 percent of Guam's
population served by community water
systems received water that meets all
applicable health-based  drinking water
standards, up from a 2005 baseline of 80
percent. On the island of Saipan in the
Commonwealth of the Northern  Mariana
Islands (CNMI), the percentage  of
households receiving 24-hour water
service has increased dramatically in
recent years—from 25 percent in 2005 to
nearly 70 percent today—thanks to
determined efforts by EPA and the CNMI
government. EPA has used a variety of
methods (grants, technical assistance,
and enforcement) to promote safer
drinking water in the Pacific Island
territories, including entering into
Stipulated Orders (in 2003 with the Guam Waterworks Authority and in 2009 with the
Commonwealth Utilities Corporation) that will correct serious violations at the utilities and help
ensure continued progress toward safe and reliable water service for all Guam and CNMI
residents.  However, significant challenges remain: the forthcoming military buildup on Guam will
increase the island's population  by up to 25 percent, further straining the island's water
infrastructure. Saipan remains the only community of its size in the United States without 24-
                                   Section II-Page 117

-------
hour water delivery. Identifying additional funding to meet these challenges and the
requirements of the two Stipulated Orders remains a priority for EPA and the territories.
International Environmental Efforts: To meet many domestic environmental protection goals,
EPA must also address international sources of pollutants. For example, building on the
success of the 10-year framework between the United States and China, the two nations'
governments met in 2009 (their broadest and highest-level exchange ever) and initialed a
Memorandum of Understanding on Enhancing Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy, and
the Environment. Similarly, in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme and
more than 100 additional partners, EPA is encouraging the phase-out of leaded gasoline in
more than 180 countries, affecting more than 6.2 billion people, and introducing low levels of
sulfur in gasoline to more than 45 countries, benefiting approximately 4 billion people.

Even in the remote Arctic, such industrial chemicals as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
found in the tissues of local wildlife. As a result of EPA's efforts, more than 6,300 tons of
obsolete pesticides have been inventoried and placed into safe storage in  ten Arctic and sub-
Arctic regions of Russia since 2003. Temporary safe storage followed by the final destruction of
these pesticides will reduce environmental releases and exposure of persistent organic
pollutants  (POPs) and mercury to the 17 million people residing in the Arctic.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 2 - Communities
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Brownfields
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Environment and Trade
Environmental Justice
Geographic Program: Other
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Brownfields Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
POPs Implementation
Regulatory Innovation
US Mexico Border
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
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
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
$2,619.8
FY 2009
Obligations
$50,075.2
$18,837.2
$413.5
$0.0
$2,329.2
$6,324.4
$3,019.6
$140.6
$380.2
$175,720.1
$12,847.3
$175.5
$5,166.0
$5,567.7
$81.0
$28.9
$2,718.6
                                  Section II-Page 118

-------
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Children and Other Sensitive Populations:
Agency Coordination
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Recovery Act Management and Oversight
Total
($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
$4,978.9
$300.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$303,627.9
($24.1)
$179.0
$850.4
$415.0
$9,217.9
$729.1
$836.8
$132.9
$5,772.7
$818.2
$274.8
$2,687.5
$5,529.5
$54.4
$97.2
$50.2
$1,398.9
$7,217.5
$294.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$299,163.7
($58.3)
$200.1
$825.1
$643.2
$9,665.7
$813.3
$916.0
$102.4
$5,969.3
$876.9
$295.9
$1,364.9
($30.5)
$53.5
$87.4
$39.7
$1,685.2
$6,552.1
$303.9
$3,230.5
$5,413.2
$431.2
$323,205.7
                Additional Information Relating to Goal 4, Objective 2
Grants:
Metropolitan Energy Center: Kansas City, $20,000 to
train residents who are part of, or wish to become part of,
the workforce of the housing industry dealing with energy
efficiency and environmental health issues in residential
structures. The project will conduct residential energy
efficiency and environmental health workshops and
training. The goal of this project is to increase the
awareness of home-related energy and environmental
problems with particular emphasis on Spanish-speaking
homes, through public education and awareness.

Legal Aid of Western Missouri (Migrant Farmworkers'
Project): Kansas City, $20,000 to address critical
environmental and public health issues affecting  the
community of migrants and seasonal farmworker adults
and children in Lafayette County. The project will help
migrant families to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of the dangers of lead poisoning and
exposure to chemicals and will empower them to practice
preventative measures. The goal of this project is to reduce
the incidence of environmentally linked health problems,
                                 Section II-Page 119

-------
                               increase environmental literacy, and have more meaningful
                               involvement of migrant families in environmental practices
                               that affect them.

                            •   Father Flanagan's Boy's Home: Boy's Town, $20,000 to
                               screen patients for environmental concerns adversely
                               affecting their health, make appropriate referrals to
                               assistance providers, and work collaboratively with them to
                               address their patients' health and environmental concerns
                               as part of the health care team. The project will provide
                               families served by this clinic information and resources on
                               their legal rights related to their home environments as well
                               as materials on how to foster relationships with medical
                               and legal professionals to address their concerns. The goal
                               of this project is to promote partnerships to address
                               environmental justice and health concerns in the poor
                               communities of North and South Omaha.

                            •   Public Health Solutions (PHS) District Health
                               Department: Crete, $20,000 to improve the overall health
                               and safety of roughly 4,000 children in the rural five-county
                               health district PHS serves. This project will provide lead
                               poisoning awareness and prevention education and
                               information to parents of at-risk children and primary care
                               physicians. The goal of the project is to increase
                               accessibility to blood lead level testing and lead information
                               for parents of young children and to increase the lead
                               safety of at-risk houses.	
EPA Web Site
Information:
U.S.-Mexico Border Program: www.epa.gov/border2012

Brownfields Information: www.epa.gov/brownfields
                                 Section II-Page 120

-------
Objective 4.3: Ecosystems
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 4.3
                       (in thousands)
                Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,455,733.9
                                                             FY 2009 Performance
                                                            Measures: Objective 4.3

                                                                   Met= 16
                                                                  Not Met = 10
                                                               Data Available After
                                                             November 16, 2009=2
                                                                  (Total = 28)
Chesapeake Bay Executive Order: In May 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order
(E.0.13508) for the Chesapeake Bay "to protect and restore the health, natural resources,  and
social and economic value of the nation's largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural
sustainability of its watershed." The order directed formation of a Federal Leadership
Committee, chaired by EPA's Administrator, and charged with developing:  1) recommendations
to improve several important resource and programmatic areas for the Chesapeake Bay, 2) a
coordinated strategy for implementing recommendations that achieve environmental goals, and
3) an annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plan that describes how federal funding will be put toward
Bay restoration in the future. Development of the coordinated strategy began in FY 2009; EPA
expects to release a draft strategy in November 2009 and a final strategy in May 2010. As  part
of its report on water pollution control strategies, the Agency is also exploring how to make full
use of its authorities under the Clean Water Act, revising guidance and regulations as
necessary, to protect and restore the Bay and its tributaries.

National Estuary Program: The National Estuary Program develops and implements
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans to protect and restore water quality  and
ecological integrity of estuaries as well as critical habitats. Data for FY 2009 show that the 28
national estuary programs and their partners protected or restored 125,410 acres of habitat.
Analysis of the leveraging data shows that the programs played a primary role in leveraging $41
million from EPA  Section 320 of the Clean Water Act and earmark funds to obtain an additional
$515 million, which is a ratio of $12 raised for every $1 of the funds they were provided.

Coastal Wetlands: The most recent National Wetlands 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 2009, 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 2009. Although the increase in wetlands acres is positive,  a
                                  Section II-Page 121

-------
2008 report by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration reported that coastal wetlands continue to decline at a rate of about 60,000 acres
per year. In coordination with other federal agencies and state and local program managers,
EPA has crafted an approach to evaluate underlying causes of coastal wetland loss and identify
best practices for minimizing these losses. In FY 2009, the Agency and its partners began the
first in a series of reviews in coastal areas to complete this analysis, which will help inform the
development of strategies and tools for stemming coastal wetland losses. EPA works with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit
program. The Agency also works with states and other federal agencies and partners through
several nonregulatory wetlands programs to protect and restore  wetlands.

Chesapeake Bay: The Chesapeake  Bay Program partners have achieved 49 percent, 65
percent, and 64 percent of the goals to implement nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
reduction practices, respectively (based on Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 2008
Progress Run; 2009 results will be available in March 2010). Although program partners have
achieved significant reductions in nutrient pollution loads from wastewater treatment facilities,
pollution from agricultural operations  is not being reduced quickly enough, and nutrient and
sediment pollution due to runoff from  existing and new development is increasing. Despite
widespread financial and technical assistance, farmer participation remains below the
necessary levels to meet agricultural  load reduction targets. The program is employing
additional resources from Farm Bill funding to address this challenge. To address concerns
about increasing urban/suburban runoff,  EPA is leading development of a stormwater best
practices guide.

Long Island Sound: Restoration and protection of Long Island Sound is exceeding
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, improving water quality, and
reducing the threat of hypoxia from excess nitrogen. The Long Island Sound Program (made up
of New York; Connecticut; EPA Regions 1 and 2; and other federal, state, local,  business, and
user partners) has generally been on target for nitrogen reduction under its Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL). Importantly, the state of New York has negotiated final Consent Orders with
New York City and Westchester County to upgrade wastewater treatment plants for nitrogen
removal in support of the TMDL. However, the resulting construction work at the wastewater
treatment plants causes a short-term  bulge in discharges of nitrogen due to the cessation of
interim nitrogen removal activities during the construction schedule. The Long Island Sound
Program is ahead of its plans for habitat  restoration/protection and fish passage, restoring or
protecting a total of 1,614 acres of habitat and reopening 147 miles of river corridor to fish
passage (compared to a 2011 goal of 131 miles to be reopened). The program is making
progress by working with local communities, businesses, and organizations to match or exceed
federal funding for critical habitat restoration, protection, enhancement, and fish  passage
projects.

As the Long  Island Sound Program continues to reduce point and nonpoint source pollution, the
total cost of necessary water quality infrastructure improvements remains an issue. A planned
revision to the TMDL program to include Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont will
require close cooperation and significant financial commitment by those states. Options for
flexible implementation on a total watershed basis must be evaluated. EPA is involving these
upstream states in TMDL 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
                                  Section II-Page 122

-------
meeting standards, and New York's "bubble" permitting process encourages economic savings
while controlling pollution. These approaches, if expanded on a regional basis, could potentially
help financially stressed communities meet local commitments to clean water.

Columbia River: The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership—made up of states, EPA,
and other partners—is leading the effort to improve 16,000 acres of habitat in the Lower
Columbia River watershed by 2011. To date, 15,700 acres of habitat have been protected,
enhanced, and restored. The collaborative nature of the partnership has attracted substantial
leveraged resources, an important success.

In January 2009, EPA issued Columbia River Basin: State of the River Report for Toxics, which
focused on four toxics of concern: DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and
polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) (a class of flame retardant). EPA Region 10 is now
working on a collaborative toxics reduction action plan that will be released in the spring of
2010. In April 2009, the DDT fish advisory was lifted in Washington's Yakama River Basin,
which once contained some of the highest DDT levels in the United States. This work was
accomplished through a major collaborative effort with the state, the Yakama Tribe, and
irrigation districts to implement best management practices to reduce sediment and water
loading.

South Florida and the Florida Keys: Monroe County, Florida, continues to make significant
progress reducing nutrient loadings into the  Florida Keys marine ecosystem by providing better
sewage treatment. Property owners using cesspits and septic tanks,  as well as package plants
not achieving state requirements, are required to hook up to wastewater facilities meeting
advanced wastewater treatment or best available technology standards. Along with the
significant nutrient reductions, the human  health risk from bacteria and viruses is expected to
diminish as cesspits and septic tanks are eliminated. As of June 30, 2009, about 32,138 (or 43
percent) of the households and business owners in the Keys are connected to a centralized
sewer system.  Identifying funding to fully implement the Florida Keys Wastewater Master Plan
continues to  be a challenge. Monroe County and local entities are struggling to fund sewer
projects with reduced revenue from taxes, assessments, bonds, grants, state revolving funds,
and other sources. As co-chair of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality
Protection Program, EPA will continue to work closely with states, local governments, and
federal agencies to identify funds.

Puget Sound: In July 15, 2009, EPA approved the Action Agenda as the Puget Sound
Partnership's official Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, as required by
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act for National Estuary Programs. The Puget Sound
Partnership includes local, state, tribal, and federal partners. Since 2007, the partnership has
restored or protected more than 5,751 acres of intertidal wetlands and upgraded 1,730 acres of
commercial shellfish beds have been upgraded.

Gulf of Mexico: On June 10, 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance released its new Governors'
Action Plan II, which outlines the work that will be completed over the next five years to enhance
the economic and ecological health of the Gulf of Mexico. Building on the accomplishments of
the first action plan, the Gulf states and their partners developed a further-reaching, five-year
regional plan that will expand the partnerships and focus on six priority issues: water quality for
healthy beaches and seafood, habitat conservation and restoration, ecosystems integration and
assessment, reducing nutrient impacts to coastal ecosystems, coastal community resilience,
and environmental education. The alliance continues to serve as a model collaborative
governance structure for the coastal regions.
                                  Section II-Page 123

-------
As part of the interagency Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force, EPA
is striving to reduce or make significant progress toward reducing the hypoxic zone in the Gulf to
5,000 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) or less by 2015, based on a five-year running
average, by implementing specific, practical, and cost-effective voluntary actions by all states
and tribes. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone as measured in 2009 was 8,000 square kilometers
(just over 3,000 square miles), which was smaller than predicted. The Gulf Alliance is
addressing hypoxia by developing consistent estuarine nutrient criteria, consistent nutrient
reduction strategies, and a sediment management master plan; collaborating to address the
Federal Standard; restoring coastal ecosystems; and establishing partnerships in the
Mississippi River Basin Watershed.
                   Gulf Hypoxia 1985-2009
auuu-

7000-
6000-
i
C/3 4000-
3000-
2000-
1000-







c




CO
00
Ol









I






e




0
8









I











£
vi








Q]
1 1 1
CD CD
g g





•




£
s









1





•





_k









1





«





5
£
NJ









1
<
<
<


•







D
D
.0









1
(
i


=







D
g









1



E







Ji









1



e







5
£
J>









1
<
<










0
0
-J









1
(
i










D
g









1


c








CD









1








s


B
0
o









1


•








s
0
_k









1
(
i
c









1









1






e




8
CO



•





1
1









1





=j





B
0
Jl









1
(
i


c







i









1


e








8









1











8
00









1 1
0
CD
                                 Section II-Page 124

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
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
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
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
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
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
$0.0
$20,744.7
$60,666.8
$109.7
$26.7
$5,538.0
$276.5
$1,282.7
$763.4
$10,765.3
$351.6
$688.0
$47.3
$4,570.9
$1,023.7
$305.1
$1,345.4
($99.1)
$90.0
$106.3
$52.3
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
$0.0
$25,820.1
$70,156.6
$133.6
$32.4
$6,967.2
$282.5
$1,322.9
$562.1
$10,567.6
$425.6
$729.1
$100.9
$4,506.9
$1,105.0
$336.2
$1,877.3
($27.5)
$112.1
$130.7
$67.5
FY 2009
Obligations
$16,020.7
$9,072.1
($2.4)
$26,302.1
$21,724.9
$4,806.4
$3,147.5
$3,066.0
$20,660.1
$35,919.2
$191.3
$205.5
($953.7)
$27,257.3
$24,630.4
$107.9
$37.0
$8,551.1
$315.7
$1,357.4
$733.2
$10,822.9
$464.4
$689.3
$56.1
$4,472.8
$1,168.7
$369.3
$839.8
($35.3)
$102.4
$116.4
$52.8
Section II-Page 125

-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$615.3
$384.9
$234,041.3
$763.9
$396.4
$271,368.1
$773.4
$404.7
$223,447.4
Additional Information Relating to Goal 4, Objective 3
Grants:






























EPA Web Site
Information:







• Section 320 of the Clean Water Act provides for annual grants
to National Estuary Programs. National Estuary Programs
have been very effective at leveraging this "base" grant
funding by building relationships with diverse private, local,
state, and federal partners.
• Section 1 1 9(d) of the Clean Water Act provides for grants to
eligible entities to implement the Long Island Sound
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to
restore and protect the sound's habitat and living marine
resources and to inform, educate, and involve the public in
plan implementation.
• 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 1 17(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.
• 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
• Long Island Sound Study: www.longislandsoundstudv.net
• Long Island Sound Study at EPA New England:
www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/epane.html
Section II-Page 126

-------
Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 4.4
                      (in thousands)
                 Objective 4
                 $420,652.80
                    29%
              Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,455,733.9
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 4.4

       Met = 11
      Not Met = 3
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009=5
      (Total = 19)
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect, sustain,
and restore human and ecosystem health.

Research to Inform Risk Assessors: In FY 2009, EPA provided state, local, and other
stakeholders with tools and data to assess the efficacy of locally adopted air pollution reduction
strategies and to predict future exposure scenarios. These tools and results were developed
through a collaborative study undertaken  between EPA program offices, Region 1, and state
and local stakeholders in New Haven, Connecticut. The study characterized the impact of
various emission reduction strategies (diesel retrofit, highway improvement/redesign, local
sources) on  exposures to and effects of ambient air toxic and criteria pollutants. Stakeholder
data were modeled (using EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System) to predict
future ambient levels and understand key factors influencing exposure. The stakeholders are
considering these data for future use in several urban planning activities, including "hot spot"
identification, school planning and zoning, and siting future facilities.

Climate Change: In FY 2009, EPA's Global Change Research Program provided critical
scientific information and tools to support decision-making related to climate change at the
federal,  regional, state, and local levels. The program continued to assess the potential impacts
of climate change, investigate adaptation strategies to reduce the  risks posed by climate
change, and evaluate the environmental and human health implications of alternative strategies
for reducing  greenhouse gas emissions.

Additionally,  the development of decision support tools helped  resource managers incorporate
considerations of climate change in their day-to-day operations. For example, water resource
managers throughout the country are using EPA's online Better Assessment Science
Integrating point and Non-point Sources (BASINS)/Climate Assessment Tool to assess the
influence of climate change on water quantity and quality in watersheds and to  explore the
effectiveness of alternative management strategies for coping with climate change. EPA's online
Water Erosion  Prediction Project (WEPP)/Climate Assessment Tool helps in assessing and
                                   Section II-Page 127

-------
managing the potential impact of climate change on sediment loading to streams and
developing effective adaptation strategies (e.g., riparian buffer zones). And since its release in
FY 2008, decision-makers in several states and regions are using EPA's nine-region MARKet
Allocation (MARKAL) model of the United States to explore the environmental implications of
alternative strategies for reducing emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
The MARKAL model's nine regions are based on the U.S. Census Bureau regions—information
on energy production and use required by the model is readily available for the Census regions,
but not organized by EPA Region. The nine census regions cover the entire United States and
their use provides a good starting point for examining possible future energy use and emissions
potential at the EPA Regional level.

Toxicity Testing: In FY 2009, EPA  published the toxicity reference database ToxRefDB
(available at www.epa.gov/ncct/toxrefdb), which provides the results of more than 30 years and
$2 billion worth of animal studies for more than 400 chemicals. This database increases
transparency of EPA data and decisions. EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is relying on
ToxRefDB for several international collaborative projects. ToxRefDB is also critical for
interpreting data derived from the ToxCast™ (www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast) chemical screening
program and providing critical linkages between bioactivity profiles and toxicity endpoints.
ToxCast is an EPA project that develops better methods for evaluating the potential toxicity of
thousands of chemicals using computer modeling and advanced molecular biology techniques.
ToxCast is using a  comprehensive suite of high-throughput screening assays to provide
biological fingerprints of activity that can be used to predict adverse outcomes in rodents and in
humans. In FY 2009, ToxCast Phase I generated bioactivity profiles on more than 300
chemicals from more than 500 assays. In May 2009, as part of a public ToxCast Data Analysis
Summit (www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/summit.html), more than 200 national and international
participants from dozens of organizations worldwide contributed chemicals, assays, analyses,
and other resources to ToxCast. EPA and external groups are now analyzing the Phase I
dataset, which represents a truly unique and innovative public scientific resource for predictive
toxicology. EPA also launched Phase II of ToxCast in FY 2009, profiling 700 additional
chemicals in the  assays.

Research for Evaluating Endocrine Disruptors: EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Research
Program provides the Agency with the scientific information needed 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.
Among FY 2009 accomplishments:

•  EPA completed research in developing life-cycle assays for fish and amphibians for Tier 2 of
   the Agency's Endocrine  Disruptors Screening Program. The assays are also being
   considered for international use by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
   Development. In addition, researchers developed an abbreviated amphibian thyroid screen
   that may provide a more efficient and diagnostic testing alternative to the current 21-day
   method.

•  EPA scientists developed a model  to assist in prioritizing screening for contending inert
   pesticide ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides. This model was reviewed by a scientific
   advisory panel and will allow scientists to quantitatively determine which pesticide
   candidates should be evaluated  initially through the Endocrine Disrupters Screening
   Program.
                                  Section II-Page 128

-------
Human Health Risk Assessments: EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program
produces peer-reviewed products that the Agency and others use to support regulatory
standards and manage environmental cleanups and risk management efforts. The Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) Program is one of the main components of the HHRA Program.
In FY 2009, EPA continued working to complete draft health  assessments of chemicals for
interagency science consultation (IAC) and/or external peer review (EPR). Nine assessments
were delivered to EPR; 1,4-dioxane; ethyl tert-butyl ether; pentachlorophenol; platinum;
chloroprene; cis and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene; trichloroacetic acid;  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane;
and hydrogen cyanide. In addition, seven health assessments were completed and posted on
the IRIS Web page for public dissemination, an increased number of postings compared to last
year. In addition to IRIS assessments, the HHRA Program completed 69 new or revised
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values, which support waste site decision-making for the
Superfund Program.

New IRIS and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) processes were announced in
May 2009. The new processes aim to maintain scientific quality of health assessments while
decreasing the time to produce assessments and increasing transparency. The new IRIS
process includes the release of interagency review drafts and interagency comments on those
drafts. In FY 2009 interagency comments were released for the following six chemical
assessments; arsenic (cancer), hexachloroethane, methanol, uranium, trichloroethylene, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. An implementation plan is in place for folding
ongoing IRIS and NAAQS assessments into this new process with revised timelines. Integrated
Science Assessments (ISAs), which identify, evaluate and integrate data on atmospheric
sciences, human exposure, toxicology, epidemiology, and environmental effects from thousands
of peer-reviewed publications for each criteria air pollutant, are the scientific foundation for the
NAAQS determinations. EPA  completed the ISA for environmental effects of Oxides of Nitrogen
and Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur in support of EPA National Ambient Air
Quality Secondary Standards regulatory decision-making.  In addition, a draft ISA for carbon
monoxide was completed. The HHRA Program was pivotal in helping the Agency meet court-
ordered deadlines for completed Integrated Science Assessments. The HHRA Program
provided significant scientific support for proposed EPA  rulemaking for the NAAQS as well as
decision support for standard-setting.

Drinking Water Sampling: Pathogenic microorganisms may be present in drinking water and
pose a significant public health concern. Current microbial detection  analytical methods require
the transportation of large volumes of potentially contaminated water samples, which is a safety
concern for transporters, laboratory personnel, and the public. In response to these concerns,
EPA developed a device that  can rapidly concentrate the microbes contained in a 26-gallon
sample into less than  2 cups of water. The smaller, concentrated sample can be more easily
and safely transported to a  laboratory for further analysis. This technology received a 2009 R&D
100 Award, a mark of excellence awarded to industry, government, and academia indicating
that the development  is one of the most innovative ideas of the year, nationally and
internationally.

Another area of concern is pathogens that are persistent in the environment that can pose a
challenge to disinfection or  inactivation. In consultation with experts in the fields of microbiology
and risk assessment,  EPA identified these pathogens and is  working on methods to rapidly
detect their presence, determine the risk of exposure to  them, and ensure their destruction.

Ecological Services Research: In 2009, EPA's Ecological Research Program transitioned to
helping local, regional, and  national environmental decision-makers understand how their
                                  Section II-Page 129

-------
choices affect the type, quality, magnitude, and sustainability of the goods and services society
receives from ecosystems. Examples of progress include:

•  The program's geospatial research team has developed a partnership with the National
   Geographic Society and NatureServe, who will be distributing many of the maps EPA
   creates on their LandScope America Web site. The LandScope America site
   (www.landscope.org) offers a highly visible venue for conveying EPA developments at a low
   cost to the Agency. This information is used by environmental managers to make more
   environmentally friendly land management decisions.

•  The Future Midwestern Landscapes Study was initiated to examine ecosystem services
   associated with biofuels production as a driver of change for a 12-state area of the Midwest.
   This effort has produced a decision support tool that EPA's Great Lakes National Program
   Office is using to prioritize areas for management to improve water quality in Lake Michigan.

Report on the Environment: EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE) captures trends in
human health and the environment and helps the Agency prioritize its work in order to improve
the condition of our nation's environment.  In  FY 2009, EPA conducted an uncertainty analysis to
help readers and Agency decision-makers interpret and better understand the accuracy of
current environmental conditions and trends  in environmental quality. This study also
considered the feasibility of presenting indicator information at a more local geographic scale.
EPA continues to update the ROE Web site on a quarterly basis with  recent environmental
indicator data. This site provides access to hundreds of exhibits depicting status and trends in
the environment.

Chemical Exposure and Food Allergenicity: 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 nontarget plants from exposures to
pesticides, toxic chemicals, and products of biotechnology. Examples of accomplishments in FY
2009 include:

•  EPA scientists developed and refined
   methods for determining potential
   environmental exposures  to perfluorinated
   chemicals (PFCs), which result from
   applying wastewater treatment plant
   biosolids to agricultural land. EPA applied                                ,
   the methods to analyze PFC-
   contaminated biosolids in  both Decatur,
   Alabama, and  New York City, New York.
   Soil, drinking water, and surface water
   samples were also analyzed to  assess the
   extent of the contamination; the results
   demonstrated that wastewater treatment
   plant biosolids are an environmental         Biosolids are applied to agricultural fields and
   source of PFCs. The Decatur community     mav be a source of perfluorinated chemicals.
   and other stakeholders are using these findings to help characterize the potential exposures
   and risks to PFCs from the contaminated biosolids applied over the  past 12 years.

•  EPA research  has made significant progress toward developing new approaches for
   assessing potential risk of food  allergies from pesticide proteins in genetically engineered
                                  Section II-Page 130

-------
plants. Methods developed by EPA and its grantees using structure-activity relationships, in
vitro screens, and animal models were reviewed at a meeting of the International Life
Sciences Institute Protein Allergenicity Technical Committee. This and ongoing research is
expected to help EPA and other stakeholders better understand food allergenicity.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Global Change
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Fellowships
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
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
$2,709.9
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
$8,967.2
$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
$2,845.8
$12.2
$435.4
$225.0
$3,103.2
FY 2009
Obligations
$492.7
$626.9
$37,055.8
$1,563.9
$45,580.2
$13,814.6
$10,136.1
$17,266.0
$157,666.5
$28,455.6
$5,644.3
$359.8
$123.4
$11,972.7
$610.9
$1,976.6
$2,434.6
$34,313.9
$4,667.1
$6,185.5
$865.7
$28,748.8
$4,166.4
$1,481.3
$1,369.7
$65.0
$388.2
$176.3
$3,151.5
                                Section II-Page 131

-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Endocrine Disrupters
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Global Change
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Fellowships
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Total
$1,352.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$417,252.0
$1,320.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$406,386.3
$1,350.0
($5.3)
($93.5)
($84.7)
($226.5)
($98.5)
($1.4)
$7.3
($1,236.9)
($23.9)
($259.9)
($33.9)
$420,652.80
Additional Information Relating to Goal 4, Objective 4
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• The EPA STAR Global Research Program provided
significant contributions to the Administrator's proposed
Greenhouse Gas endangerment finding. The program
delivered major advances in the understanding of the
impact of climate change on the United States, including:
the Office of Research and Development Assessment
Report on the Impacts of Climate Change upon Air Quality;
a landmark review article in peer reviewed literature; the
first research demonstrating observational evidence of the
impact of climate change on air quality; and continued
high-volume release of journal articles on climate impacts
and adaptation strategies for maintaining the quality of air,
water, ecosystems, and human health.
• National Center for Computational Toxicology:
http://www.epa.qov/ncct/toxrefdb/;
http://www.epa.qov/ncct/toxcast/summit.html
• ACTor: http://actor.epa.qov/actor/faces/ACToRHome.isp
• Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox)
Database Network: http://www.epa.qov/NCCT/dsstox/
• BASINS 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool:
http://cfpub.epa. qov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=2034
60
Section II-Page 132

-------
                              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 (PMs) Met
7
PMs Not Met
9
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
6
Total PMs
22
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
(270) Annual number of High
Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
with Risk Based Prioritizations
Completed through the Chemical
Assessment and Management
Program (ChAMP).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
Baseline
Actual

FY 2008
Target
150
Actual
151
FY 2009
Target
180
Actual
69

Unit
HPV
Chemicals
Baseline - The baseline for the number of HPV chemicals with risk based prioritizations completed in 2007 is zero.
Explanation - Production of Risk Based Prioritizations was stopped after mid-year reporting. The existing chemicals program will continue to assess
chemicals through hazard characterizations and will develop an alternative method to prioritize chemicals.
(278) Cumulative number of High
Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
with Screening Level Hazard
Characterization Reports completed.
Baseline
555
889
692
1260
931
1477
1,095
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 - The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) completed 164 hazard characterizations including over 100 hazard
characterizations announced on September 29, 2009, as part of the enhanced toxics program. Prior year actuals were updated to reflect final posting
dates. Publicly available U.S. hazard characterizations and International Screening Information Assessment Reports (SIARs) are counted only once
using the date of the most recently updated public version.
                                                    Section II-Page 133

-------
                            GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(296) Annual number of Moderate
Production Volume (MPV) chemicals
with Hazard Based Prioritizations
Completed through the Chemical
Assessment and Management
Program (ChAMP).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
Baseline
Actual

FY 2008
Target
55
Actual
14
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
69

Unit
MPV
Chemicals
Baseline - The baseline for the number of MPV chemicals with hazard based prioritizations completed in 2007 is zero.
Explanation - Production of Risk Based Prioritizations was stopped after mid-year reporting. The existing chemicals program will continue to assess
chemicals through hazard characterizations and will develop an alternative method to prioritize chemicals.
(239) Annual number of chemicals
with final values for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGL).




37
37
6
4
Number of
Chemical
Baseline - EPA developed Proposed AEGL values for 78 Baseline from program initiation in 1 996 through 2008 is 37 chemicals.
Explanation - OPPT experienced a lag in awarding and starting work under a contract to the National Academies of Science to conduct this work so
was unable to complete all six final AEGL values. Pace should increase next year with increased focus on completing final AEGL values.
(241) Annual number of chemicals
with proposed values for Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGL).
24
23
24
33
24
28
18
27
Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline EPA developed Proposed AEGL values for 78 chemicals through 2002. In 2007, a total of 21 8 chemicals with proposed AEGL
Values were reported for the AEGL Program (cumulative count).
Explanation - OPPT is approaching completion of work for proposed AEGL values. A higher number of chemicals were completed as work with
transition to completing final AEGL values next year.
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 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

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 two-year analysis from 2004 to 2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical submissions and
is 100 percent.
                                                 Section II-Page 134

-------
                              GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, achieve a 26 percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health risk from environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce
since 2001.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(250) Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted risk-based score
of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals from manufacturing
facilities.
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
-0.3
FY 2007
Target
4.0
Actual
Data
Available
December
2009
FY 2008
Target
3.5
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010
FY 2009
Target
3.2
Actual
Data
Available
October
2011

Unit
Percent Risk
Screening
Environmenta
I Indicators
(RSEI)
Relative 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 Toxics Release Inventory (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.
(282) Annual reduction in the
production-adjusted risk-based score
of releases and transfers of High
Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
from manufacturing facilities.
3.0
1.8
2.6
Data
Available
December
2009
2.5
Data
Available
October
2010
2.4
Data
Available
October
2011
Relative 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.
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 (>10 micrograms per deciliter [ug/dl]).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(196) Number of cases of children
(aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood
lead levels (>10 ug/dl).
FY 2006
Target
216,000
Actual
191,000
FY 2007
Target
Biennial
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
90,000
Actual
Data
Available
October
2011
FY 2009
Target
Biennial
Actual
Biennial

Unit
Children
Baseline - Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (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).
                                                     Section II-Page 135

-------
                                GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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 2006
Target
29
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010
FY 2007
Target
Biennial
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
29
Actual
Data
Available
November
2011
FY 2009
Target
Biennial
Actual
Biennial

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 percent in 1991-1994.
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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Ar5) Number of countries completing
phaseout of leaded gasoline.
FY 2006
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
13
FY 2008
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2009
Target
4
Actual
2

Unit
Countries
Baseline -As of Jan 2006, 159 countries had phased out the use of lead in gas.
Explanation - Countries that were anticipated in phasing out leaded gasoline did not occur.
(Ar8) Number of countries introducing
low sulfur in fuels.
2
5
No Target
Est.
14
2
5
3
2
Countries
Baseline -As of 2005, the United States, Japan, Canada, and the European Community had introduced low-sulfur fuels.
Explanation - Countries that were anticipated to introduce low sulfur in fuels did not.
                                                        Section II-Page 136

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
By 2011, protect human health, communities, and the environment from chemical releases through facility risk-reduction  efforts and building
community preparedness and response capabilities.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, continue to maintain the Risk Management Plan (RMP) prevention program and further reduce by 5 percent the number of accidents at
RMP facilities. (The baseline is an annual average of 340 accidents, based on RMP program data through 2003.)

Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce by 5 percent the consequences of accidents at RMP facilities, as measured by injuries, fatalities,  and property  damage. (The
baseline is an annual average of 358 injuries, 13 fatalities, and $143,487,189 in property damage at RMP from 1995-2003.)

Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, vulnerability zones surrounding RMP  facilities will be reduced by 5 percent from the 2004 baseline, which will  result in the reduction of risk
for over 4 million people in the community. (The 2004 baseline is 33,504 miles of total cumulative radius of all vulnerability zones.)

Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, improve by 10 percent from the 2007 baseline the capabilities of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to chemical emergencies (as measured by a survey of those LEPCs), thereby reducing the  risk to communities from  the potentially
devastating effects of chemical accidents.

No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(CH2) Number of risk management
plan audits and inspections
completed.
FY 2006
Target
400
Actual
550
FY 2007
Target
400
Actual
628
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
628
FY 2009
Target
400
Actual
654

Unit
Audits
Baseline - 2820 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2002 and FY 2006.
Explanation - 2009 was an RMP reporting year. The RMP Program has approximately 13,000 facilities. EPA's regions inspected more facilities this
past year to ensure facilities were updating their RMP plans. The results were also because of the focus on facilities that were potential "non-filers".
                                                       Section II-Page 137

-------
                                GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS


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 based on 1990-1992
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(266) Percent reduction in
concentrations of pesticides detected
in general population.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
5
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial

Unit
Percent
Baseline - According to NHANES data for 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population
are: dimethylphosphate = 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.
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, protect those occupationally exposed to pesticides by improving on 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.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(265) Improve or maintain a rate of
incidents per 100,000 potential risk
events in population occupationally
exposed to pesticides.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
<=
3.5/100,0
00
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Incidents/
100,000
Baseline - There were 1 ,388 incidents out of 39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides in FY 2003.
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 (PCC) Toxics Exposure Surveillance System (TESS)
database for 1999-2003.
                                                        Section II-Page 138

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(267) Percent reduction in moderate
to severe incidents for six acutely
toxic agricultural pesticides with the
highest incident rate.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
30
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Percent
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; and 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.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(001) Register reduced risk
pesticides, including biopesticides.
FY 2006
Target
14
Actual
15
FY 2007
Target
14
Actual
14
FY 2008
Target
10
Actual
12
FY 2009
Target
11
Actual
15

Unit
Registration
Baseline - Zero reduced risk pesticides (including biopesticides) are registered in FY 1996; cumulative total in FY2007 is 227 registrations.
Explanation - Target was an estimate of what was in the pipeline. Outyear target will not be adjusted; measure was approved for deletion after 2009.
(002) New Chemicals (Active
Ingredients)
8
19
8
16
12
8
12
4
Registration
Baseline - Zero new chemicals (active ingredients) is registered in FY 1996; cumulative total in FY2007 is 128 new chemicals (Al).
Explanation - Target was an estimate of what was in the pipeline. Outyear target will not be adjusted; measure was approved for deletion.
(005) New Uses
200
235
200
233
250
327
200
276
Actions
Baseline - Zero new use actions in 1 996. Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 4,308 new use actions.
Explanation - Target was an estimate of what was in the pipeline. Outyear target will not be adjusted; measure was approved for deletion.
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 U.S. 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.
                                                      Section II-Page 139

-------
                             GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(268) Percent of urban watersheds
that do not exceeds EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for three key pesticides
of concern.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
25, 25, 30
Actual
6.7,0,6.7
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial

Unit
Percent
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.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds sampled by the USGS NAWQA program that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two
key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos). Based on  1992-2001  data, 18 percent of agricultural watersheds  sampled  exceeded
benchmarks for azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(143) Percentage of agricultural acres
treated with reduced-risk pesticides.
FY 2006
Target
17
Actual
18
FY 2007
Target
18.0
Actual
20
FY 2008
Target
18.5
Actual
21
FY 2009
Target
20
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Percent
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
the 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.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(01 1) Number of Product
Reregistration Decisions
FY 2006
Target
545
Actual
545
FY 2007
Target
545
Actual
962
FY 2008
Target
1075
Actual
1,194
FY 2009
Target
2,000
Actual
1,770

Unit
Actions
Baseline - FY 05 actual is 501 product reregistrations.
Explanation - This measure depends on the pipeline of products which has slowed. Future targets have been amended to reflect this trend.
                                                    Section II-Page 140

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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 $900 million in termite structural damage by ensuring that safe and effective pesticides are registered/reregistered 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.
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 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
$900 M
Actual
$900 M
FY 2009
Target
$900 M
Actual
M

Unit
Dollars
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 dollars in crop loss
avoided by ensuring that effective
pesticides are available to address
pest infestations.




$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1 .5 B
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.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(240) Maintain timeliness of S1 8
emergency exemption decisions.
FY 2006
Target
45
Actual
48
FY 2007
Target
45
Actual
36.60
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
34
FY 2009
Target
45
Actual
40

Unit
Days
Baseline - The Section 18's 2005 baseline is 45 days.
Explanation - Actual is the result of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) and Interregional Project No. 4 (IR-4). The program has found
efficiencies in the process and realized a better than 45-day average. We will review future goals and expect to propose a more aggressive average in
2011 congressional justification.
(257) Cumulative number of assays
that have been validated.
11/20
2/21
8/20
3/20
13/20
12/20
14/19
13/19
Assays
                                                       Section II - Page 141

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
Baseline - Zero assays validated in FY 2005.
Explanation - Contractor delays, international coordination, and technical problems associated with this new area of science contributed to the delay in
completing an additional assay as targeted for FY 2009.
OBJECTIVE: 4.2: COMMUNITIES

Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Performance Measures (PMs) Met
4
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
5
Total PMs
10
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 2006
Target
1,000
Actual
2,139
FY 2007
Target
1,000
Actual
1,371
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Actual
1,453
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Available
November
2009

Unit
Assessments
This measure supports work under the Brownfields Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Brownfields Program awarded the majority of Recovery Act-funded cooperative agreements and contract task orders by
September 30, 2009. Projects have been initiated, and reporting will begin during the first quarter of FY 2010 (i.e., January 2010). Results for this
                                                      Section II-Page 142

-------
                             GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
measure will be included in EPA's FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).
Baseline - In FY2006, the Brownfields program assessed 2,139 properties.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, make 1,125 acres (cumulative) of Brownfields ready for reuse. (Baseline will be established in FY2006.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B33) Acres of Brownfields properties
made ready for reuse.
FY 2006
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
1,598
FY 2007
Target
Under
Develop-
ment
Actual
2,399
FY 2008
Target
225
Actual
4,404
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Available
November
2009

Unit
Acres
This measure supports work under the Brownfields Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Brownfields Program awarded the majority of Recovery Act-funded cooperative agreements and contract task orders by
September 30, 2009. Projects have been initiated, and reporting will begin during the first quarter of FY 201 0 (i.e., January 201 0). Results for this
measure will be included in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY 2006, the Brownfields program made 1 ,598 acres ready for reuse.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, leverage $12.9 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at Brownfields properties. (FY 2005 baseline is
$7.5B.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup
and redevelopment funds leveraged
at Brownfields sites.
FY 2006
Target
1.0
Actual
1.479
FY 2007
Target
0.9
Actual
1.693
FY 2008
Target
0.9
Actual
1.546
FY 2009
Target
0.9
Actual
Data
Available
November
2009

Unit
Billon Dollars
This measure supports work under the Brownfields Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Brownfields Program awarded the majority of Recovery Act-funded cooperative agreements and contract task orders by
September 30, 2009. Projects have been initiated, and reporting will begin during the first quarter of FY 201 0 (i.e., January 201 0). Results for this
measure will be included in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY2006, the Brownfields program leveraged $1.48 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
                                                    Section II-Page 143

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B32) Number of properties cleaned
up using Brownfields funding.
FY 2006
Target
60
Actual
88
FY 2007
Target
60
Actual
77
FY 2008
Target
60
Actual
78
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
Data
Available
November
2009

Unit
Properties
This measure supports work under the Brownfields Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Brownfields Program awarded the majority of Recovery Act-funded cooperative agreements and contract task orders by
September 30, 2009. Projects have been initiated, and reporting will begin during the first quarter of FY 201 0 (i.e., January 201 0). Results for this
measure will be included in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY2006, the Brownfields program cleaned up 88 properties.
(B34) Jobs leveraged from
Brownfields activities.
5,000
5,504
5,000
5,209
5,000
5,484
5,000
Data
Available
November
2009
Jobs
This measure supports work under the Brownfields Program, which received additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act). The Brownfields Program awarded the majority of Recovery Act-funded cooperative agreements and contract task orders by
September 30, 2009. Projects have been initiated, and reporting will begin during the first quarter of FY 201 0 (i.e., January 201 0). Results for this
measure will be included in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY2006, the Brownfields program leveraged 5,504 jobs.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the United States-Mexico Border Environmental Health
By 2012, sustain and restore the environmental health along the United States-Mexico border through implementation of the "Border 2012" plan.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a majority of currently exceeded water quality standards in impaired trans-boundary surface waters. (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.)
                                                      Section II - Page 144

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xb2) Number of additional homes
provided safe drinking water in the
Mexican border area that lacked
access to drinking water in 2003.
FY 2006
Target
2,500
Actual
22,468
FY 2007
Target
1,200
Actual
1,276
FY 2008
Target
2,500
Actual
5,162
FY 2009
Target
1,500
Actual
1 ,584

Unit
Additional
Homes
Baseline - 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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xb3) Number of additional homes
provided adequate wastewater
sanitation in the Mexican border area
that lacked access to wastewater
sanitation in 2003.
FY 2006
Target
15,000
Actual
30,195
FY 2007
Target
70,750
Actual
73,475
FY 2008
Target
15,000
Actual
31,686
FY 2009
Target
105,500
Actual
43,594

Unit
Additional
Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation.
Explanation - The FY 2009 PAR target was based on expected project completions in FY09. While eight of the 13 projects completed in FY09 resulted
in new wastewater connections, a delay in project implementation for a large project resulted in the target not being met. The project is on track for
completion in FY 201 0; the new wastewater connections associated with the project are expected to be reported in FY 201 0 following project
completion.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2012, clean up 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 CNMI, 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.)
                                                       Section II - Page 145

-------
                              GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pi1) Percent of population in each of
U.S. Pacific Island Territories served
by CWS will receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards throughout
the year.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
72
Actual
79
FY 2009
Target
73
Actual
80

Unit
Percent
Population
Baseline - In 2005, 95 percent of American Samoa; 1 0 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.
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 Pacific Island Territories complied 59
percent of the time with the BOD and TSS permit limits.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pi2) Percent of the time that the
sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories comply with
permit limits for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and total suspended
solids (TSS).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
67
Actual
67
FY 2009
Target
62
Actual
65

Unit
Percent of
Time
Baseline - In 2005, sewage treatment plants complied with permit limits 59 percent of the time.
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 CNMI, and 76 percent in Guam).
                                                     Section II-Page 146

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pi3) 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 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
70
Actual
80
FY 2009
Target
80
Actual
81

Unit
Percent Days
Baseline - In 2005, 84 percent of beach days were open and safe for swimming.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure
By 2011, reduce the mean maternal serum blood levels of POPs contaminants in indigenous populations in the Arctic.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011,  reduce mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous populations in the
Arctic to 5.6 ug/l.

Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of  chlordane (measured as the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in indigenous
populations in the Arctic to 1 ug/l.

OBJECTIVE: 4.3: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS

Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
Performance Measures (PMs) Met
16
PMs Not Met
10
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
2
Total PMs
28
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands
By 2011, working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland condition.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011,  working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per year with additional focus on biological and functional
measures and assessment of wetland condition. (2004 Baseline: 32,000 acres annual net wetland gain based on new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report, 1998-2004.)
                                                      Section II - Page 147

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(4D) 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 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
100,000
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2008
Target
100,000
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
Available
FY201 1

Unit
Acres/Year
Baseline - The United States achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands over a six-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, I.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp.)
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 2006
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No Net
Loss

Unit
Acres
Baseline - No Net Loss: FY 2003: 1 :1 .(ELI 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the U.S. p. 24.
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ELIMitigation2005.pdf)
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.)
                                                       Section II-Page 148

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(202) Acres protected or restored in
National Estuary Program (NEP)
study areas.
FY 2006
Target
25,000
Actual
140,033
FY 2007
Target
50,000
Actual
102,463
FY 2008
Target
50,000
Actual
83,490
FY 2009
Target
100,000
Actual
125,410

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2002, zero acres were protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Explanation - Target was exceeded due to unexpectedly large number of agricultural easement and land acquisition acres in two NEP watersheds.
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 polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in whole lake trout and walleye samples. (Baseline: decline from 1990 levels.)
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 2006
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2007
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
6

Unit
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Baseline - On average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually - average
concentrations at Lake sites from 2002 were: Lake Superior - 9 ug/g; Lake Michigan - 1 .6 ug/g; Lake Huron - .8 ug/g; Lake Erie - 1 .8 ug/g; and Lake
Ontario - 1.2 ug/g.)
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
(IADN) data.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(621) Average annual percentage
decline for the long-term trend in
FY 2006
Target
7
Actual
8
FY 2007
Target
7
Actual
7.5
FY 2008
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
_

Unit
Percent
Annual
                                                       Section II-Page 149

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
concentrations of PCBs in the air in
the Great Lakes Basin.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual


Unit
Decrease
Baseline -Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air (PCBs) from 2002 were: Lake Superior- 60 picograms per square meter (pg/rn^); Lake
Michigan - 87 pg/m2; Lake Huron - 19 pg/m2; Lake Erie - 183 pg/m2; and Lake Ontario - 36 pg/m .
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
(625) Number of Beneficial Use
Impairments removed within Areas of
Concern.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
21
Actual
12

Unit
Cumulative
Number
Removed
Baseline - In 2006, six beneficial use impairments (BUIs) were removed within Areas of Concern.
Explanation - Delisting requests did not meet expectations. The St. Clair River Binational AOC delisted the Tainting of Fish
2009. In late 2008, all of the AOCs formally submitted their restoration targets to EPA, and these areas are now implement
BUI delisting. With the advent of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, there will be opportunity to complete more BUI delis
and Wildlife Flavor BUI in
ng plans that will lead to
>tings.
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 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
4.10
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4.50
FY 2008
Target
5.0
Actual
5.50
FY 2009
Target
5.9
Actual
6.0

Unit
Cumulative
Cubic Yards
(Million)
Baseline - 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation.
                                                      Section II-Page 150

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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 kilometers [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.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(230) Percent of point source nitrogen
reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2006
Target
65
Actual
65
FY 2007
Target
70
Actual
69
FY 2008
Target
74
Actual
69
FY 2009
Target
74
Actual
70

Unit
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 61 percent of point source nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Incorporating nutrient limits into permit cycles is ongoing, but upgrades of wastewater treatment plants will cost billions and is resulting in
resistance and lawsuits. Additional resources from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will support future progress.
(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
50
49
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - The 2002 baseline is 33 percent goal achievement (52.82 million pounds reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 46 percent goal
achievement (74.63 million pounds reduced since 1986).
Explanation - Efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural practices is occurring, but not at a sufficient enough pace. Despite widespread financial and
technical assistance, farmer participation remains below the necessary levels to meet targets. Additional resources from Farm Bill Funding will support
future progress. Stormwater runoff from new and existing development is the only source of nutrients and sediments that is actually increasing. In
response to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, EPA is leading development of a stormwater best practices guide to address this challenge.
                                                       Section II - Page 151

-------
                              GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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 2006
Target
82
Actual
82
FY 2007
Target
84
Actual
0
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
87
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
96

Unit
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 80 percent of point source phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
(cb4) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of phosphorus
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the phosphorus
reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds).
61
61
64
62
66
62
64
65
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 58 percent of phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
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 2006
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2007
Target
61
Actual
65
FY 2008
Target
64
Actual
64
FY 2009
Target
67
Actual
64

Unit
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 54 percent of sediment goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - Efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural practices is occurring, but not at a sufficient enough pace. Despite widespread financial and
technical assistance, farmer participation remains below the necessary levels to meet targets. Additional resources from Farm Bill Funding will support
future progress. Stormwater runoff from new and existing development is the only source of nutrients and sediments that is actually increasing. In
response to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, EPA is leading development of a storm water best practices guide to address this challenge.
                                                    Section II-Page 152

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(232) Percent of forest buffer planting
goal of 10,000 miles achieved.
FY 2006
Target
46
Actual
46
FY 2007
Target
53
Actual
53
FY 2008
Target
60
Actual
57
FY 2009
Target
62
Actual
62

Unit
Percent Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 38 percent of goal achieved in 2005.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.5: Improve the Aquatic Health of the Gulf of Mexico
By 2011, the overall  health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be improved from 2.4 to 2.6 on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report. (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
(xg1) Restore water and habitat
quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in 13
priority coastal areas (cumulative
starting in FY2007).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
64
Actual
131
FY 2009
Target
96
Actual
131

Unit
Impaired
Segments
Baseline - In 2005, 28 segments restored.
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
(xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a
cumulative number of acres of
important coastal and marine
habitats.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
18,200
Actual
25,215
FY 2009
Target
26,000
Actual
29,344

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres.
                                                       Section II-Page 153

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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 kilometers (km)2, as measured by the five-year running average of the size of the zone. (Baseline: 1996-2000 running average size =
14,128km2.)

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 2006
Target
2.4
Actual
2.40
FY 2007
Target
2.4
Actual
2.40
FY 2008
Target
2.5
Actual
2.20
FY 2009
Target
2.5
Actual
2.2

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 (NCCR) III released in 2008 states that: the overall condition of the coastal waters of the Gulf
Coast region is rated fair to poor with an overall condition score of 2.2; the water quality index for the region's coastal waters is rated fair; the sediment
quality, benthic, and coastal habitat indices are rated poor; and the fish tissue contaminants index is rated good.
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 pounds per day. Total Maximum  Daily Load baseline: 212,899 pounds per day; 2014 target:
88,353 pounds per day.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(N1) Reduce point source nitrogen
discharges to Long Island Sound as
measured by the Long Island Sound
Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
37,323
Actual
Data
Unavailable
FY 2009
Target
37,323
Actual
Data
Available
2010

Unit
Pounds Per
Day
Baseline - In 1 999, point source nitrogen discharges reduced to 21 1 ,724 pounds per day. Baseline updated from 2006-201 1 Strategic Plan.
                                                      Section II - Page 154

-------
                                GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS


Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the size of hypoxic area in Long Island Sound (i.e., the average maximum July-September <3 milligrams per liter [mg/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 square miles. 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 acres of
coastal habitat, including tidal
wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and
freshwater wetlands.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
862
Actual
1,199
FY 2009
Target
1,239
Actual
1 G"37
I ,DO i

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 562 acres restored and 150 acres 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 bypass structures such as fishways. (2005 baseline: 81 miles.)
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 bypass structures
such as fishways.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
105.9
Actual
124.30
FY 2009
Target
132.6
Actual
147

Unit
Miles
Baseline - In 2005, 81 miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage were open.
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.)
                                                        Section II - Page 155

-------
                                   GOAL 4:  HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sf1) Achieve "no net loss" of stony
coral cover in Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary and in the coastal
waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties, Florida, working with
all stakeholders.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
6.8/5.9
Actual
Small
Loss
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Loss

Unit
Mean Percent
of Area
         Baseline - 6.8 percent in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7 percent was revised to 6.8 percent. The Coral
         Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was modified in 2006 by dropping one hard bottom monitoring
         site because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (less than 0.2 percent) resulting in an increase of .1 percent 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 percent in Southeast Florida in 2005.
         Explanation - The result for this measure is reported in two parts: 1) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary - Not Met: 6.8 baseline, 6.4 is the result
         for FY 2009 (based on monitoring data from 2008). Results should be greater than or equal to baseline to achieve no net loss. This is a very small
         change. There was a slight increase in coral cover from 2006 (6.3) to 2007 (6.5). There was a decrease in coral disease. 2) Coastal waters of Dade,
         Broward, and Palm Beach counties - Not Met: 5.9 baseline, 5.0 is the result for FY 2009 (based on monitoring data from 2008). Results should be
         greater than or equal to the baseline to achieve no net loss. This is a very small change from last year. There was a slight increase in coral cover from
         FY 2006 (4.7) to FY 2007 (5.1). The slight overall decline of coral within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is attributed to the significant
         decline of coral at monitoring sites within the Lower Keys and the Dry Tortugas. Losses may occur from hurricane events, thermal stress events, and
         diseases.
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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sf2) Annually maintain the overall
health and functionality of sea grass
beds in the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary as measured by the
long-term sea grass monitoring
project.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained

Unit
Sea Grass
Health
Baseline - In 2005, Florida Keys seagrasses elemental indicator (El) is 8.28 for N; P of Thalassia and a Species Composition Index (SCI) of 0.48 for
relative abundance of Thalassia.
                                                             Section II-Page 156

-------
                                  GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND  ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
        Explanation - The results for this measure are reported in two parts: 1) Long-term average - Not Met: El 8.3 baseline; 6.9 is the FY 2009 end-of-year
        result (based on 2008 monitoring data). Results should be greater than or equal to baseline to achieve maintain baseline. 2) Species composition -
        Met: SCI .48 baseline; .47 is FY 2009 end-of-year result (based on 2008 reporting cycle). Results should be greater than or equal to the baseline to
        achieve maintain baseline. Statistically the difference between .47 and .48 (.01) equates to no change and is insignificant. So, SCI is considered met.
        Decreases in the El are correlated with a decrease in water quality; this is consistent with the water quality strategic target that was also not met in
        FY09.
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 the near shore and coastal waters
of the Florida Keys Nat'l Marine
Sanctuary.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintaine
d

Unit
Water Quality
Baseline - In 2005: chlorophyll = 0.2 micrograms per liter (ug/L) = 43 sites; light attenuation = 0.13/meter (m) = 23 sites; dissolved inorganic nitrogen =
0.75 micrometers (uM) = 251 sites; and total phosphorus = 0.2 uM = 296 sites.
Explanation - The result for this measure is reported in four parts: 1) Light attenuation: Not met. Parameter = 0.13; baseline = 23 sites; results = 33
sites for FY 2009 (based on 2008 monitoring data). 2) Chlorophyll: Not Met. Parameter = 0.2 ug/l, baseline = 43 sites, results = 88 sites for FY 2009
(based on 2008 monitoring data). 3) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN): Met. Parameter = 0.75, baseline = 251 sites, results = 164 sites for FY 2009
(based on 2008 monitoring data). 4) Total Phosphorus: Not Met. Parameter = 0.2 micromolar, baseline = 296 sites, results = 520 sites for FY 2009
(based on 2008 monitoring data). This number should be equal to or lower than the baseline to meet the target. Failure to meet any part can be
counted as not meeting this measure. These parameters measure the well-being of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ecosystem as a
whole. This large-scale monitoring effort does not allow us to discern between internal and external sources of nutrients and natural versus
anthropogenic inputs.
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.)
                                                           Section II - Page 157

-------
                              GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sf4) Improve the water quality of the
Everglades ecosystem as measured
by total phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 parts per billion (ppb)
total phosphorus criterion throughout
the Everglades Protection Area
marsh.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained

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 three-quarters and 98 ppb for area 1 W in 2005.
Explanation - The results for this measure are reported in two parts: 1) Water Year >
Everglades Protection Area - Not Met. 2009 Everglades marsh concentrations are I
1 0 ppb criterion was not met throughout the Everglades Protection Area. 2) Water \
Treatment Areas (STA) - Not Met. 2009 STA performance is better than the 2005 b
stormwater treatment areas and agricultural best management practices are being
difficult decisions and significant financial investment will be necessary to meet the
Annual Geometric Mean Total Phosphorus (TP) throughout the
ass than the 2005 baseline so the baseline is maintained. However,
'ear Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions for the Stormwater
aseline, but only three of the six STAs met effluent limits. While
mplemented in the Everglades, additional measures requiring
10 ppb target and STAs effluent limits in the near future.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
By 2011, improve water quality, air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, improve water quality and lift harvest restrictions in 1,000 acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water
quality. (Baseline: As of January 2006, approximately 30,000 shellfish bed growing areas had harvest restrictions due to water quality impairments
in Puget Sound.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ps1) Improve water quality and
enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed
growing areas impacted by degrading
or declining water quality.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
450
Actual
1,566
FY 2009
Target
600
Actual
1,730

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 1 ,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions.
Explanation - At the end of 2008, Puget Sound realized a very large increase in shellfish acres where restrictions for harvesting were lifted: 1 ,566
acres. In 2009, an additionally 164 acres had restrictions lifted. Cumulatively, the Puget Sound result for this measure is significantly ahead of the
1 ,000 acres targeted for achievement by 201 1 . Region 1 0 expects to reevaluate the cumulative target for future year targets.
                                                     Section II-Page 158

-------
                               GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

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 level of remediation.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ps2) Remediate acres of prioritized
contaminated sediments.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
123
FY 2009
Target
125
Actual
123

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 123 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated.
Explanation - Although no additional acres were reportable as remediated in 2009, Region 10 continues to make progress on contaminated sediment
sites in Puget Sound. The cumulative target of 200 acres by 201 1 is still relevant.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, 3,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands are restored. (Baseline: total intertidal and near shore habitat acres
identified in the 2006 Puget Sound Near Shore Restoration Site Inventory Database.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ps3) Restore the acres of tidally and
seasonally influenced estuarine
wetlands.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
2,310
Actual
4,413
FY 2009
Target
5,700
Actual


Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands were restored.
Explanation - During 2009 an additional 1 ,338 acres were restored; exceeding the incremental target of 750 acres for 2009. The cumulative target for
through 2011 is 3,500 acres. Region 10 expects to reevaluate the cumulative target for 201 2 and appropriately increase the target for future years.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, through coordinated diesel emission mitigation efforts, reduce total diesel emissions in the Puget Sound airshed by 8 percent. (Baseline
will be determined in 2006.)

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. (Baseline:  1999 Lower Columbia River
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan.)
                                                       Section II-Page 159

-------
                               GOAL 4:  HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
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
FY2006).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
3,000
Actual
12,986
FY 2009
Target
10,000
Actual
15,700

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.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(cr2) Clean up acres of known
contaminated sediments (cumulative
starting FY2006).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
0
Actual
0
FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
10

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2006, 400 acres of known highly contaminated sediments were found in the main-stem of the Lower Columbia and Lower Willamette
Rivers.
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 (PSP) Studies for Oregon as of 200649; Total
Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] studies for Washington; 2002 EPA Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey; Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership 2006 Monitoring  Study;  and Washington Ecology's March 2005 Report: Concentrations of 303[d] Listed  Pesticides,  polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], measured with Passive Samplers Deployed in the Lower Columbia River.)

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 (PMs) Met
11
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
5
Total PMs
19
                                                       Section II-Page 160

-------
                       GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H07) Percentage of human health
program publications rated as highly
cited papers.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
25.5
Actual
25.60
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial

Unit
Percent
Baseline -
(H29) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of public health
outcomes long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY2002, 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 policy decisions related to human
health.
(H30) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of mechanistic
data long-term goal.
100
92
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY2000, 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.
(H31) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of aggregate and
cumulative risk long-term goal.
100
100
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 the susceptible
subpopulations long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
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.
(H72) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of efficient and
effective cleanups and safe disposal
of contamination wastes.
100

100
100
100
92
100
85
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
                                        Section II-Page 161

-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual

Unit
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 following research was not completed as planned: 1) Estimate toxicity values for persistent chemicals and warfare agents through
animal studies or estimation technologies. 2) Submit up to five report/papers on the Engineering of Decontamination Technology Applications.
(H73) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of water security
initiatives.
100

100
100
100
83
100
100
Percent
Baseline - EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help decision-
makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical and/or biological attacks have
been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by assembling and
evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first
responders, decision-makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the
establishment of remediation goals. These products will enable first responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by
the intentional release of toxic or infectious materials.
(H76) Percentage of Global
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
No Target
Est.
Biennial
22
25
No Target
Est.
Biennial
23
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline -
(H77) Percentage of Global
publications in high-impact journals.
No Target
Est.
Biennial
23.6
24.1
No Target
Est.
Biennial
24.6
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline -
(H79) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered.


100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY2007, 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.
(H83) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of Human Health
Risk Assessment (HHRA) Technical
Support Documents.


90
100
90
89
90
100
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.
(I06) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the SP2
100
80
100
86
100
100
100
100
Percent
                Section II-Page 162

-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
program's long-term goal one.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual


Unit

Baseline - In FY 2007 86 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
(108) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the SP2
program's long-term goal two.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY2007 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
(110) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the SP2
program's long-term goal three.
100
100
100
80
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007 80 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three.
(111) Percentage of SP2 publications
rated as highly cited publications.
Baseline
22.2
No Target
Est.
Biennial
23.2
Data
Avail.
2010
No Target
Est.
Biennial
Percent
Baseline -
(112) Percent of SP2 publications in
high-impact journals.
Baseline
35.2
No Target
Est.
Biennial
36.2
Data
Avail.
2010
No Target
Est.
Biennial
Percent
Baseline -
(118) 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.
25
25
30
30
35
35
40
Data
Available
2010
States
Baseline -
(119) Percentage of Ecological
Research publications rated as highly
cited publications.
No Target
Est.
Biennial
20.4
21.10
Biennial

21.4
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 21 .1 percent of ecological research publications were rated as highly cited publications.
(I20) Percentage of ecological
research publications in high impact
journals.
No Target
Est.
Biennial
20.3
20.80
Biennial

21.3
Data
Available
2010
Percent
Baseline - In FY2007, 20.8 percent of ecological research publications were in high-impact journals.
(121) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of state, tribe,
and relevant EPA office needs for
causal diagnosis tools and methods
100
86
100
67
100
100
100
100
Percent
                Section II-Page 163

-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
to determine causes of ecological
degradation.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual


Unit

Baseline - In 2007, 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of state, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for causal diagnosis tools
and methods to determine causes of ecological degradation.
(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.
100
100
100
100
100
83
100
93
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 1 00 percent of planned outputs were 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.
Explanation - Research not completed in the following area: report on new introductions and changes in the distribution of existing invasive species in
Pacific Northwest marine/estuarine systems
(I23) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of state, tribe,
and EPA office needs for
environmental restoration and
services tools and methods to protect
and restore ecological condition and
services.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
Percent
Baseline - In 2007, 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of state, tribe, and EPA office needs for environmental restoration and
services tools and methods to protect and restore ecological condition and services.
Explanation - Research not complete in the following area: Research Implementation Plan created and peer-reviewed for the Coastal Carolinas
Ecosystem Services Place Based Initiative.
                Section II-Page 164

-------
                                GOAL 5 AT A GLANCE
         COMPLIANCE AND  ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
  Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
  requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting environ-
  mental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for government, business,
  and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long term sustainable outcomes.
        FY 2009
      Performance
        Measures

        Met = 14
        Not Met = 2
      Data Available
    After 11/16/09 = 5
   (Total Measures = 21)
                           How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)
   md Global
Climate Lh.inge

 $1.376.040.1
                       Goal 5 Performance Measures
               Objective
                       Objective 2
                                Objective 3    Objective 4
                             Source: FY 2009 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
Goal 5 FY 2009 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 preven-
tion 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 environ-
mental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and imple-
ment programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
Objective 4 — Enhance Science and Research: Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific re-
search on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic sustainable
systems, and decision-making tools. By 2011, the products of this research will be inde-
pendently recognized as providing critical and key evidence in informing Agency policies
and decisions and solving problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders.
Goal 5 Total
FY 2009
Obligations
(in thousands)
$546,084.9
$121,464.0
$82,647.8
$55,043.9
$805,240.6
%of
Goal 5
Funds
68%
15%
10%
7%
1 00%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                  Section II-Page 165

-------
Goal Purpose

EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with federal laws and
regulations by monitoring compliance and taking enforcement actions that result in reduced
pollution and improved environmental conditions. 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, managing  materials more wisely, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, 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.

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.
                                  Section II-Page 166

-------
Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Estimated Millions of Pounds of
Pollution Reduced Through Enforcement Action
             2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Background: 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. This measure was selected to track performance toward
the long-term goal because  a 5-percent increase in pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or
eliminated by regulated entities is the target of the objective goal. For additional information,
please visit EPA's Web site  at: www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.

Trend: The average estimated number of pounds of pollution reduced through enforcement has
been approximately 1 billion pounds1 for each of the past four years, exceeding target values for
this measure most years. EPA believes its 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.
For example, the estimated  pounds of pollution reduced in FY 2008 was the result of large
settlements on just 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. Cases of this size are atypical. In FY 2009, the estimated pollutant reductions
were lower than in FY 2008 due to the downturn in the construction industry and fewer new
source review/prevention of significant deterioration cases brought to conclusion by Department
of Justice. 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.
 FY 2008 was an abnormality characterized by a few unprecedented large cases that are not expected to
be repeated. The estimated 3,900 million pounds that were reduced in FY 2008 were driven by one
enforcement settlement taken under the Clean Air Act and four under the Clean Water Act. These five
cases accounted for 2,900 million of the 3,900 million pounds. Had EPA not taken those cases, the total
would have been in the range of what was accomplished in the previous four years as well as in FY2009.
                                   Section II-Page 167

-------
Compliance with environmental laws is necessary to improve the environment and protect
public health. Enforcement is a critical part of encouraging businesses and other regulated
entities to meet their environmental obligations. Settlements with Clean Air Act stationary
sources impose reductions in plant emissions including sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
(PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These sources 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 230 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 $3.3 billion in
avoided health-related costs.

Performance Quality Data

To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's information
quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance
measurement, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) instituted a
semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of Integrated Compliance Information
System  (ICIS) information.  Additionally, the Office of Compliance has an established quarterly
data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's  enforcement
and compliance information.

Most of the essential  data on environmental results  in the Integrated Compliance Information
System  Federal Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) is collected through the  Case
Conclusion Data Sheet, which the Agency staff prepares after the conclusion of each civil,
judicial and administrative enforcement action. 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.

In FY 2009, the Criminal Enforcement Program also collected information on pollution
reductions on a separate case conclusion data form. Criminal enforcement data are  contained
in the Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS), an enforcement-sensitive database that
contains historical data on all criminal enforcement prosecutions.
                                  Section II-Page 168

-------
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 5.1
                      (in thousands)
                        Objective 4
           Objective 3
       Objective 2
Objective 1
$546,084.9
   68%
                 Goal 5 Total Obligations = $805,240.6
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 5.1

        Met = 5
      Not Met = 1
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 0
      (Total = 6)
The overarching goal of EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program is to protect
human health and the environment, targeting enforcement actions according to the degree of
health and environmental risk in order to promote compliance with federal environmental
statutes and regulations. The program collaborates with the Department of Justice and states,
local agencies and tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all
environmental laws and regulations. The program seeks to provide fair notice about
requirements, level the  economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an
economic benefit from noncompliance, and deter future violations.

EPA's national enforcement and compliance assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance with 12 environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and
dozens of regulatory requirements under those programs  that apply in various combinations to a
universe of approximately 40 million regulated federal and private entities. In addition, as a
means for focusing its efforts, the enforcement program identifies, in three-year cycles, specific
environmental risks and noncompliance patterns as national priorities. The enforcement
program coordinates the selection of these priorities with programs and Regions within EPA,
and with states, local  agencies, and tribes, in addition to soliciting public comment.

EPA uses a variety of integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's environmental
laws. This includes: assistance to regulated entities to ensure fair notice and to make clear how
to comply with often complex regulations; compliance monitoring (i.e., monitoring compliance
status, identifying violations through onsite inspections, investigations, and collection and
analysis of compliance  data); compliance incentives to motivate regulated facilities/companies
to identify, disclose, and correct violations; and administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. In
addition to utilizing these tools,  the enforcement program provides oversight of state and
delegated local agency performance to ensure that national environmental laws are enforced in
a consistent, equitable manner that protects  public health  and the environment. EPA also works
                                   Section II-Page 169

-------
directly with tribal governments to build their capacity to implement environmental enforcement
programs

Strong Enforcement: As part of FY 2009 enforcement actions, EPA secured commitments for
future pollution controls which will reduce, treat, or eliminate an estimated 570 million pounds of
pollutants in the first year after pollution controls are installed. While this amount is less than the
record estimated pounds of pollutants reduced during FY 2008, it is 64 percentage points of the
target and 60 percentage points of the baseline average of the past three years.2 For additional
information on recent enforcement cases, please visit EPA's Web site:
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.

As in years past, most of the  pollutant reductions result from a few cases. The 10 most
significant FY 2009 enforcement settlements, when fully implemented, will cumulatively reduce
more than an estimated 350 million pounds of pollutants over a one-year time period. 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.

The EPA enforcement and compliance program identifies and focuses on priority environmental
risks and noncompliance problems. The enforcement and compliance priority areas identified by
EPA involve pollution of the water, air, and land. Approximately 61 percent of pollution
reductions and 57 percent of pollution control investments obtained through FY 2009
enforcement actions focused on water and air priority pollution problems. Approximately 40
percent of hazardous waste treated, minimized, or properly disposed of, and less than 1 percent
of pollution control investments obtained through EPA's FY 2009 enforcement actions focused
on land priority pollution  problems.

EPA's compliance incentive policies, which  encourage facilities to self-audit, disclose, and
correct violations, achieved an estimated 23 million pounds in pollutant reductions. The Agency
surpassed the FY 2009 performance target of 0.4 million pounds through a particularly
significant Clean Air Act  disclosure of violations at Invista's three facilities, where correction and
other settlement conditions resulted in more than an estimated 20 million pounds 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.

EPA and the Department of Justice achieved enforcement settlements in FY 2009 that require
defendants to invest an estimated $5.4 billion to achieve and maintain compliance with the
nation's environmental laws. The 684 Clean Air Act enforcement settlements addressed alleged
violations and required an estimated investment of more than $1.2 billion to  achieve compliance
and install pollution control technologies.  The 1,064 Clean Water Act enforcement settlements
require more than an estimated $1.6 billion  be invested in pollution controls and environmentally
beneficial projects.

Environmental Management Practices: In FY 2009, 74 percent of cases required
implementation of improved environmental management practices. These improvements
2 Baseline calculated using results from FY 2006 through FY 2008. The FY 2008 data were normalized by
replacing the pollutant reductions from a few extremely large cases with the average case pollutant
reduction from a similar facility. EPA normalized these data to provide a more representative picture of
what a three-year baseline would look like.
                                   Section II-Page 170

-------
include actions that properly manage a waste stream or prevent a release or exposure, such as
plugging abandoned wells, installing secondary containment around existing waste containers,
improving waste labeling and disposal practices, and developing spill prevention plans.

Compliance Assistance: Compliance assistance GPRA data are not available in FY 2009 due
to concerns about the data collection process.

Improving Clean Water Act Enforcement: In July 2009, EPA announced that it would develop
an action plan to address the challenges confronting EPA and the states' Clean Water Act
enforcement programs. EPA released the final plan on October 15, 2009, with the following
recommendations: 1) revamp the water enforcement program to focus on pollution sources that
present the greatest threat to water quality; 2) strengthen oversight of state permitting and
enforcement programs to improve results and provide greater consistency; and 3) improve
transparency by using 21st century technology tools to provide more accurate and useful
information to the  public and increase pressure for better compliance performance. EPA
solicited ideas from the public as well as state, tribes, community groups, industry, academia,
and environmental organizations through meetings, calls, written submissions, and an online
discussion forum.  To support the goal of increased transparency, EPA posted detailed
information on the current state of clean water compliance and enforcement in each state, as
well as the latest clean water enforcement performance reports for each state to the Agency's
Web site. EPA also launched new Web-based tools to help the public search, assess, and
analyze the data the Agency used to help prepare those reports. EPA will work to implement the
Clean Water Act Enforcement Action Plan throughout FY 2010.

Protecting the Chesapeake Bay: In order to address non-compliance with federal
environmental laws and associated environmental impacts to the Chesapeake Bay,  EPA has
developed a draft  Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. The draft strategy
guides the use of EPA's compliance and enforcement tools to target sources of pollution
impairing the bay. The draft strategy is a multi-year, multi-state, multi-media strategy that
addresses violations of federal environmental laws resulting in nutrient and sediment pollution in
the bay. The strategy identifies industrial, municipal, and agricultural sources releasing
significant amounts of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants in excess of the amounts
allowed by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other  applicable environmental laws. In
addition, the draft  strategy identifies  appropriate opportunities for compliance and enforcement
activities related to the Clean Water  Act Section 404 program, which regulates dredge and fill
operations, as well as compliance and enforcement opportunities related to federal facilities,
Superfund remedial action and removal sites, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action facilities.

Changing Structure of the Strategic Plan: Since 2003, OECA's sub-objective structure under
Goal 5 of the EPA Strategic Plan has been tool-based (assistance, incentives, monitoring and
enforcement). Wth the development of the new Strategic Plan, this structure is moving to a
"problem-based" structure (air; water; waste, toxics, and pesticides; and criminal enforcement
sub-objectives). The FY 2009 accomplishments and results are presented using measures
developed under the tool-based structure. New measures will be developed and aligned for the
"problem-based" structure in FY 2010.  Reporting performance under this new structure will
provide the public and  EPA with more useful information regarding enforcement performance to
address problematic environmental conditions.
                                  Section II-Page 171

-------
Explanation of the Missed Measure
EPA missed the performance target for pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated. The FY 2009
target was 890 million pounds, while the result was 570 million pounds. Pollutant reduction can
vary significantly from year to year, and extreme spikes in results are usually due to a small
number of the cases that are concluded in any given year. Some cases have significantly higher
pollutant levels that other cases, some cases address multiple facilities, and some cases may
be part of an enforcement initiative of multiple cases for one sector with significantly high
pollutant discharge violations. Although EPA analyzes mid-year data to assess performance
and identify activities that must be accelerated or increased to meet the targets, the Agency
cannot change the multi-year case development pipeline schedule.
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 1 -Achieve Environmental Protection Through Improved Compliance
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
FY 2007
Obligations
$18,404.5
$5,272.4
$1,161.1
$124,038.2
$28,404.6
$9,699.4
$92,683.6
($7.2)
$49,136.1
$3,479.5
$1,463.3
$5,812.6
$1,794.9
$6.3
$795.6
$212.7
$10,216.9
$1,877.6
$9,771.7
$5,464.7
$82,270.8
$5,265.1
$5,827.0
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
$233.2
$12,923.0
$1,850.7
$9,873.2
$3,795.8
$74,560.6
$5,919.4
$5,839.5
FY 2009
Obligations
$19,914.6
$5,332.0
$2,782.1
$138,669.6
$25,302.2
$8,996.5
$100,626.2
$2.0
$56,235.8
$4,079.8
$1,263.2
$4,593.9
$1,901.1
$0.0
$732.1
$269.0
$15,671.8
$2,043.8
$8,946.8
$4,900.0
$76,357.1
$6,643.5
$5,921.0
                                  Section II-Page 172

-------
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
$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
$746.4
$36,669.5
$7,360.1
$2,300.8
$3,288.0
$694.0
$893.5
$461.7
$1,586.4
$2,710.1
$527,684.4
$497.6
$36,396.5
$7,707.3
$2,488.2
$1,580.1
$658.6
$789.9
$358.7
$1,676.7
$2,747.1
$546,084.8
Additional Information Relating to Goal 5, Objective 1
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Pesticides Enforcement; Toxic Substance Compliance
• Office of Compliance and Enforcement:
www.eDa.qov/comDliance
www.eDa.gov/comDliance/data/results/index.html
www.eDa.qov/comDliance/monitorinq/index.html
www.eDa.qov/comDliance/civil/index.html
www.eDa.qov/comDliance/criminal/index.html
www.eDa.qov/ebtDaqes/comDlianceenforcement.html
Section II-Page 173

-------
Objective 5.2: Environmental Stewardship and Pollution Prevention
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 5.2
                       (in thousands)
                     Objective 4
            Objective 3
                 Goal 5 Total Obligations = $805,240.6
 FY 2009 Performance
Measures: Objective 5.2

        Met = 2
      Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
 November 16, 2009 = 5
      (Total = 7)
The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 established pollution prevention as the national
policy for controlling industrial pollution at its source—in other words, to keep pollutants from
getting to the environment. EPA works to reduce pollution before it occurs by supporting
innovative changes in the production and use of raw materials. EPA's Pollution Prevention
Program promotes sustainability and encourages environmental stewardship by the federal
government, states, industry, communities, and individuals. The pollution prevention programs
have been producing energy efficiency and fossil fuel reduction results, along with co-benefits in
chemical risk reduction and business cost savings, since the early 1990s.

During FY 2009, 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. While
partial results are available for 2009, complete 2008 performance results show 469.8 million
pounds of hazardous materials were reduced, 1.01 million  metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent were conserved, and 22.18 billion gallons of water were conserved, leading to
$227.2 million saved. Annual cost savings from pollution prevention activities are calculated
based on the amount of money a business or institution saves in a year in out-of-pocket costs
for such things as fuel,  materials, electricity,  water, hazardous waste treatment costs, or
transportation services  as a result of adopting pollution prevention practices (such as a more
efficient process, new technology, greener products, chemicals or  fuels, or energy and water
conservation).

Pollution Prevention Programs' Achievements: The Agency's successes were achieved
collectively through several pollution prevention programs that interact with 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
                                   Section II - Page 174

-------
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. These pollution prevention programs include: Green Chemistry, Design for the
Environment, Green Engineering, Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, Green Supplier's
Network, regional grants, Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, and Partnership for
Sustainable Healthcare.
The pollution prevention programs have
worked within the larger community with
partners to prevent pollution through technical
assistance, develop pollution prevention
capacity in 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 pollution
prevention programs are identified in the
descriptions that follow.

Regional-Pollution Prevention Grants:
Pollution prevention programs  in EPA's 10
Regional offices generate source reduction
results through two grant programs and
through direct action.3 In FY 2009, regional
pollution prevention programs awarded 50 state and tribal Assistance Grants and 20 Source
Reduction Assistance Grants. These grants resulted in 154.4 million pounds of hazardous
materials  reductions, 883 million gallons of water conserved, 0.168 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent conservation, and $58.7 million of cost savings.

The Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange: 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.4 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 (shown below) not attributable to pollution prevention program grants. The National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable aggregates and presents the state results. FY 2007 and FY
2008 results have recently become available and show that the pollution prevention community
has reduced 769 million pounds of waste, 1.58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
and 2.38 billion gallons of water saved, and saved $1.06 billion from the implementation of
pollution prevention practices.
   Pollution Prevention Grant for Mercury
       Reduction in Lighting Project

Through a Pollution Prevention Grant, EPA
Region 2 partnered with the Green Purchasing
Institute (GPI) on a project to promote the
reduction of mercury in compact fluorescent light
bulbs (CFLs). GPI worked directly with industry
and government agencies to influence their
procurement activities. The project has resulted
in hundreds of kilograms of mercury not being
released into the environment as a result of
outreach activities with state and city
governments and private sector corporations.
The city of New York, for example, became the
first major municipality to effectively prohibit the
purchase of incandescent lamps and to
establish mercury, efficiency, and lamp life
standards for all lamps procured by city
agencies. For more information go to
www.epa.gov/region02/p2/.
 EPA P2 Grant Program Web site: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm
 EPA P2RX fact sheet: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppin/factsheet.htm
                                   Section II - Page 175

-------
The Federal Government Promotes and Implements Pollution Prevention Practices:
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing5 is a federal government-wide program that implements
Presidential executive orders6 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 225 facilities and over 708,301 federal
employees. In FY 2009, EPA finalized FY 2008 data for the Federal Electronics Challenge
Program. Through EPA's Federal Electronics Challenge, the federal government conserved
0.28 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and saved $38.9 million. In addition, the
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool7 program uses voluntary consensus
standards to define environmentally preferable products and is working with the Green
Electronics Council to promote the adoption of these products. FY 2009 results show that the
purchase of Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool computer products conserved
0.52 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and saved $92.5 million. In FY 2009, EPA
continued efforts to develop similar voluntary consensus standards for televisions and other
imaging equipment.

Green Suppliers Network: The Green Suppliers Network is 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.8 The Green Suppliers Network leverages the
Department of Commerce manufacturing extension partnership9 centers and state pollution
prevention experts to offer manufacturers clean technical assistance to improve their
productivity, efficiency, and environmental  performance. In FY2009, the Green Suppliers
Network completed 59 partner reviews, with 24 reviews currently in process and 11 partner
leads  identified. In 2009 each Green Suppliers Network reviews identified potential reductions of
445,000 pounds of hazardous waste, 0.216 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
20.5 million gallons of water conserved, and $4.3 million saved. After a year, manufacturing
extension partnership centers follow up with the facilities and soon thereafter information is
captured in the partnership survey.

E3 (Economy, Energy, Environment), a coordinated federal and local initiative enables the
industrial sector to adapt and thrive in a new business era focused on sustainability. E3 provides
small  and medium-sized manufacturers with lean, clean, energy, and greenhouse gas
assessments, in order to maximize energy efficiency of systems; identify and reduce emissions
and hazardous waste; identify and reduce the use of water in manufacturing processes;  identify
material substitutes that are not harmful to the environment; identify opportunities for reducing
carbon emissions; promote sustainable manufacturing  practices and growth; and reduce
business costs. EPA  is collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, the Department of Energy, the Small Business
Administration, and the Department of Labor to conduct this program. Currently, E3 pilot
projects are underway in Columbus, Ohio,  and San Antonio, Texas, with plans to expand the
program, following a review of these pilot studies.

Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program Awards Innovation: The Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program  recognizes innovations in greener chemical
5 EPP Web site: www.epa.gov/epp/
6 EPP Executive Orders: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/guidance/executiveorders.htm
7 EPEAT Web site: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/epeat.htm
8 GSN Program: www.greensuppliers.gov/gsn/home.gsn
9 MEP Web site: www.mep.nist.gov/
                                  Section II-Page 176

-------
product and process design, development, and implementation.10 Each year EPA celebrates
innovative,  award-winning technologies developed by high-quality nominees. In FY 2009, the
14th 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 22, 2009. In FY 2009, total  benefits from all ongoing EPA-recognized green chemistry
technologies reduced 258 million pounds of hazardous chemicals and solvents, 21  billion
gallons of water,  and 0.26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide releases to the  air.

Design for the Environment Program: The Design for the Environment Program partners 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. EPA also allows safer products to carry the Design for the Environment label,
allowing consumers to quickly identify and choose products that are safer and can help protect
the environment. In FY 2009, all  active partnership projects within Design for the Environment
reduced more than 478 million pounds of chemicals of concern,  more than any previous year.11

In FY 2009, Design for the Environment recognized more than 750  products from 96 partners
under the Formulator Program. This program labels products that EPA has reviewed and found
to be safer for human health and the environment. Design for the Environment currently allows
use of its label on nearly  1,500 safer products and tens of millions of Design for the Environment
products have been sold to consumers and institutional purchasers.

Design for the Environment held its Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative Recognition
Ceremony on November 19, 2008, recognizing 40 Champions and 22 Partners. This initiative
recognizes environmental leaders who voluntarily commit to the  use of safer surfactants, which
are surfactants that break down quickly to non-polluting compounds and help protect aquatic life
in both fresh and salt water.

In FY 2009, EPA's Design for the Environment program  conducted  two best practices training
workshops  and compliance assistance for the automotive refinishing industry, reaching 125
auto-refinishing professionals. EPA estimates that the 63 workshops implementing best
practices could reduce 44,352 pounds of air toxics and particulates annually and save about
$302,377 in operational costs through the Design for Environmental emissions reduction
calculator for the automotive refinishing industry.12 Particulates reduced include diisocyanates
(the leading cause of occupational asthma), hexavalent chromium, and lead. Best practices
training for the automotive refinishing industry is a key component of EPA's area source
regulation and the Community Air Toxics Collision Repair Campaign.13

Green Building: EPA made significant progress in implementing its strategy for green buildings
through better integrating efforts  across the Agency, educating the public through a new green
homes Web site,14 and striving to fill research gaps via the Small Business Innovation Research
program and federal green building research agendas. With the  overall goal of facilitating the
mainstream adoption  of effective green building practices,15 a key element in the 2009 green
10 Green Chemistry Program Web site: www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/
11 Design for the Environment: www.epa.gov/dfe
12 DfE Emissions reduction calculator: www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/proiects/auto/
13 Community Air Toxics Collision Repair Campaign: www.epa.gov/collisionrepair
14 EPA Green Homes Web site: www.epa.gov/greenhomes/index.htm
15 EPA Green Building Web site: www.epa.gov/greenbuilding
                                  Section II-Page 177

-------
building workplan was influencing key voluntary consensus standards, including the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System; the
National Association of Home Builders Green Building Standard; the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 189; GreenGlobes; National
Science Foundation sustainability standards on carpet, textiles, furniture, wall-coverings and
other building products; and sustainable building standards at ASTM International.

Recovering Mercury: The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program promotes the
recovery of mercury switches from scrap 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 celebrated collecting 1  million mercury
switches in FY 2008, and it has maintained steady growth. In FY 2009, more than 1.5 million
mercury switches were recovered from scrap automobiles.

Reducing Releases of Hazardous Chemical: The National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities (NPEP) is a key component of the Resource Conservation Challenge. The partnership
works to reduce, throughout an entire product life cycle, potentially hazardous chemicals that
otherwise might be released  into the environment. Under EPA's Strategic Plan, this program is
committed to reducing 4 million pounds of priority chemicals by the end of FY 2011.
In FY 2009, actual reductions reported by
NPEP partners and verified by EPA total 3.9
million pounds, against the 2009 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. Since program inception,  NPEP
partners have reduced more than 13 million
pounds  of priority chemicals through both
source reduction and recycling activities. NPEP
currently comprises more than 252 partners
from various industry sectors and federal and
state facilities.

Reducing Use of Lead: 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 FY 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 FY 2011.  Through the program, 24 partners have committed
to replacing over 2 million pounds of lead wheel weights with steel, and two manufacturers have
committed to  eliminating 44 million pounds  of lead from their wheel weights. Since the inception
of the program, three partners have already reduced or recycled 319,000 pounds of lead.
Eliminating lead wheel weights is a significant step toward reducing the overall amount of lead
Region 8 Assists the National Park Service in
 Developing a National Sustainable Facilities
                Program

The Pollution Prevention and Toxics Unit was
invited to assist the National Park Service's
(NPS's) Sustainable Operations Strategic
Planning Workgroup in developing a strategic
plan for the management of facilities across the
NPS. Facility managers, park superintendents
and program managers from NPS headquarters
and parks met in Denver during August 25-27 to
develop a plan of action that will result in
sustainable facilities and serve to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from the parks. NPS
owns, operates, and maintains over 8,000
buildings and has set a goal to be a leader in
sustainability in the federal government by 2016,
NPS's 100th year anniversary. As a result of this
meeting, EPA has been asked to participate in
developing park-specific sustainability work
plans that will meet the goals proposed under
the new Federal Executive Order on
sustainability (to be released) and to incorporate
biomimicry for the  parks in the Intermountain
Region.
                                   Section II-Page 178

-------
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 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
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
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
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
$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
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
$2,486.0
$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
$815.9
$79.9
$136.1
$70.4
$1,247.6
FY 2009
Obligations
$5,208.1
$12,663.1
($16.0)
$209.5
$531.2
$16,958.6
$19,881.9
$3,469.0
($107.3)
$16,854.0
$119.4
$40.9
$3,089.9
$289.6
$1,211.5
$8,706.7
$811.4
$14,111.1
$908.1
$1,274.4
$144.9
$8,508.6
$1,349.9
$451.4
$375.0
$79.0
$128.8
$58.5
$1,060.4
                                  Section II-Page 179

-------
Small Business Ombudsman
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$3,768.0
$452.0
$124,391.1
$3,772.5
$413.0
$119,392.0
$2,644.5
$447.9
$121,464.0
                Additional Information Relating to Goal 5, 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 that fund Pollution Prevention
   Resource Exchange Centers through the Pollution
   Prevention Information Grant Program. These grants
   collectively contribute to Pollution Prevention Environmental
   Results.
EPA Web Site
Information:
•  Pollution Prevention: 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/
                                 Section II-Page 180

-------
Objective 5.3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 5.3
                      (in thousands)
     Objective 3
      $82,647.80
        10%
                       Objective 4
                 Goal 5 Total Obligations = $805,240.6
              FY 2009 Performance
             Measures: Objective 5.3

                    Met = 3
                   Not Met = 0
               Data Available After
              November 16, 2009 = 0
                   (Total = 3)
EPA provides funds to federally recognized tribes to plan, develop, and establish environmental
protection programs. The Agency's Indian General Assistance Program is its core component
for building tribal capacity. In 2009, EPA demonstrated improvements in core tribal
environmental program capacity, which is critical to protecting human health and the
environment in Indian Country, and met its overall annual performance goal under this objective.
The following achievements demonstrate the Agency's efforts to improve human health and the
environment in Indian Country.
Environmental Programs in Indian Country:
In FY 2009, the Agency successfully launched
the Tribal Program Management System, a
reporting system that captures all Regional
tribal information and has assisted in collecting
data and developing performance measures.
EPA is implementing its "Treatment in the
Same Manner as a State" strategy, which
streamlines the program approval process, to
reach its target for establishing federal
regulatory environmental programs in 7 percent
of tribes in Indian Country. EPA also met its
2009 target of 23 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.
   Bad River Band Approved to Run Water
           Standards Program

EPA has granted authority to the Bad River
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians to run
its own water quality standards program on its
northern Wisconsin reservation. This authority is
for the standards program only. The tribe will
have to submit the actual water quality
standards developed to EPA for another round
of reviews and approvals. Since 1989, 45 tribes
in the United States have been authorized to
administer the water quality standards program.
These include five tribes in EPA Region 5: the
Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake),
the Lacdu Flambeau Band of Chippewa, now
the Bad River Band of Chippewa in Wisconsin,
the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa, and the
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa in Minnesota.
EPA has met its cumulative target of 60 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 II
                                  Section II-Page 181

-------
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.

EPA has met its target of 14.2 environmental programs implemented in Indian Country per
million dollars 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 implementing 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 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Tribal - Capacity Building
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
FY 2007
Obligations
$57,758.3
($282.6)
$56.2
$46.8
$11,048.5
$30.0
$7.3
$408.8
$76.4
$325.7
$208.5
$2,980.0
$82.2
$169.7
$12.8
$1,285.4
$270.9
$81.3
$555.5
$29.5
FY 2008
Obligations
$59,726.2
$282.6
$43.0
$37.8
$12,276.6
$33.1
$8.0
$531.2
$67.9
$316.8
$139.2
$2,627.4
$97.6
$187.8
$46.9
$1,114.7
$280.8
$83.1
$673.0
$29.7
FY 2009
Obligations
$62,124.6
$0.0
$51.2
$47.2
$13,152.1
$29.4
$10.1
$676.0
$82.6
$360.1
$199.8
$2,918.5
$111.8
$214.8
$12.9
$1,211.4
$326.7
$106.8
$326.2
$26.3
                                  Section II-Page 182

-------
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$29.0
$14.3
$352.8
$105.1
$75,652.4
$32.4
$16.7
$547.7
$98.2
$79,298.4
$31.7
$14.4
$502.8
$110.3
$82,647.7
Additional Information Relating to Goal 5, Objective 3
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Evaluation of the Tribal General Assistance Program
(GAP): www.eDa.qov/evaluate/GAPFinalReDort.Ddf
• The American Indian Environmental Office:
www.eDa.qov/indian
Section II-Page 183

-------
Objective 5.4: Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability Through Science and
Research
              FY2009 Obligations: Objective 5.4
                      (in thousands)
           Objective 4
           $55,043.90
               7%
                Goal 5 Total Obligations = $805,240.6
                                                            FY 2009 Performance
                                                          Measures: Objective 5.4

                                                                  Met = 4
                                                                Not Met = 1
                                                             Data Available After
                                                           November 16, 2009 = 0
                                                                (Total = 5)
EPA's research programs help provide a sound scientific foundation for decisions to promote
environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes. Research develops and
evaluates new methods, approaches (decision-support tools), and technologies that customers
within and outside the Agency can use to advance sustainable production processes and land
management practices.

New Technology: EPA developed and evaluated a new membrane technology that can
recover biofuel from biomass streams at  higher purity levels using 50 percent less energy and at
lower cost than current technology. The energy reduction can reduce multimedia emissions and
subsequent impacts on human health and the environment. An external collaborator, Membrane
Technology & Research, has further developed this technology and applied for two patents
listing EPA as co-inventor. This technology is expected to be commercially available in the  near
future.

Tool Kit for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: EPA research led to the development of
an Industrial Ecosystem Tool Kit to optimize the management of waste and materials. An
application for the city of Columbus's Department of Public Utilities demonstrated that the city
could achieve savings of up to $2 million  (25 percent of annual costs) per year by making
changes in sludge disposal at two treatment plants. The proposed changes have the potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the plants by 9 to 40 percent and cut energy
consumption by 15 to 64 percent.

Partnership for Green Buildings: In FY 2009, EPA established a partnership with the National
Science Foundation to collaborate on "Science in Energy and Environmental Design (SEED):
Engineering Sustainable Buildings," a research  solicitation that addresses the next generation of
green buildings. The effort will engage engineers, architects, and scientists in developing
fundamental concepts for breakthrough innovations in building materials, models, and theories
that will lay the foundation for advanced sustainable building systems.
                                  Section II-Page 184

-------
FY 2009 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 may not match the goal and objective obligations and expenditures due to
rounding.
Goal 5: Objective 4 -
Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability Through Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Forensics Support
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
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
FY 2007
Obligations
$3,577.6
$17,542.9
$121.3
$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
FY 2008
Obligations
($209.5)
$17,670.0
$91.6
$260.0
($10.9)
($141.0)
$75.2
$21.3
$1,201.9
$89.1
$332.9
$303.8
$5,789.6
$1,363.1
$1,047.0
$168.5
$4,986.6
$609.6
$225.8
$388.5
$2.1
$73.5
$38.0
$405.7
$1,879.8
$22,976.0
$223.0
$59,861.2
FY 2009
Obligations
$97.1
$18,103.2
$92.7
$273.1
($50.4)
($145.7)
$56.9
$24.3
$1,330.2
$96.7
$313.5
$365.0
$5,614.6
$1,473.0
$1,080.1
$131.4
$4,716.3
$621.9
$211.0
$162.1
$10.3
$61.4
$27.9
$404.6
$2.4
$19,756.7
$213.6
$55,043.9
Section II-Page 185

-------
Additional Information Relating to Goal 5, Objective 4
Grants:
EPA Web Site
Information:
• Through a People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3)
Fellowship, the Office of Research and Development
supported the University of Virginia Learning Barge. The
learning barge was turned over to the Elizabeth River
Project to run. About 19,000 visitors each year come to the
learning laboratory to experience and learn the value of the
river and Chesapeake Bay.
• EPA and Sustainability:
www.eDa.qov/Sustainabilitv/basicinfo. htm#advances
Section II-Page 186

-------
                          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 2003-2005: 900,000,000 pounds.)
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
6
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.1: Compliance Assistance
By 2011,  prevent noncompliance or reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including those with potential
environmental justice concerns, through EPA compliance assistance by maintaining or improving on the following percentages for direct assistance
provided to regulated entities, including those in Indian Country: 50 percent of the regulated entities receiving  direct assistance improve their
management practices; and 12 percent of the regulated entities receiving direct assistance reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution.

No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(988) Percentage of regulated entities
receiving direct compliance
assistance from EPA reporting that
they improved environmental
management practices as a result of
EPA assistance.
FY 2006
Target
50
Actual
74
FY 2007
Target
50
Actual
91
FY 2008
Target
50
Actual
82
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
No Longer
Reported

Unit
Percent
Baseline - 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.
(992) Percentage of regulated entities
receiving direct assistance from EPA
reporting that they reduced, treated,
or eliminated pollution, as a result of
EPA assistance.
15
28
15
50
15
49
20
No Longer
Reported
Percent
                                                       Section II-Page 187

-------
                           GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
FY 2008
Target | Actual
FY 2009
Target | Actual

Unit
        Baseline - These measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on
        the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary surveys. The percentages do not account for the number
        of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys.	
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives
By 2011, identify and correct noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including those with
potential environmental justice concerns. Use of compliance incentives will result in a 5 percentage point increase in the number of facilities that use
EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat or eliminate pollution or improve environmental practices
at their facilities, including those in Indian Country. (Baseline: 3-year rolling average FYs 2003-2005: 940 facilities.)

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 2006
Target
0.4
Actual
0.05
FY 2007
Target
0.4
Actual
1.20
FY 2008
Target
0.4
Actual
5.40
FY 2009
Target
0.4
Actual
23

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The FY 2006-2008 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit
agreements is 2.2 million pounds of pollutants.
Explanation - The Agency surpassed the FY09 performance target of 0.4 million pounds through a particularly significant Clean Air Act disclosure of
violations at Invista's three facilities whose correction and other settlement conditions resulted in more than an estimated 20 million pounds of SO2,
NOxand particulates over a one-year time period. Pollution reduction results achieved by EPA compliance incentive programs represent reductions
that will occur over a one-year 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  (baseline to be determined based  on FY 2006 results);  a  5  percentage point  increase in the  percent  of
enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced,  treated, or eliminated FY 2005 baseline: 28.8 percent); and a  5 percentage point increase
in the percent of enforcement actions requiring improvement of environmental management practices. (FY 2005 baseline: 72.5 percent.)
                                                         Section II-Page 188

-------
                   GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
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 enf)
FY 2006
Target
450
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
Actual
890
FY 2008
Target
890
Actual
3,900
FY 2009
Target
890
Actual
570

Unit
Million
pounds
Baseline - The FY 2006-2008 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated is 945,000,000 pounds of
pollutants. The FY 2008 actual value was normalized to account for the extraordinary pollutant reductions by just few cases. Average pollutant
reductions from similar facilities were substituted for the actuals. Pollutant reductions from the average coal-fired plant case was substituted for the
AEP coal-fired NSR case (16 facilities). Additionally, the average pollutant reduction from a stormwater case was substituted for each of the four home
builder cases.
Explanation - EPA missed the performance target for the pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated. The FY 2009 target was 890 million pounds, while
the results was 570 million pounds. Pollutant reduction can vary significantly from year to year, and extreme spikes in results are usually due to a small
number of the cases that are concluded in any given year. Some cases have significantly higher pollutant levels than other cases, some cases address
multiple facilities, and some cases may be part of an enforcement initiative of multiple cases for one sector with significantly high pollutant discharge
violations. Although EPA analyzes mid-year data to assess performance and identify activities that must be accelerated or increased to meet the
targets, the Agency cannot change the multi-year case development pipeline schedule.
(179) Percentage of concluded
enforcement cases requiring that
pollution be reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
30
18
30
27
30
26
30
30
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring pollutants to be reduced, treated or eliminated is the FY 2007
result which is 27 percent.
(180) Percentage of concluded
enforcement cases requiring
implementation of improved
environmental management
practices.
65
82
70
70
70
70
70
74
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental management
practices is the FY 2007 result of 70 percent.
(182) Percentage of regulated entities
taking complying actions as a result of
on-site compliance inspections and
evaluations.
25
16
30
18
30
23
25
28
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for the percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections and evaluations
is the FY 2007 result of 18 percent.
                                        Section II-Page 189

-------
                         GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(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)
FY 2006
Target
4.1
Actual
5
FY 2007
Target
4.2
Actual
10.6
FY 2008
Target
4.3
Actual
11.8
FY 2009
Target
4.4
Actual
5.4

Unit
Billion Dollars
Baseline - The FY 2006-2008 rolling average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental
management practices is $9,100,000,000. These numbers have not been indexed for inflation.
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 (P2)
and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
5
Total PMs
7
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship by Government and the Public
By 2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural  resources, and improve other environmental  stewardship practices while reducing costs through
implementation of EPA's P2 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 P2 program participants.
FY 2006
Target
401 M
Actual
437.3 M
FY 2007
Target
414 M
Actual
386.1 M
FY 2008
Target
429 M
Actual
469.8 M
FY 2009
Target
494 M
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program hazardous material reduced was 44 million pounds in FY 2000.
Explanation - The P2 program is on track to meet 2009 targets. However, only partial data is available. Prior year results were updated and refined
based on newly available information.
                                                   Section II-Page 190

-------
                         GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP


Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce, conserve,  or offset 31.5 trillion British Thermal  Units (BTU) cumulatively compared to the 2002 baseline amount of 0 BTU
reduced, conserved, or offset.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(261) BTU of energy reduced,
conserved or offset by P2 program
participants.
FY 2006
Target
906.7 B
Actual
4,878 B
FY 2007
Target
1, 106.8 B
Actual
6,746.3 B
FY 2008
Target
1,21 7.4 B
Actual
7,1 06 B
FY 2009
Target
8,000 B
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
BTUs
Baseline - The baseline reference point for reductions of pollution and conservation of Btus and water is zero for 2002.
(297) Metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced,
conserved, or offset by pollution
prevention program participants.






2M
Data
Available
October
2010
MTC02e
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 - The P2 program is on track to meet 2009 targets. However, only partial data is available. Prior year results were updated and refined
based on newly available information.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce water use by 19 billion gallons cumulatively compared to the 2000 baseline amount of 220 million pounds reduced.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(262) Gallons of water reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2006
Target
.329 M
Actual
2.272 M
FY 2007
Target
1.790B
Actual
1.75B
FY 2008
Target
1.64B
Actual
21.18B
FY 2009
Target
1.79B
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Gallons
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program gallons of water was 220 millions gallons in FY2000.
The P2 program is on track to meet 2009 targets. However, only partial data is available. Prior year results were updated and refined based on newly
available information. 2008 results significantly exceeded the target because of a one-time result from a Green Chemistry award winning technology
(Nalco's 3D- TRASAR technology), which monitors the condition of cooling water continuously and adds appropriate chemicals only when needed,
rather than on a fixed schedule. This technology yielded 21 billion gallons of water savings in industrial and commercial cooling system applications.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, save $791.9 million through P2 improvements in business,  institutional, and governmental costs cumulatively compared to the 2002
baseline of $0.0 saved.
                                                     Section II-Page 191

-------
                          GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(263) Business, institutional and
government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2006
Target
38.2 M
Actual
282.7 M
FY 2007
Target
44.3 M
Actual
282.7 M
FY 2008
Target
45.9 M
Actual
227.2 M
FY 2009
Target
130 M
Actual
Data
Available
October
2010

Unit
Dollars Saved
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program cost savings was 0 dollars in FY 2002.
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 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
0.5 M
Actual
1.30M
FY 2008
Target
1.0M
Actual
5.70M
FY 2009
Target
1.0M
Actual
7,05 M

Unit
Pounds
Baseline - In FY 2006, 1 .28 million pounds of priority list chemicals were reduced.
Explanation - Significantly exceeded goal due primarily to one partner achieving reductions well beyond that what was anticipated.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.2: 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.)
                                                      Section II-Page 192

-------
                          GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
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 practice.)

OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(197) Reduce water use at
Performance Track facilities.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
3,900,000,000
Actual

FY 2009
Target
3,900,000,000
Actual
No Longer
Reported

Unit
Gallons
Baseline - For FY 2008/09, the baseline year is 2005. The baseline annual normalized reduction is 3,387,333,545 gallons of water reduced.
(198) Reduce hazardous materials
use at Performance Track facilities.




10,000

10,000
No Longer
Reported
Tons
Baseline - For FY 2008/09, the baseline year is 2005. The baseline annual normalized reduction is 8,794 tons of hazardous materials reduced.
(199) Reduce production of
greenhouse gases at Performance
Track facilities.




175,000

175,000
No Longer
Reported
MTC02E
Baseline - For FY 2008/09, the baseline year is 2005. The baseline annual normalized reduction is 151,129 MTCO2Es of greenhouse gas emissions
reduced.
(200) Reduce toxic releases to water
at Performance Track facilities.




220

220
No Longer
Reported
Tons
Baseline - For FY 2008/09, the baseline year is 2005. The baseline annual normalized reduction is 186 tons of toxic discharges to water reduced.
(205) Reduce combined NOx, SOx,
VOC and PM emissions at
Performance Track facilities.




4,000

4,000
No Longer
Reported
Tons
Baseline - For FY 2008/09, the baseline year is 2005. The baseline annual normalized reduction is 3,533 tons of NOx, SOx, VOCs and PM emissions
reduced.
                                                       Section II-Page 193

-------
                            GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(206) Seventy-five percent of
innovative projects completed under
the State Innovation Grants program
will achieve, on average, 8 percent or
greater improvement in environmental
results for sectors and facilities
involved, or 5 percent or greater
improvement in cost-effectiveness &
efficiency.
FY 2006
Target









Actual









FY 2007
Target









Actual









FY 2008
Target
75








Actual
0








FY 2009
Target
75








Actual
75









Unit
Percent








        Baseline - EPA's State Innovation Grant program promotes the testing of innovative approaches in state environmental permitting programs. Individual
        projects are designed to test innovation that improves compliance rates, often within an entire business sector or across an entire permitting program,
        or improves the efficiency of permitting programs for either the regulated sector or the state environmental agency. Because each grant-supported
        project is unique, results can only be reported on a project-by-project basis. EPA does not report program-wide results because not every project
        selected in a competition year focuses on a single environmental medium or pollutant. Rather the EPA-funded projects help states test approaches
        that improve results, often in ways that address multi-media concerns. Similarly these projects are demonstrations, or pilot tests of new approaches
        and the projects take two to four years to complete with results reported at the end of  each project.	
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.
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
3
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal environmental programs in Indian Country to 9 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(5PQ) Percent of tribes implementing
federal regulatory environmental
programs in Indian Country
(cumulative).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
6
Actual
14.16
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
12.59

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are currently 572 federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia.
                                                          Section II-Page 194

-------
                          GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP


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
(5PR) Percent of tribes conducting
EPA approved environmental
monitoring and assessment activities
in Indian Country (cumulative.)
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
21
Actual
42.31
FY 2009
Target
23
Actual
39.69

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are currently 572 federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia.
Explanation - Targets were significantly exceeded due to new metrics developed in 2008. Targets for future years are being assessed and adjusted for
ambitiousness.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program to 67 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(5PS) Percent of tribes with an
environmental program (cumulative).
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
64

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are currently 572 federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia.
OBJECTIVE: 5.4: ENHANCE SOCIETIES CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on P2, 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.
PMs Met
4
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
5
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.4.1: Strengthening Science
The research and educational community, the regulated community and decision and policymakers use Agency research products and services to
enhance the scientific and technology base and catalyze innovation of alternative processes, tools, technologies and systems for advanced
                                                     Section II-Page 195

-------
                         GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
environmental protection; implement more efficient and sustainable practices, materials and technologies in improved environmental performance;
implement improved and scientifically sound management decisions and policies and practices for sustainable resource management.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.4.2: Conducting Research
Through 2011, conduct leading-edge,  sound scientific research on  P2, new technology development, socioeconomic,  sustainable systems, and
decision-making tools. The products of this research will provide critical and key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions affecting the
Agency programs in Goal 5, as well EPA partners and stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(I28) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision-makers adopt ORD-identified
and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental
systems for sustainability.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
N/A
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100

Unit
Percent
Baseline -
(I29) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision-makers adopt ORD-
developed decision support tools and
methodologies to promote
environmental stewardship and
sustainability


100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline -
(ISO) Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision-makers adopt innovative
technologies developed or verified by
ORD to solve environmental
problems, contributing to
sustainability.


100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline -
(131) Percentage of Science and
Technology for Sustainability (STS)
publications in "high-impact" journals.


No Target
Est.
34.3
No Target
Est.
Biennial
35.3
35.4
Percent
Baseline -
                                                     Section II-Page 196

-------
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(132) Percentage of Science and
Technology for Sustainability (STS)
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
28.2
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Est.
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
29.2
Actual
28.3

Unit
Percent
Baseline -
Explanation - This measure tracks the number of program publications that are "highly cited" in bibliometric analyses. Annual analysis is based on a
rolling 1 0-year period of publications. The actual falls slightly shortly of the target but is still a slight increase from the 2007 baseline established for the
program (28.2%).
                   Section II-Page 197

-------
                               EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Audit and Advisory Services
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
3
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(35A) Environmental and business
actions taken for improved
performance or risk reduction.
FY 2006
Target
303
Actual
407
FY 2007
Target
318
Actual
464
FY 2008
Target
347
Actual
463
FY 2009
Target
318
Actual
272

Unit
Actions
This measure supports work under the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which received additional funding under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to perform oversight work. The OIG will assess whether EPA is using the $7.2 billion of Recovery Act funds
in accordance with its requirements and is meeting the accountability objectives as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. A combination of
two policy, practice, control corrective actions and risks reduced from OIG recommendation in FY2009, and final results for this measure will be
reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 564 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk
reduction.
Explanation - Non-attainment of this outcome goal in FY09 is a result of similarly non-attaining a related output goal in FY08. This is a ripple effect from
the OIG staffing gap.
                                          Section II-Page 198

-------
      EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
      Environmental and Business Actions Taken and Risks Reduced
         from OIG Audit, Evaluation, Inspection and Investigation
                       Recommendations
800
      2003
2004
2005     2006     2007

      Fiscal Year
2008
2009
                          I Targets n Results
                     Section II-Page 199

-------
         EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(35B) Environmental and business
recommendations or risks identified
for corrective action.
FY 2006
Target
925
Actual
1,024
FY 2007
Target
925
Actual
949
FY 2008
Target
971
Actual
624
FY 2009
Target
903
Actual
983

Units
Recommenda
tions
This measure supports work under the OIG, which received additional funding under the Recovery Act to perform oversight work. The OIG will assess
whether EPA is using the $7.2 billion of Recovery Act funds in accordance with its requirements and is meeting the accountability objectives as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget. A combination of 71 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action,
best practices for transfer and awareness/outreach briefings for improved performance or risk reduction occurred in FY 2009, and final results for this
measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 885 environmental and business risks or recommendations identified for corrective action.
      Environmental and Business Recommendations and Risks from OIG Audits,
                  Evaluations, Inspections and Investigations
1200 -
1000 -
       2003
2004
2005
  2006

Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
                              I Targets D Results
                        Section II-Page 200

-------
                  EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(35C) Return on the annual dollar
investment, as a percentage of the
OIG budget, from audits and
investigations.
FY 2006
Target
150
Actual
1100
FY 2007
Target
150
Actual
189
FY 2008
Target
150
Actual
186
FY 2009
Target
120
Actual
150

Units
Percent
This measure supports work under the OIG, which received additional funding under the Recovery Act to perform oversight work. The OIG will assess
whether EPA is using the $7.2 billion of Recovery Act funds in accordance with its requirements and is meeting the accountability objectives as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget. Projects are beginning, and results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY2010 PAR.
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 1 50% in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget, from
savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements.
Explanation - $83.3 million in potential returns equals 150% of the OIG budget for 2009 ($55.7 million).
        APG 7: OIG Questioned Costs, Efficiencies, Savings, Fines, Recoveries from OIG Audits,
                              Evaluations, and Investigations
$900

$800
        2003
2004
2005
  2006

Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
                                        I Targets  D Results
                                 Section II-Page 201

-------
                                          EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Energy Consumption Reduction
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
1
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(098) Cumulative percentage
reduction in energy consumption.
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
3
FY 2007
Target
6
Actual
9
FY 2008
Target
9
Actual
13
FY 2009
Target
12
Actual
18

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 their greenhouse gas intensity and energy use by 3% annually through FY2015. For the Agency's 29 reporting
facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption is 346,518 British thermal units (BTUs) per square foot.
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
1
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(35D) Criminal, civil, administrative,
and fraud prevention actions.1
FY 2006
Target
80
Actual
121
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
103
FY 2008
Target
80
Actual
84
FY 2009
Target
80
Actual
95

Unit
Actions
Baseline - In FY2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
This measure supports work under OIG, which received additional funding under the Recovery Act to perform oversight work. The OIG will assess
whether EPA is using the $7.2 billion of Recovery Act funds in accordance with its requirements and is meeting the accountability objectives as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget. Two actions relating to criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention occurred in FY 2009, and final
results for this measure will be reported in EPA's FY 201 0 PAR.
 "Actions" means the number of judicial or Agency events to enforce the law, restrict participation, or take some punitive sanction as a result of OIG investigations.
These actions or events are indictments, convictions, debarments, suspensions, civil settlements, fines, or any penalty which reduces or prevents EPA's exposure
to further risk, as well as allegations disproved—thus improving operational integrity and public confidence.
                                                          Section II-Page 202

-------
   EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
         OIG Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions
2003
2004
2005     2006      2007
      Fiscal Year
2008
2009
                     I Targets D Results
                 Section II-Page 203

-------
                             EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Human Capital
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
3
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(004) Average time to hire non-SES
positions from date vacancy closes to
date offer is extended, expressed in
working days.
FY 2006
Target

Actual

FY 2007
Target
45
Actual
28.30
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
26.3
FY 2009
Target
45
Actual
30.1

Unit
Days
Baseline - The target was negotiated with Office of Management and Budget/Office of Personnel Management.
(005) Average time to hire SES
positions from date vacancy closes to
date offer is extended, expressed in
working days.


90
66
73
66
68
58.8
Days
Baseline - The target was negotiated with Office of Management and Budget/Office of Personnel Management.
(010) Agency Manager's satisfaction
with the initial stages of the human
resources hiring process, as
measured by the average score
across four questions in the OPM
Management Hiring Satisfaction
Survey.



Baseline - The current baseline of 91% is based on limited manager's



90
77.8
Percent
nput on questions about EPA's hiring process.
Explanation - The Manager's satisfaction scores represent a change in the overall direction in the Agency's hiring process. The Agency moved from 15
hiring offices into three Shared Service Centers (scheduled for completion in December 2009). The current performance baseline reflects satisfaction
scores taken from a limited population under the previous hiring process. As a result of the consolidation to the Shared Service Centers, all managers
were asked to complete the OPM survey. Therefore, the FY 2009 actual number is based on surveys collected from a larger population and may be
reflective of having to deal with the transition to the new service centers.
(01 1) Maintenance and improvement
of MCO employee competencies, as
measured by proficiency levels of
competencies in MCOs re-assessed
in 2009.






80
No Longer
Reported
Percent
Baseline - No baseline available as reassessments did not occur due to changes in scheduling.
Explanation - No information is available for FY 2009 as reassessment did not occur due to changes in scheduling.
                                       Section II-Page 204

-------
                               EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Information Exchange Network
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
3
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(052) Number of major EPA
environmental systems that use the
CDX electronic requirements enabling
faster receipt, processing, and quality
checking of data.
FY 2006
Target
29
Actual
32
FY 2007
Target
36
Actual
37
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
48
FY 2009
Target
50
Actual
55

Unit
Systems
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 .
(053) States, tribes, and territories will
be able to exchange data with CDX
through nodes in real time, using
standards and automated data-quality
checking.
50
42
55
57
55
58
60
59
Users
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 .
Explanation - OEI had expected one additional tribe to go online in 2009, which has not happened yet.
(054) Number of users from states,
tribes, laboratories, and others that
choose CDX to report environmental
data electronically to EPA.
47,000
62,000
5,5000
88,516
100,000
120,000
130,000
184,109
Users
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 .
Explanation - New data flows for NetDMR and the Emissions Inventory generated larger user responses than anticipated. In addition, 2009 was the
year for facilities to report Risk Management Plans (a five-year cycle affecting approx. 1 5,000 users), and Web-based reporting under TRI grew more
than expected.
                                          Section II-Page 205

-------
                              EPA ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Information Security
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After
November 16, 2009
0
Total PMs
1
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(408) Percent of Federal Information
Security Management Act reportable
systems that are certified and
accredited.
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
                                         Section II-Page 206

-------
                                  FY 2009 EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Program


Federal
Support for Air
Quality
Management


Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days to
process State
Implementation
Plan revisions,
weighted by
complexity.
FY06 Target



No Measure
for This Year



FY06
Actual


No
Measure
for This
Year


FY07
Target



0



FY07
Actual



0



FY08 Target



-1.2



FY08
Actual


Data
Available
December
2009


FY09
Target



-2.4



FY09 Actual



December
9010



Units



Percentage



Baseline - 0



Federal
Support for Air
Quality
Management



Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days with
Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over
100 since 2003 per
grant dollar
allocated to the
states in support of
the NAAQS.




21








28








25








31.10








29







Data
Available
December
2009







29








December
2010








Percentage




Baseline - Not Applicable

Federal
Vehicle and
Fuels
Standards and
Certification

Tons of pollutants
(VOC, NOX, M, CO)
reduced per total
emission reduction
dollars spent (both
EPA and private
industry).



0.013






0.013






0.01






0.01






0.01






0.01






0.011





Available
December
2010





Tons/Dollar



Baseline - Not Applicable


Indoor Air:
Radon
Program


(r1 3) Total cost
(public and private)
per future
premature cancer
death prevented
through lowered
radon exposure.


450,000




446,000




No Target
Established









No Target
Established









No Target
Established









Dollars


Baseline -3,000,000
                                           Section II-Page 207

-------
Program

Reduce Risks
from Indoor
Air


Measure
(r1 2) Average cost
to EPA per student
per year in a school
that is implementing
an indoor air quality
plan.
FY06 Target

No Target
Established


FY06
Actual




FY07
Target

No Target
Established


FY07
Actual




FY08 Target

No Target
Established


FY08
Actual




FY09
Target

No Target
Established


FY09 Actual




Units

Dollars


Baseline -6


Reduce Risks
from Indoor
Air


Annual cost to EPA
per person with
asthma taking all
essential actions to
reduce exposure to
indoor
environmental
asthma triggers.


8.38



Data Not
Available
- Survey
Not
Fielded



No Target
Established









No Target
Established









3.9




Data not
available




Dollars


Baseline -25.1
Explanation: Data not available because the survey was not funded.

Human Health
Risk
Assessment

Average cost to
produce Air Quality
Criteria/Science
Assessment
documents.

7,252


5,386


5,533


3,796


Under
Development








Under
Development


Average Cost in
Dollars

Baseline - When the program began producing Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents in FY 2004, the average cost to produce these assessment documents was
$1 3,989. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.






Radiation:
Protection






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).






30












33












40












43












46












50












53












December
2010












Percentage






Baseline -0 (150 days)
Section II-Page 208

-------
Program
Radiation:
Protection
Measure
(R38) Population
covered by
Radiation
Protection Program
monitors per million
dollars invested.
FY06 Target
Not Available
FY06
Actual
3,471,000
FY07
Target
4,159,000
FY07
Actual
4,418,000
FY08 Target
4,729,000
FY08
Actual
4,536,000
FY09
Target
5,254,000
FY09 Actual
Available
December
2010
Units
People per Million
Dollars
Baseline -3,033,000
Radiation:
Response
Preparedness
Average time of
availability of quality
assured ambient
radiation air
monitoring data
during an
emergency.
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.3
1
0.8
0.8
Available
December
2010
Days
Baseline -2.5
Climate
Protection
Program
Tons of greenhouse
gas emissions
(MMTCE)
prevented per
societal dollar in the
building sector.
0.7
0.7
No Target
Established

No Target
Established

No Target
Established

MTCE per Dollar
Baseline - Not Applicable
Climate
Protection
Program
Tons of greenhouse
gas emissions
(MMTCE)
prevented per
societal dollar in the
industry sector.
3.1
3.5
No Target
Established

No Target
Established

No Target
Established

MTCE per Dollar
Baseline - Not Applicable
Climate
Protection
Program
Tons of greenhouse
gas emissions
(MMTCE)
prevented per
societal dollar in the
transportation
sector.
0.41
0.41
No Target
Established

No Target
Established

No Target
Established

MTCE per Dollar
Baseline - Not Applicable
Section II-Page 209

-------
Program
Clean Air
Allowance
Trading
Programs
Measure
Reduction in
exposure to fine
particulate matter
(PM2. 5) per total
dollar spent on
sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emission reduction
[person-microgram/
m3 per dollar
(2003 $)].
FY06 Target
No Measure
for This Year
FY06
Actual
No
Measure
for This
Year
FY07
Target
No Target
Established
FY07
Actual

FY08 Target
No Target
Established
FY08
Actual

FY09
Target
No Target
Established
FY09 Actual

Units
Person-Microgram
per m3 per Dollar
Baseline - Not Applicable
Federal
Support of Air
Toxics
Tons of toxicity-
weighted (for
cancer and
noncancer risk)
emissions reduced
per total cost ($).
Under
Development








Baseline - Not Applicable
Stratospheric
Ozone:
Domestic
Programs
Total federal dollars
spent per school
joining the SunWise
Program.
560
544
525
484
485
414
455
Available
December
2010
Dollars per School
Baseline -693
Section II-Page 210

-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Program
Water Pollution
Control (Sec.
106)
Measure
(bpm) Cost per water
segment restored.
FY06
Target
1,358,351
FY06
Actual
576,618
FY07
Target
615,694
FY07
Actual
589,455
FY08
Target
684,200
FY08
Actual
547,676
FY09
Target
708,276
FY09
Actual
570,250
Units
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $701 ,495 in 2005.
Surface Water
Protection
(bpr) Loading (pounds) of
pollutants removed per
program dollar expended.
233
233
285
331
332
332
368
368
Number of Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 122 loading of pollutants removed per dollar expended in 2004.
Alaska Native
Villages
(Ope) Number of homes
that received improved
service per $1 ,000,000 of
state and federal funding.
70
54
60
29
45
70
50
27
Homes
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 40 homes that received improved service in 2004.
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund
(bpd) Number of water
bodies protected per
million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Baseline
0.1
0.1
0.22
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.208
Water Bodies
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 0. 1 .
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund
(bpe) Number of water
bodies restored or
improved per million
dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Baseline
0.07
0.07
0.165
0.07
0.15
0.07
0.158
Water Bodies
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 0.07.
Water Quality
Research
Peer-reviewed publications
over FTE.
.79
.78
0.8
0.73
0.81
Data
Available
December
2009
0.82
Data Lag
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.
                                                      Section II-Page 211

-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Program
Land
Protection and
Restoration
Research
Measure
Average time (in days)
for technical support
centers to process and
respond to requests for
technical document
review, statistical
analysis, and evaluation
of characterization and
treatability study plans.
FY06
Target
32.5
FY06
Actual
31
FY07
Target
30.5
FY07
Actual
23.4
FY08
Target
29
FY08
Actual
23.3
FY09
Target
28
FY09
Actual
Data
Available
April 2010
Units
Days
Baseline - In 2005, the program began tracking the average number of days its technical support centers take to process and respond to requests for technical document
review, statistical analysis, and the evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans for tech plans. The average amount of time to process and respond was 35.3
days in 2005. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Percent increase of final
remedy components
constructed at RCRA
corrective action facilities
per federal, state, and
private sector.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
3
6.2
3
7
3
39.6
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were .07 final remedy components constructed per million dollars.
Explanation - EPA significantly exceeded its FY 2009 Target of 3% with an actual result of 39.6%; much of this improvement has been due to the capture of low- and
medium-priority facilities, rather than the high-priority facilities that EPA was looking at exclusively prior to 2008.
RCRA Base,
Permits, and
Grants
Facilities under control
(permitted) per total
permitting cost.


2
3.36
3.64
3.72
3.68
3.75
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 3.1 facilities under control (permitted) per million dollars of permitting cost.
Superfund:
Emergency
Response and
Removal
Superfund-lead removal
actions completed
annually per million
dollars.
0.91
1.02
0.92
1.04
0.93
1.049
0.94
1.298
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2004, there were .87 removal actions annually per million dollars
Explanation - EPA had 197 removal actions with financial data. For those actions, a total of $151,739,812 was obligated; calculating to 1.298 removals per million dollars
obligated.
Superfund
Remedial
Action
Human exposures under
control per million
dollars.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
6.1
6.9
6.4
7.6
6.7
8.5
Thousand
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 6.1 human exposures under control per million dollars, and in FY 2005, there were 5.7.
Superfund:
Federal
Facilities
Program dollars
expended annually per
operable unit completing
cleanup activities.
1,000
697
960
846
920
898
813
696
Thousand
                                                      Section II-Page 212

-------
Program
Measure
FY06
Target
FY06
Actual
FY07
Target
Baseline - In FY 2004, program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing

Oil Snill'
Prevention,
Preparedness
and Response

Gallons of oil spilled to
navigable waters per
million program dollars
spent annually on
prevention and
preparedness at Facility
Response Plan facilities.


Not
Applicable



Not
Applicable



No Target
Established

FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
FY09
Target
FY09
Actual
Units
cleanup was $1,207 (thousand).






90,000



152,165



No Target
Established


Data
Available
February
2010



Gallons

Baseline - Not Applicable
Section II-Page 213

-------
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Program
Chesapeake
Bay
Measure
(233) Total nitrogen
reduction practices
implementation achieved
as a result of agricultural
best management
practices implementation
per million dollars to
implement agricultural best
management practices.
FY06
Target
49,113
FY06
Actual
45,928
FY07
Target
47,031
FY07
Actual
43,529
FY08 Target
48,134
FY08
Actual
45,533
FY09 Target
49,237
FY09
Actual
49,660
Units
Pounds per
Million Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 43,289 pounds per million dollars.
Mexico
Border
Program
(4pa) Additional people
served per million dollars
(U.S. and Mexico federal
expenditures.).
3,200
4,433
3,200
10,292
3,200
12,686
9,000
3.938
People Served
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 3,278 people served in 2005.
Ocean,
Coastal, and
Estuary
Protection
(4pc) Program dollars per
acre of habitat protected or
restored.
510
401
505
492
500
909
500
659
Dollars per
Acre
Baseline - 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
Great Lakes
Legacy Act
(623) Cost per cubic yard
of contaminated sediments
remediated.
115
115
200
121
200
121
200
122
Dollars per
Cubic Yard
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $1 1 5 per cubic yard in 2006.
Chemical
Risk Review
and
Reduction
(72A) Percent reduction
from baseline year in total
EPA cost per chemical for
which proposed AEGL
value sets are developed.
Baseline
38.178
2
19.1
4
17.4
10
12.3
Percent Cost
Savings
Baseline - Baseline for the percent reduction from baseline year in total EPA cost per chemical for which proposed AEGL value sets are developed is $38,178 using a two-
year average of AEGL program costs from FY 2005 through FY 2006. This cost is for both EPA employees and contractors who contribute to developing the AEGL values.
Endocrine
Disrupters
(108) Contract cost
reduction per study for
assay validation efforts in
the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program.


1
63
1
3
1
38
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.
                                                   Section II-Page 214

-------
Program
Lead-Based
Paint Risk
Reduction
Program
Measure
(10A) Annual percentage
of lead-based paint
certification and refund
applications that require
less than 20 days of EPA
effort to process.
FY06
Target
N/A
FY06
Actual
90
FY07
Target
90
FY07
Actual
92
FY08 Target
91
FY08
Actual
91
FY09 Target
92
FY09
Actual
97
Units
Percent
Certification
per 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% in 2004, which is
taken from the Federal Lead Based Paint Program (FLPP) database records.
Protect
Human
Health from
Pesticide
Risk
(244) Percent reduction in
review time for registration
of conventional pesticides.
8
34
9
5
10
-37
10
51.5
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - The baseline for review time for registration of convention pesticides is the FY 2002 turnaround time of 44 months (pre-PRIA); percent reduction from the prior
year.
Protect
Human
Health from
Pesticide
Risk
(273) Reduced cost per
pesticide occupational
incident avoided.




2
2
6
Data
Available
December
2010
Cumulative
Percent
Reduction
Baseline - Based on FY 2001-2003 data, the cost avoided for occupational pesticide incidents is $1 1 ,550 per incident avoided.
Protect the
Environment
from
Pesticide
Risk
(275) Average cost and
average time to produce or
update an Endangered
Species Bulletin.


10
($3,600
&90
hrs)
Data
Unavailab
le
19 ($3,240
&81 hrs)
Data
Unavaila
ble
Baseline - Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin in FY 2004 is $4,
Realize the
Value from
Pesticide
Availability
(274) Reduce cost per acre
using reduced risk pest
management practices
compared to the grant
and/or contract funds
expended on
environmental stewardship.




2%
($2.577
Acre)
28 ($2,916
& 73 hrs)
Data
Unavailable
Cumulative
Percent
Reduction
000 and 100 hours.
2%
($2.577
Acre)
4%
($2.527
Acre)
4%
($2.527
Acre)
Cumulative
Percent
Reduction
(Dollar/Acre)
Baseline - For FY 2005, funding of Strategic Agriculture Initiative grants resulted in $2.63 per acre impacted.
Human
Health Risk
Assessment
Average cost to produce
Air Quality Criteria/Science
assessment documents.
7,252
5,386
5,533
3,796
No Target
Established



Average Cost
($)
Baseline - When the program began producing Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents in FY 2004, the average cost to produce these assessment documents
was $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.
Section II-Page 215

-------
Program
Research:
Human Health
and
Ecosystems
Measure
Average time (in days) to
process research grant
proposals from RFA
closure to submittal to
EPA's GAD, while
maintaining a credible and
efficient competitive merit
review system.
FY06
Target
323
FY06
Actual
277
FY07
Target
307
FY07
Actual
254
FY08 Target ™a|
292
250
FY09 Target ™a|
277
270
Units
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.
Ecological
Research and
Ecosystems
Percent variance from
planned cost and schedule.
-13.6
-1.2
-11.65
-0.3
-9.6
Data
Available
December
2009
-7.6
Data Lag
Percent
Baseline - Not Applicable
Research:
Pesticides
and Toxics
Percent variance from
planned cost and schedule.
-12
-10.8
-10
-8.7
-8
Data
Available
December
2009
-6
Data
Available
December
2010
Percent
Baseline - Not Applicable
Research:
National
Ambient Air
Quality
Standards
Research
(ORD)
Percent variance from
planned cost and
schedule.
Data Un-
available
-18.2
N/A
-5.3
Data Un-
available
Data
Available
December
2009
Data Un-
available
Data
Available
December
2010
Percent
Section II-Page 216

-------
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Program
Pollution
Prevention
Program
Measure
(279) Annual reductions of
Design for the Environment
(DfE) chemicals of concern
per federal dollar invested
in the DfE program.
FY06
Target
Baseline
FY06
Actual
72
FY07
Target

FY07
Actual

FY08
Target
90
FY08
Actual
153
FY09
Target
100
FY09
Actual
229
Units
Pounds/Dollar
Baseline - The baseline for percent change for pounds of chemicals reduced from the Design for the Environment Program is 72 lbs/$ for FY 2006.
Pollution
Prevention
Program
(298) Energy savings per
dollar invested in the
Federal Electronics
Challenge (FEC) program.


Baseline
0.79 M
1 Million
1.4 Million
1.31
Million
Data
Available
December
2010
BTUs/Dollar
Baseline - The baseline for energy saved per dollar invested in 2007 is 0.79 million BTUs/$.
RCRA: Waste
Minimization &
Recycling
Number of pounds of
priority chemicals reduced
from the environment per
federal government costs.


1.5

0.422
2.59
0.429

Percent
                                                   Section II-Page 217

-------
                        EP>VsFY2009
         Performance and Accountability Report
                           Section
                    Financial Statements
This document is one chapter from the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-190-B-09-001), published on November
16, 2009. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par/index.htm. Printed
copies of EPA's FY 2009 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
ncepimal@one.net.
                            Section III - Page 1

-------
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, Net
   Note 6.      Other Assets
   Note 7.      Loans Receivable, Net
   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.    FECA Actuarial Liabilities
   Note 16.    Cashout Advances, Superfund
   Note 17.    Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
   Note 18.    Commitments and Contingencies
   Note 19.    Earmarked Funds
   Note 20.    Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
   Note 21.    Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
   Note 22.    Cost of Stewardship Land
   Note 23     Environmental Cleanup Costs
   Note 24.    State Credits
   Note 25.    Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
   Note 26.    Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
   Note 27.    Reconciliation of President's Budget to Statement of Budgetary Resources
   Note 28. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
   Note 29. Unobligated Balances Available
   Note 30. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
   Note 31. Offsetting Receipts
   Note 32. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
                                   Section III-Page 2

-------
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

   Note 33. Imputed Financing
   Note 34. Payroll and Benefits Payable
   Note 35. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
   Note 36. Non-exchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
   Note 37. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget
   Note 38. Restatements
   Note 39. Amounts Held By Treasury (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

   1.  Deferred Maintenance
   2.  Stewardship Land
   3.  Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)

Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)

   Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
                                  Section III-Page 3

-------
                                Environmental Protection Agency
                                   Consolidated Balance Sheets
                         As of September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                                       (Dollars in Thousands)
                                                                   FY 2009
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
   Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
   Investments (Notes 4)
   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

Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 23)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note 16)
Commitments & Contingencies (Notes 18)
Payroll  & Benefits Payable (Note 34)
Other (Note 13)
   Total Liabilities

NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 19)
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds

Total Net Position

   Total Liabilities and Net Position
15,557,917
 6,879,948
    39,362
   214,831
22,692,058

       10
   817,844
    11,645
   852,488
     2,228
24,376,273   S
    76,054
     9,983
    71,200
   140,645
   297,882

   865,764
    44,122
    19,494
   572,412
     4,573
   250,617
   115,918
 2,170,782
14,536,347
 7,086,476
   582,668
22,205,491
                    Restated
                    FY 2008
9,605,356
 6,174,828
   34,636
   107,433
15,922,253

       10
  500,592
    17,088
  814,253
    3,655
17,257,851
    80,655
    13,158
    47,951
   109,377
  251,141

  713,595
   44,615
   19,411
  489,430
       44
  232,958
  115,649
 1,866,843
 8,674,711
 6,160,531
   555,766
15,391,008
24,376,273   S
                                                                                               17,257,851
        The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                          Section III - Page 4

-------
                       Environmental Protection Agency
                      Consolidated Statements of Net Cost
         For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                            (Dollars in Thousands)
                                          FY 2009
                  Restated
                  FY 2008
COSTS

    Gross Costs (Note 21)
     Less:
    Earned Revenue (Notes 20, 21)

NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 21)
3,920,963  $

 773,612
8,675,411

 675,865
8,147,351  $
7,999,546
    The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                               Section III-Page 5

-------
                               Environmental Protection Agency
                         Consolidated Statements of Net Cost by Goal
                          For the Period Ending September 30, 2009
                                     (Dollars in Thousands)
Costs:
 Intragovernmental
 With the Public
   Total Costs (Note 21)

Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal

Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note
20&21)

NET COST OF
OPERATIONS (Note 21)
Clean Air
$ 187,484
874,787
1,062,271
15,455
3,036
18,491
Healthy Compliance &
Clean & Safe Land Preservation Communities & Environmental
Water & Restoration Ecosystems Stewardship
S 191,558 S
3,236,903
3,428,461
4,758
3,208
7,966
386,549 $
1,821,301
2,207,850
101,767
580,119
681,886
271,028 S
1,134,155
1,405,183
20,047
42,267
62,314
207,660
609,538
817,198
4,071
(1,116)
2,955
     1,043,780   $  3,420,495    $
1,525,964    $    1,342,869
814,243
Costs:
 Intragovernmental
 With the Public
   Total Costs

Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal

Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note
19)

NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
 Consolidated
   Totals

;     1,244,279
;     7,676,684
     8,920,963
      146,098

      627,514

      773,612


     8,147,351
         The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                        Section III-Page 6

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency
                        Consolidated Statements of Net Cost by Goal
                    For the Period Ending September 30, 2008 (Restated)
                                     (Dollars in Thousands)
Costs:
 Intragovernmental
 With the Public
   Total Costs (Note 21)

Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
 Total Earned Revenue (Notes 20
&21)

NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)


Clean Air
$ 181,467
816,336
997,803
18,360
2,043
20,403

Clean & Safe
Water
$ 162,679
3,334,953
3,497,632
7,615
2,841
10,456
Restated Land
Preservation &
Restoration
$ 347,011
1,654,205
2,001,216
73,829
501,719
575,548
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
$ 281,767
1,126,764
1,408,531
22,710
39,407
62,117
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
$ 176,376
593,853
770,229
5,540
1,801
7,341
     977,400   S  3,487,176    S    1,425,668   S
1,346,414   S
762,888
Costs:
 Intragovernmental
 With the Public
   Total Costs (Note 21)

Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
 Total Earned Revenue (Notes 20
&21)

NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 21)
 Consolidated
   Totals

$   1,149,300
$   7,526,111
$   8,675,411
     128,054
     547,811

     675,865
S   7,999,546
         The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                       Section III-Page 7

-------
                                   Environmental Protection Agency
                       Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position
                             For the Period Ending September 30, 2009
                                        (Dollars in  Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:

Net Position - Beginning of Period
    Adjustment:
      (a) Changes in Accounting Principles
      (b) Correction of Errors
    Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Budgetary Financing Sources:
      Other Adjustments
      Appropriations Used
      Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 36)
      Nonexchange Revenue - Other  (Note 36)
      Transfers In/Out (Note 32)
      Trust Fund Appropriations
      Other

    Total Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
      Transfers In/Out (Note 32)
      Imputed Financing Sources (Note 33)
    Total Other Financing Sources

    Net Cost of Operations

    Net Change

Cumulative Results of Operations

Unexpended Appropriations:

Net Position - Beginning of Period
    Adjustment:
      (a) Changes in Account Principles
      (b) Corrections of Errors
    Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Budgetary Financing Sources:
      Appropriations Received
      Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 32)
      Other Adjustments (Note 35)
      Appropriations Used
    Total Budgetary Financing Sources

    Total Unexpended Appropriations

TOTAL NET POSITION
                                                                      FY 2009
                                                                    Earmarked
                                                                       Funds
6,160,531
             FY 2009 All
             Other Funds
555,766
              FY 2009
            Consolidated
               Total
6,716,297
6,160,531 $
-
176,168
188,245
(39,705)
1,747,911
2,072,619 $
(84)
28,975
28,891 $
(1,175,565)
925,945
7,086,476 S
555,766 S
8,504,157
-
-
57,392
(1,747,911)
6,813,638 $
694
184,356
185,050 $
(6,971,786)
26,902
582,668 $
6,716,297
8,504,157
176,168
188,245
17,687
-
8,886,257
610
213,331
213,941
(8,147,351)
952,847
7,669,144
               8,674,710
               8,674,710
              14,406,298
                 (10,953)
                 (29,551)
              (8,504,157)
               5,861,637

              14,536,347
                8,674,710
                                                                       7,086,476  S    15,119,015 S
                8,674,710
               14,406,298
                  (10,953)
                  (29,551)
               (8,504,157)
                5,861,637

               14,536,347

               22,205,491~
          The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                             Section III-Page 8

-------
                                  Environmental Protection Agency
                       Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position
                     For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 (Restated)
                                        (Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:

Net Position - Beginning of Period
   Adjustment:
      (a) Changes in Account Principles
      (b) Corrections of Errors
   Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
      Other Adjustments
      Appropriations Used
      Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 36)
      Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 36)
      Transfers In/Out (Note 32)
      Trust Fund Appropriations
      Other
   Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
      Transfers In/Out (Note 32)
      Imputed Financing Sources (Note 33)
   Total Other Financing Sources
   Net Cost of Operations
   Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations

Unexpended Appropriations:

Net Position - Beginning of Period
   Adjustment:
      (b) Corrections of Errors
   Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
      Appropriations Received
      Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 32)
      Other Adjustments (Note 35)
      Appropriations Used
   Total Budgetary Financing Sources

   Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
  (93,613)
 5,792,614
  241,873
  204,115
  (18,190)
  984,974
   19,878
 1,432,650
   20,934
   20,934
(1,085,667)
  367,917
 6,160,531
        -  $
                                                          S    6,160,531 S

FY 2008
All Other
Funds
562,573
-
562,573 $
7,743,276
-
-
37,151
(984,974)

6,795,453 $
28
111,591
111,619 $
(6,913,879)
(6,807)
555,766 $
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
Restated
FY 2008
Consolidated
Total
6,448,800
(93,613)
6,355,187
7,743,276
241,873
204,115
18,961
-
19,878
8,228,103
28
132,525
132,553
(7,999,546)
361,110
6,716,297
9,350,591
9,350,591
7,197,712
(7,875)
(122,441)
(7,743,276)
(675,880)
8,674,711
15,391,008
          The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                            Section III-Page 9

-------
                                Environmental Protection Agency
                           Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources
                  For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                                        (Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1:
   Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies)
     Adjusted Subtotal
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (Note 28)
Budgetary Authority:
   Appropriation
   Borrowing Authority
   Contract Authority
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
   Earned:
     Collected
     Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
   Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
     Advance Received
     Without Advance from Federal Sources
   Anticipated for Rest of Year, Without Advances
   Previously Unavailable
   Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds
      Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 32)
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 28)
Permanently Not Available (Note 28)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 27)
                                                                      FY2009
 3,551,8
 3,551,880
   220,329

15,276,374
        5
   631,378
     2,884

    29,183
   (93,701)
    57,392
   627,136
 1,371,077

   (32,732)
                  Restated
                  FY2008
 3,541,387
 3,541,387
  281,117

 7,268,236
       34
  706,594
   (22,170)

   79,716
   59,780
   37,151
  861,071
 1,387,967
    (6,366)
  (125,526)
21,014,069   $
13,207,920
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
   Direct
   Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 27)
Unobligated Balances:
   Apportioned (Note 29)
   Exempt from Apportionment
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 29)
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
16,740,272    $
   570,775
17,311,047

 3,440,829
 3,440,829
   262,193
21,014,069
 9,035,912
  620,128
 9,656,040

 3,204,800
 3,204,800
  347,080
13,207,920
            The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                           Section III-Page 10

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
                        Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources
              For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

                                                                                            Restated
                                                                       FY 2009             FY 2008
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
   Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1                      $         9,368,094    $       9,873,207
   Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies)             	-     	
     Adjusted Total                                                         9,368,094            9,873,207
   Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
   Forward, October 1                                               	(666,246)           (632,790)
     Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net                                       8,701,848            9,240,417
Obligations Incurred, Net (Note 27)                                            17,311,047            9,656,040
Less: Gross Outlays (Note 27)                                                (10,670,422)          (9,880,035)
Obligated Balance Transferred, Net:
   Actual Transfers, Unpaid Obligations
   Actual Transfers, Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources   	-_    	-_
     Total Unpaid Obligated Balance Transferred, Net
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (Note 28)                  (220,329)           (281,117)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources            	92,421     	(33,457)
    Total, Change in Obligated Balance                                        15,214,565            8,701,848

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
   Unpaid Obligations                                                       15,788,389            9,368,094
   Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources             	(573,824)    	(666,246)
     Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period                $        15,214,565    $       8,701,848
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
   Gross Outlays (Note 27)                                          $        10,670,422    $       9,880,035
   Less: Offsetting Collections (Note 27)                                          (719,558)           (827,616)
   Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Notes 27 and 31)                 	(1,884,134)          (1,118,429)
Total, Net Outlays                                                 $         8,066,730    $       7,933,990
         The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                       Section III-Page 11

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
                          Statements of Custodial Activity
         For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                               (Dollars in Thousands)
                                                         FY2009
               Restated
               FY2008
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Cash Collections:
   Fines and Penalties
   Other
   Total Cash Collections
   Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 26)

Disposition of Collections:
   Transferred to Others (General Fund)
   Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred
Total Disposition of Collections

Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 26)
101,613
(14,079)
126,283
(13,733)
 87,534
 16,390
112,550
  8,107
103,924
120,657
 87,520
 16,404
112,695
  7,962
103,924
120,657
    The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                  Section III-Page 12

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
                           Notes to the Financial Statements
               Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                                 (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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-13 6, Financial
Reporting Requirements, and the EPA accounting policies, which are summarized in this note. In
addition to the reports required by OMB Circular No. A-13 6, 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 2009, 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.

   1.  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.
                                   Section III-Page 13

-------
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 2009, 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.
                             Section III-Page 14

-------
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
    FY 1992, the program was funded by a subsidy appropriated from the General Fund
    for the actual cost of financing the loans, and by borrowing from Treasury for the
    unsubsidized portion of the loan.  The Program 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.
                            Section III-Page 15

-------
2. Revolving Funds (Treasury Fund Group 4000 - 4999)

       a.  Reregistration and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund: The Reregi strati on
          and Expedited Processing 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 Reregistration  and
          Expedited Processing Revolving 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.

3. Special Funds (Treasury Fund Group 5000 - 5999)

   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.

   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),"
                                Section III-Page 16

-------
       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.

       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.

   4.  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.

   5.  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.
                                   Section III-Page 17

-------
       c.  Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury fund
          group 8221, was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies were
          appropriated to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible
          for directing, monitoring and providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill
          response activities. This involves setting oil prevention and response standards,
          initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA and Spill Prevention Control
          and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions when appropriate.
          The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills including
          research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation.
          Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of
          Transportation under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding
          from other federal agencies.

       d  Miscellaneous Contributed Funds  Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed
          Funds Trust Fund authorized in the  Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
          Water Act) as amended by (P.L. 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
          Amendments of 1972), Treasury fund group 8741, includes gifts for pollution control
          programs that are usually designated for a specific use by donors and/or deposits from
          pesticide registrants to cover the costs of petition hearings when such hearings result
          in unfavorable decisions to the petitioner.

C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting

   1. 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.
                                   Section III-Page 18

-------
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.

   2. 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.

   3. 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.

   4. Deposit Funds

Deposit accounts receive no appropriated funds. Amounts are recorded to the deposit accounts
pending further disposition.  These are not EPA's funds.

   5. 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.
                                   Section III-Page 19

-------
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).
                                   Section III-Page 20

-------
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.

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
                                   Section III-Page 21

-------
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 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
                                   Section III-Page 22

-------
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 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.
                                    Section III-Page 23

-------
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.

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 34 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
                                   Section III-Page 24

-------
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 and Restatements

Prior period adjustments, if any, are 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.

For detailed information on the restatements made to the FY 2008 financial statements, refer to
Note 38 Restatements.

U. Recovery Act Funds

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Act was enacted to create jobs in the United States, encourage
technical advances, assist in modernizing the nation's infrastructure, and enhance energy
independence. The EPA was charged with the task of distributing funds to invest in various
projects aimed at creating advances in science, health, and environmental protection that will
provide long-term economic benefits.

The EPA manages $7.2 billion in Recovery Act funded projects and programs that will help
achieve these goals, offer resources to help other "green" agencies, and administer environmental
laws that will govern Recovery activities. As of September 30, 2009, the EPA has paid out $304
million, obligated $7.1 billion, and has $106 million available. The EPA has committed to
focusing on the following areas: Reduced Diesel Emissions, Superfund Hazardous Waste
Cleanup, Cleaner Underground Storage Tank Sites, Revitalized Neighborhoods from
Brownfields and Cleaner Water and Drinking Water Infrastructures.

The vast majority of the contracts awarded under the Recovery Act will be done by using
competitive contracts. EPA is committed fully to ensuring transparency and accountability
throughout the Agency in spending Recovery Act funds in accordance with OMB guidance.
EPA has set up  a Stimulus Steering Committee that meets weekly to review and report on the
status of the distribution of the Recovery Act Funds to ensure transparency and efficiency. EPA
has also developed a Stewardship Plan which is an Agency-level risk mitigation plan that sets
out the Agency's Recovery Act risk assessment, internal controls and monitoring activities. The
Stewardship Plan is divided into seven functional areas: grants, interagency agreements,
contracts, human capital/payroll, budget execution, performance reporting and financial
reporting. The Stewardship Plan was developed around Government Accountability Office
(GAO) standards for internal control. Under each functional area, risks are assessed and related
control, communication and monitoring activities are identified for each impacted program. The
Plan is a dynamic document and will be updated as new OMB guidance is issued or additional
risks are uncovered.
                                   Section III-Page 25

-------
EPA has the three-year EPM treasury symbol 689/10108 that is under the Recovery Act.  EPA's
two-year EPM treasury symbol 689/00108 is a "regular" program. Recovery fund groups are the
following: 0113, 0102, 0249, 8195, and 8196.
                                  Section III-Page 26

-------
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, consist of the following:
 Trust Funds:
 Supafund
 LUST
 Oil Spill &Msc.
 Revolving Funds:
 HFRA/Tolerance
 Working Capital
 Cr. Reform Finan.
 Appropriated
 Other Fund Types

 Total
Entity
Assets
62,631 S
25,169
2,441
7,153
80,293
390
15,122,481
247,877
FY2009
Non-Entity
Assets
5 -$
-
-
.
-
-
9,482
Total
62,631
25,169
2,441
7,153
80,293
390
15,122,481
257359
$  15,548,435
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 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.
                                                     FY 2009
                                                      FY 2008
       Status of Fund Balances:
       Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances
           Available for Obligation                    $3,440,831        $3,204,800
           Unavailable for Obligation                     262,971           339,319
       Net Receivables from Invested Balances          (3,583,1 19)       (2,861,933)
       Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 39)          (18,334)              397
       Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed             15,214,555         8,701,838
       Non-Budgetary FBWT                            241,013   _ 220,935
           Totals                                    $15,557,917        $9,605,356
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 2009 and
FY 2008 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund
balances with Treasury.
                                    Section III-Page 27

-------
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, the balance in the imprest fund was $10 thousand.

Note 4. Investments

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008 investments related to Superfund and LUST consist of the
following:
                                     Amortized
                                     (Premium)     Interest      Investments,      Market
                           Cost        Discomt     Receivable        Net         Value
Intragovernmental
 Non-Marketable  FY2Q09 $  6,611,708 $    (195,777)$     42,463  $     6,879,948  $   6,879,948
 Non-Marketable  FY2Q08 $  6,057,258 $     (77,301)$     40,269  $     6,174,828  $   6,174,828

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 19).

The Federal Government does not set aside assets to pay future benefits or other expenditures
associated with earmarked funds.  The cash receipts collected from the public for an earmarked
fund are deposited in the U.S. Treasury, which uses the cash for general Government purposes.
Treasury securities are issued to EPA as evidence of its receipts.  Treasury securities are an asset
to EPA and a liability to the U.S. Treasury.  Because EPA and the U.S. Treasury are both parts
of the Government,  these assets and liabilities offset each other from the standpoint of the
Government as a whole. For this reason, they do not represent an asset or liability in the U.S.
Government-wide financial statements.

Treasury securities provide EPA with authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury to make future
benefit payments or other expenditures. When EPA requires redemption of these securities to
make expenditures,  the Government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash
balances, by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public or repaying less debt,
or by curtailing other expenditures. This is the same way that the Government finances all other
expenditures.
                                    Section III-Page 28

-------
Note 5. Accounts Receivable, Net

The Accounts Receivable as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 (restated) consist of the following:
            Intragovernmental:
            Accounts & Interest Receivable
                Total
            Non-Federal:
            Unbilled Accounts Receivable
            Accounts & Interest Receivable
            Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles
                Total


$
$
$


$

FY 2009
39,362 $
39,362 $
137,593 $
1,376,831
(696,580)
817,844 $
Restated
FY2008
34,636
34,636
113,359
1,339,523
(952,290)
500,592
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 as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consist of the following:
                                           FY 2009        FY 2008
                   Intragovernmental:
          Advances to Federal Agencies $      214,654  $       107,327
                  Advances for Postage            177             106
                                Total $

                         No n-Federal:
                      Travel Advances $
              Letter of Credit Advances
                       Other Advances
        Operating Materials and Supplies
                     Inventory for Sale
                                Total $
214,831 $
(183) $
8
2,146
147
110
2,228 $
107,433
135
88
2,934
159
339
3,655
                                   Section III-Page 29

-------
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net

Loans Receivable consists of Asbestos Loan Program loans disbursed from obligations made
prior to FY 1992 and are presented 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, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:
                             FY2009
                                              FY2008




Direct Loans
Obligated Prior ~
J>
to FY 1992

Loans
Receivable,
Gross

2,003 $

Value of
Assets Related
to Direct
Allowance* Loans

ff o r\m <£
J> Z,WV_O J>


Loans
Receivable,
Gross

4,327 $

Value of
Assets Related
to Direct
Allowance* Loans

:(h /i OO'7
3> 4,327

Direct Loans
Obligated After 10,590
FY 1991

(948) 9,642 14,513


(1,752)

                                                                                 12,761
   Total
12,593  S
(948) S
11,645  S
18,840  S
(1,752) S
17,088
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).

During FY 2008, EPA made a payment within the U.S. Treasury for the Asbestos Loan Program
based on an upward re-estimate of $33 thousand for increased loan financing costs. It was
believed that the payment only consisted of "interest" costs and, as such, an automatic
apportionment, per OMB Circular A-l 1, Section 120.83, was deemed appropriate.  However,
approximately one third  ($12 thousand) of the $33 thousand re-estimate was for increased
"subsidy" costs which requires an approved apportionment by OMB before any payment could
be made.  Therefore, the payment resulted in a minor technical Anti-deficiency Act (ADA)
violation.  On October 13, 2009, EPA transmitted, as required by OMB Circular A-l 1, Section
145, written notifications to the (1) President, (2) President of the Senate, (3) Speaker of the
House of Representatives, (4) Comptroller General, and (5) the Director of OMB.  EPA will
continue to work with OMB and Treasury on resolution of this ADA violation.
                                   Section III-Page 30

-------
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
                                          Interest
                                            Rate       Technical
                                        Re-estimate   Re-estimate
Upward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2009     $
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2009   $
FY 2009 Totals                        $

Upward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2008     $
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2008   $
FY 2008 Totals                        $
             Total
- $
(3)$
(3)$
21 $
(22) $
(1)$
- $
(2)$
(2)$
12 $
(12)$
0 $

(5)
(5)
33
(34)
(1)
              Schedule for Reconciling Subsidy Cost Allowance Balances
                              (Post-1991 Direct Loans)

                                                           FY 2009
                FY 2008
Beginning balance of the subsidy cost allowance

Adjustments:
         Loans written off
         Subsidy allowance amortization
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

EPA has not disbursed Direct Loans since 1993.
$    (1,752)     $  (2,714)
$
          1
       752
       753
         36
         15
         51
               981
               981
               (21)
                 2
               (19)
(948)    $  (1,752)
                                  Section III-Page 31

-------
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, 2009 and 2008.
                                                          FY 2009
                                                        FY 2008
       Intr agovernmental:
       Accounts Payable
       Accrued Liabilities
           Total

       Non-Federal:
       Accounts Payable
       Advances Payable
       Interest Payable
       Grant Liabilities
       Other Accrued Liabilities
           Total
$

$

$




$
2,230
73,824
76,054
FY 2009
116,799
9
6
521,188
227,762
865,764
$

$

$




$
2,811
77,844
80,655
FY 2008
114,712
24
7
413,981
184,871
713,595
Note 9. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

General property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) consist of software, real property, EPA and
contractor-held personal property, and capital leases.

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, General PP&E consist of the
following:
                               FY2009
 EPA-Held       <
 Equipment
 Software
 Contractor Held
 Equip.
 Land and Buildings

 Capital Leases
    Total        i
Acquisition
  Value
    246,999 $~

    373,964
     79,855

    607,131

     41,068  _
   1,349,017 $'
                               Accumulated
                               Depreciation
         Net Book
          Value
(138,385)$   108,614$
(118,115)
 (47,207)

(166,316)

 (26,506)
255,849
 32,648

440,815

 14,562
(496,529) S   852,488 S
FY2008
Acquisition
Value
238,051 $
307,883
63,132
595,597
47,505
1,252,168 S
Accumulated
Depreciation
(130,045)$
(93,925)
(28,417)
(154,986)
(30,542)
(437,915) S
Net Book
Value
108,006
213,958
34,715
440,611
16,963
814,253
                                     Section III-Page 32

-------
      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, 2009 and 2008 is as follows:
All Other Funds
Intr agover iinien tal:
Debt to Treasury
Beginning
 Balance

     13,158 $
FY2009
Net
Borrowing
(3,175) $
Ending
Balance
9,983$
Beginning
Balance
16,156 $
FY2008
Net
Borrowing
(2,998) $
Ending
Balance
13,158
      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, 2009 and 2008, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
                                        FY 2009            FY 2008
             Superfund Sites with
             Easements
             Beginning Balance
             Additions
             Withdrawals
             Ending Balance
                     32
                       2
                       1
                     33
32
             Superfund Sites with Land
             Acquired
             Beginning Balance                31
             Additions                         0
             Withdrawals               	1_
             Ending Balance            	30
                                           32
                                            2
                                           31
                                        Section III-Page 33

-------
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, 2009 and 2008, custodial liability is approximately $71 million
and $48 million, respectively.
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2009:
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources

Not Covered
by
Budgetary
Resources

Total


 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                    $
  Liability for Deposit Funds
 Non-Current
  Other Liabilities
  Capital Lease Liability
     Total Non-Federal                  $
 19,875
    960
 60,043
 27,642

      3
     54
108.577  $
 79,490  $
  8,330
                10,068
                22,000
                  230
                27,868
              19,875
                 960
              60,043
              27,642

                   3
                  54

              10,068
              22,000
32.068  S    140.645
             79,490
               8,330

                230
             27,868
 87.820  $
28.098
             115.918
                                   Section III-Page 34

-------
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
 Liability for Deposit Funds
 Resources Payable to Treasury
 Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
 Unfunded FECA Liability
 Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
 Total Intragovernmental              $

Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
 Unearned Advances                    $
 Liability for Deposit Funds
Non-Current
 Other Liabilities
 Capital Lease Liability
    Total Non-Federal                  $
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources

     17,125
      3,166
     14,489
     41,586
      1,089
     77,089
      8,810
Not Covered
     by
 Budgetary
 Resources
                      9,914
                     22,000
     77,463   $
      31,914    $
                         230
                      29,520
     85,899   $
      29,750    $
Total
  17,125
   3,166
  14,489
  41,586
   1,089

       3
       5

   9,914
  22,000
  109,377
   77,089
    8,810

     230
   29,520
  115,649
                                   Section III-Page 35

-------
Note 14. Leases

Capital Leases:

The value of assets held under Capital Leases as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:

                                                      FY 2009         FY2008
      Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
      Real Property                                $       40,913  $        40,913
      Personal Property                                        155              155
      Software License                                        -              6,437
         Total                                    $       41,068  $        47,505
      Accumulated Amortization                    $       26,506  $        30,542
EPA has three capital leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and computer
facilities. All of these leases include a base rental charge and escalation 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 FY 2010, 2013, and
2025.

The total future  minimum capital lease payments are listed below.

      Future Payments Due:
      Fiscal Year                                           Capital Leases
      2010                                               $        6,101
      2011                                                        5,714
      2012                                                        5,714
      2013                                                        5,714
      2014                                                        4,215
      Beyond 2014                                                43,559
      Total Future Minimum Lease Payments              $       71,017
      Less: Imputed Interest                                      (43,149)
      Net Capital Lease Liability                          $       27,868
      Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources
      (See Note 13)                                       $       27,868

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 computer facilities. The leases include a base rental charge and escalation
                                   Section III-Page 36

-------
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 2010, 2017, and 2020.  These charges are
expended from the EPM appropriation.

The total minimum future operating lease costs are listed below:

                                                     Operating Leases,
                                                    Land and Buildings
            Fiscal Year
            2010                               $                      92
            2011                                                      89
            2012                                                      89
            2013                                                      89
            2014                                                      89
            Beyond 2014                          	374

            Payments                           $                     822

Note 15.  FECA 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 as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, was $44.1 million and $44.6
million, respectively. The FY 2009 present value of these estimated outflows is calculated using
a discount rate of 4.223 percent in the first year, and 4.715 percent in the years thereafter. The
estimated future costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.

Note 16.  Cashout Advances, Superfund

Cashout advances 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
                                   Section III-Page 37

-------
appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, cashouts are approximately
$572 million and $489 million as restated, respectively.

Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations — Other Funds

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following:

      Unexpended Appropriations:                FY 2009        FY 2008
      Unobligated
       Available                            $     1,652,461  $     1,520,587
       Unavailable                                   70,053          94,130
      Undelivered Orders                         12,813,833       7,059,994
         Total                              $    14,536,347  $     8,674,711
Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies

EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions and claims brought by
or against it. These include:

   •   Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by employees and
       others.
   •   Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by vendors,
       grantees and others.
   •   The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific sites, to
       include the collection of fines and penalties from responsible parties.
   •   Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be settled by a
       reduction of future EPA funding to the grantee or the provision of additional grantee
       matching funds.

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008 total accrued liabilities for commitments and potential loss
contingencies is $4.57 million and $44 thousand, respectively. Further discussion of the cases
and claims that give rise to this accrued liability are discussed immediately below.

Litigation Claims and Assessments

There are currently three legal claims which have been asserted against the EPA pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims and Fair Labor Standards Acts. For two of these claims, losses have been
deemed probable, and the unfavorable outcome is estimated to be approximately $2.2 million.
EPA has accrued this amount as of September 30, 2009.  The maximum amount of exposure
under these two claims could range as much as $10 million in the aggregate.

Additionally, the potential loss due to the third claim has been deemed to be reasonably possible,
and it has been estimated that this could result in an unfavorable outcome of between $50 and
$150 thousand.
                                   Section III-Page 38

-------
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, 2009, there is currently one CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative claims
which has been asserted and for which an unfavorable outcome has been deemed probable. It is
estimated that the potential loss could be approximately $2.37 million and this amount has been
accrued as of September 30, 2009.

Other Commitments

EPA has a commitment to fund the Unites States Government's payment to the Commission of
the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between the Governments of
Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States, and the Government of the United States
of America (commonly referred to as CEC). According to the terms of the agreement, each
government pays an equal share to cover the operating costs of the CEC. For the periods ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008, EPA paid $3 million for each of these periods to the CEC.  A
payment of $3 million will be made in FY 2010, subject to the availability of funds.

EPA has a commitment under an 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. For the period ending September 30, 2009, EPA made
a payment of $2.3 million. According to the terms of the agreement, future payments totaling
$9.5 million have been deemed reasonably possible and are anticipated to be paid in fiscal year
2010 subject to the availability of funds.
                                  Section III-Page 39

-------
Note 19. Earmarked Funds
                                        Environmental
 Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2009    Services
 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, 2009
 Gross Program Costs                   $
 Less: Earned Revenues
                                                       LUST
                          Superfund
                           Other Earmarked   Total Earmarked
                           Funds            Funds
$

$
$
$
$
231
231


231
231
,821 $
,821
1 $
1 $
,820 $
,821 $
25,169
3,422,610
217
3,447,996
1 1 ,693
1 1 ,693
3,436,303
3,447,996
$

$
$
$
$
62,631 $
3,457,338
769,531
104,735
4,394,236
977,700 $
977,700 $
3,416,536 $
4,394,236 $
25,650
4,157
4,827
34,635
32,817
32,817
1,817
34,634
$

$
$
$
$
345,271
6,879,948
773,688
109,780
8,108,687
1,022,211
1,022,211
7,086,476
8,108,687
         Net Cost of Operations
                                     $
                98,901   $
                    79
               1,672,246
                 615,577
                98,822   $     1,056,669  $
                     75,485  $
                     55,411
                                    20,074  $
                 1,846,632
                   671,067
                                      1,175,565
 Statement  of Changes in Net Position for the
 Period ended September 30, 2009
 Net Position, Beginning of Period         $
 Nonexchange Revenue- Securities Investment:
 Nonexchange Revenue
 Other Budgetary Finance Sources
 Other Financing Sources
 Net Cost of Operations
 Change in Net Position

 Net Change End of Period
                                     $
211,282  $

 20,538
 20,538  $
3,244,497  $
  124,088
  169,186
   (3,000)
     354
  (98,822)

  191,806  $'
 2,702,763  $
   52,065
    (1,479)
 1,693,519
   26,338
(1,056,669)

  713,774 '  $'
231,820  $   3,436,303  $     3,416,537  $_
  1,989
    15

 17,687
  2,199
(20,074)
   (173) $
6,160,531
  176,168
  188,245
1,708,206
   28,891
(1,175,565)
  925,945
                                     1,816  $_
                                      7,086,476
                                                  Section  III-Page 40

-------
 Balance sheet as of September 30, 2008
 Assets
 Fund Balance with Treasury
 Investments
 Accounts Receivable, Net
 Other Assets
                          Total Assets
                                              Enviorn mental
                                                Services
                         211,282  $
                                                  211,282
 Other 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
Total Liabilities
                         211,282

                         211,282
                          Net Cost of Operations
  LUST

   12,711
 3,240,675
      27
	72_
 3,253,485
 3,244,497

 3,253,485
                                    77,702
                                       32
 Restated
Superfund

   45,596
 2,926,233
  468,626
   89,408
                                              3,529,863
 2,702,763

 3,529,863
            1,530,979
              543,841
                                    77,670 $
  Other
Earmarked
  Funds

   23,765
    7,921
    4,404
    2,487
                                               827,100  $
                                               827,100  $
              987,138 $
               38,577
    1,989

   38,577
               73,284
               52,425
 Restated
  Total
Earmarked
  Funds

  293,354
 6,174,829
  473,057
   91,967
             7,033,207
                          36,588  $
                                                                                               872,676
                          36,588  $
                         872,676
 6,160,531

 7,033,207
             1,681,965
              596,298
               20,859  $   1,085,667
 Statement of Changes In Net Position for the
 Period ended September 30, 2008
 Net Position,  Beginning of Period
 Prior Period Adjustment
 Net Position,  Adjusted
 Nonexchange Revenue- Securities Investments
 Nonexchange Revenue
 Other Budgetary Finance Sources
 Other Financing Sources
 Net Cost of Operations

 Change in Net Position

 Net Change End of Period
                         188,371  $  3,023,769 $
                         188,371

                          22,911
 3,023,769
  127,346
  170,762
       1
     289
  (77,670)
                         211,282
 3,244,497
 2,670,425
   (93.6131
 2,576,812
   114,340
   10,442
   969,606
   18,701
  (987,138)
                          22,911  $   220,728 $
              125,951
                           3,662  $
    3,662
      187

    17,056
    1,943
   (20,859)
 5,886,227
   (93.6131
 5,792,614
   241,873
   204,115
   986,663
   20,933
 (1,085,667)
               (1,673) $    367,917
 2,702,763
    1,989  $   6,160,531
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
                                         Section III-Page 41

-------
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.
Reregistration and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund: The Reregi strati on and Expedited
Processing  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.
                                   Section III-Page 42

-------
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 Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Revolving 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 20.  Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost

Exchange, or earned 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, 2009 and 2008, exchange revenues are
$773.6 million and $675.9 million, as restated, respectively.
                                   Section III-Page 43

-------
Note 21. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
                                        FY 2009
 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
  Intragovern-
     mental

      187,484
       15,455
      191,558
        4,758
      386,549
      101,767
witn the
 Public

  874,787
    3,036
3,236,903
    3,208
1,821,301
  580,119
 TOTAL

1,062,271
   18,491
      172,029   $    871,751   $   1,043,780   $
3,428,461
    7,966
      186,800   $  3,233,695  $   3,420,495   $
2,207,850
  681,886
FY 2008
Intragovern-
mental
181,467 $
18,360
163,107 $
162,679
7,615
155,064 $
witn 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
 347,011
  73,829
1,654,205  $
  501,719
2,001,216
  575,548
      284,782   $   1,241,182  $   1,525,964   $     273,182   $   1,152,486 $   1,425,668
 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
      271,028
       20,047
      207,660
        4,071
    1,244,279
      146,098
1,134,155
   42,267
1,405,183
   62,314
 281,767
  22,710
1,126,764  $
   39,407
1,408,531
   62,117
      250,981   $   1,091,888  $   1,342,869   $     259,057   $   1,087,357 $   1,346,414
  609,538
   (1.116)
  817,198
    2,955
 176,376
   5,540
  593,853  $
    1,801
  770,229
    7,341
      203,589   $    610,654  $    814,243   $     170,836   $    592,052 $    762,888
7,676,684
  627,514
8,920,963
  773,612
1,149,300
 128,054
7,526,111  $
  547,811
8,675,411
  675,865
$   1,098,181   $  7,049,170  $   8,147,351    $   1,021,246   $   6,978,300 $   7,999,546
Intragovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification of the
related revenue.
                                         Section III - Page 44

-------
Note 22. Cost of Stewardship Land

The costs related to the acquisition of stewardship land was approximately $323 thousand and $2
million for September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.  These costs are included in the
Statement of Net Cost.

Note 23. Environmental Cleanup Costs

As of September 30, 2009, EPA has one site that requires clean up stemming from its activities.
For sites that had previously been listed, it was determined by EPA's Office of General Counsel
to discontinue reporting the potential environmental liabilities for the following reasons: (1)
although EPA has been put on notice that it is subject to a contribution claim under CERCLA, no
direct demand for compensation has been made to EPA; (2) any demand against EPA will be
resolved only after the Superfund cleanup work is completed, which may be years in the future;
and (3) there was no legal activity on these matters in FY2009, and none are expected in
FY2010. During FY2009, costs amounting to approximately $53 thousand was paid out by the
Treasury Judgment Fund for another site, and no further action is warranted.

EPA also holds title to a site in Edison, New Jersey which was formerly an Army Depot. While
EPA did not cause the contamination, the Agency could potentially be liable for a portion of the
cleanup costs. However, it is expected that the Department of Defense and General Services
Administration will bear all or most of the cost of remediation. EPA owns two sites that have an
unfunded environmental  liability of $230 thousand.

Accrued Cleanup Cost:

EPA has 15  sites that will require permanent closure, and EPA is responsible to fund the
environmental cleanup of those sites. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, the estimated costs
for site cleanup are $19.49 million and $19.41 million, respectively. 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.

Note 24. State Credits

Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related Federal regulations requires  states to
enter into Superfund State Credits (SSC) 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.
                                   Section III-Page 45

-------
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, 2009 and 2008, the total remaining
state credits have been estimated at $21.9 million and $15.3 million, respectively.

Note 25. 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, 2009, EPA had 9 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding
agreements with obligations totaling $19.9 million. As of September 30, 2008, EPA had 14 for
$25.2 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 26. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
                                                            FY 2009         FY 2008
    Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts     $       103,924  $      120,657
    Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other
    Miscellaneous Receipts:
     Accounts Receivable                                $       238,957  $      220,123
     Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts                   (174,411)        (171,966)
         Total                                         $        64,546  $       48,157
EPA uses the accrual basis of accounting for the collection of fines, penalties and miscellaneous
receipts.  Collectability by EPA of the fines and penalties is based on the RPs' willingness and
ability to pay.
                                   Section III-Page 46

-------
Note 27. Reconciliation of President's Budget to the Statement of Budgetary Resources

Budgetary resources, obligations incurred and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2009
Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2010
Budget of the United States Government when they become available.  The Budget of the United
States Government with actual numbers for FY 2009 has not yet been published. We expect it
will be published by March 2010, and it will be available on the OMB website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/.  The actual amounts published for the year ended September 30,
2008 are listed immediately below:
                                         Budgetaiy                   Offsetting
                                   	Resources      Obligations     Receipts       Net Outlays
                                ~$      13,207,920       9,656,040       1,118,429        9,052,419
            FY2008
Statement of Budgetary Resources

Adjustments to Undelivered Orders and
Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S.
Government
2,134
(423,487)
(2,567)
1,357
(76,113)
(1,284)
-
-
(429)
1,535
(7)
53
                                        12,784,000 $
9,580,000 $
1,118,000 $
                                                                                 9,054,000
* Expired funds are not included in Budgetary Resources Available for Obligation and Total
New Obligations in the Budget Appendix (lines 23.90 and 10.00). Also, minor funds are not
included in the Budget Appendix.
** Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.

Note 28. 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 for
September 30, 2009 and 2008:
                                                           FY 2009
                                                                         FY 2008
   Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations -
   Downward adjustments of prior years' obligations

   Temporarily Not Available - Rescinded Authority

   Permanently Not Available:
       Payments to Treasury
       Rescinded Authority
       Cancelled Authority
          Total Permanently Not Available
                                                    $  220,329
                                                         (3,180)
                                                       (10,000)
                                                       (19.552)
                                                       (32,732)
                $  281,117

                    (6,366)
                    (3,032)
                  (117,284)
                    (5.210)
                  (125,526)
                                   Section III-Page 47

-------
Note 29. Unobligated Balances Available

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. The unobligated balances available consist of the
following as of September 30, 2009 and 2008.

                                             FY2009       FY2008
         Unexpired Unobligated Balance     $    3,452,750  $    3,205,306
         Expired Unobligated Balance              250,272         346,574
            Total                        $    3,703,022  $    3,551,880
Note 30. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period

Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at September 30, 2009 and 2008 are $14.69
billion and $8.43 billion, respectively.
Note 31. Offsetting Receipts

Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt
accounts offset gross outlays.  For FY 2009 and 2008, the following receipts were generated
from these activities:

                                                          FY2009        FY2008
      Trust Fund Recoveries                             $       96,782 $       89,995
      Special Fund Environmental Service                         20,539         22,911
      Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies                             5
      Trust Fund Appropriation                               1,747,911        984,974
      Special Fund Receipt Account and Treasury
        Miscellaneous Receipts and Clearing Accounts       	18,897   	20,549
         Total                                        $    1,884,134 $     1,118,429
Note 32. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position

Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:

For FY 2009 and 2008, the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources on the
Statement of Changes in Net Position are comprised of non-expenditure 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


                                   Section III-Page 48

-------
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 follows
for September 30, 2009 and 2008:

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
 Fund/Type of Account
 U.S. Navy
 Small Business Administration
  Total Appropriation Transfers (Other Funds)
 Net Transfers from Invested Funds
 Transfer to Another Agency
 Allocations Rescinded
  Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
 Budgetary Resources
For FY 2009 and 2008, 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 for September 30, 2009 and 2008:
$
$

$
FY2009
(8,000) $
(2,953)
(10,953)
1,382,030
(10,953)
1,371,077 $
FY2008
(7,875)
(7,875)
1,389,902
(7,875)
5,940
1,387,967
Type of Transfer/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
 Total Transfers in (out)
 without Reimbursement,
 Budgetary
          FY 2009
        FY 2008
                              Earmark
                  Other
                  Funds
Earmark
Other
Funds
$    (57,392)  $     57,392  $    (37,204)  $
                                   1,905
                   37,204
       17,687
    17,056

       53
                                                   (53)
$    (39,705)  $     57,392  $    (18,190)  $
                   37,151
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:

For FY 2009 and 2008, 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
                                  Section III-Page 49

-------
receipt fund for the credit reform funds. The amounts reported on the Statement of Changes in
Net Position are as follows for September 30, 2009 and 2008:

  Type of Transfer/Funds          	FY 2009	 	FY 2008	
                                   Earmark    Other Funds    Earmark    Other Funds
  Transfers-in by allocation transfer
  agency                       $        84  $            -  $          -  $
  Transfers-in property                                   46
  Transfers (out) of prior year
  negative subsidy to be paid
  following year                   	-   	(740)  	-   	28_
  Total Transfers in (out) without
  Reimbursement, Budgetary       $         84  $        (694) $         -  $          28
Note 33. Imputed Financing

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
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 2009 were $197.8 million ($25.1 million from Earmarked funds,
and $172.7 million from Other Funds). For FY 2008, the  estimates were $132.5 million ($20.9
million from Earmarked Funds, and $111.6 million from Other Funds).

SFFAS No. 4, "Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts" and SFFAS No. 30,
"Inter-Entity Cost Implementation," requires Federal agencies to recognize the costs of goods
and services received from other Federal entities that are not fully reimbursed, if material.  EPA
estimates imputed costs for inter-entity transactions that are not at full cost and records imputed
costs and financing for these unreimbursed costs subject to materiality. EPA applies its
Headquarters General and Administrative indirect cost rate to expenses incurred for inter-entity
transactions for which other Federal agencies did not include indirect costs to estimate the
amount of unreimbursed (i.e., imputed) costs. For FY 2009 total imputed costs were $11.7
million ($3.8 million from Earmark funds, and $7.9 million from Other Funds).
                                   Section III-Page 50

-------
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 2009 entries
for Judgment Fund payments totaled $3.7 million (Other Funds).  For FY 2008, entries for
Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.4 million (Other Funds).

The combined total of imputed financing sources for FY 2009 and FY 2008 is $213.3 million
and $132.5 million, respectively.

Note 34. Payroll and Benefits Payable

Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2009 and
2008, consist of the following:
 FY 2009 Payroll & Benefits Payable


 Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
 Withholdings Payable
 Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
 Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
    Total - Current


 FY 2008 Payroll & Benefits Payable
 Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
 Withholdings Payable
 Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
 Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
   Total - Current
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
57,004 $
31,307
3,177
-
91,488 $
46,966 $
30,659
2,670
-
80,295 $
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
-$
-
-
159,129
159,129 $
-$
-
-
152,663
152,663 $
Total
57,004
31,307
3,177
159,129
250,617
46,966
30,659
2,670
152,663
232,958
Note 35. 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.
                                  Section III-Page 51

-------
         Rescissions to General
         Appropriations
         Cancelled General Authority
            Total Other Adjustments
                                           Other Funds
                                             FY2009
   29,551    $
   29,551    $
 Other Funds
   FY2008

      117,284
	5,157
      122,441
Note 36. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position

The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following items:
                                       Earmark Funds    Earmark Funds
                                          FY2009
          Interest on Trust Fund
          Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
          Fines and Penalties Revenue
          Special Receipt Fund Revenue

          Total Nonexchange Revenue  $
364,413  $
               FY2008
176,168 $
169,186
(1,479)
20,538
241,873
170,762
10,442
22,911
       445,988
                                  Section III-Page 52

-------
Note 37. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget
                                                                                               Restated
                                                                              FY 2009         FY 2008
 RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
 Budgetary Resources Obligated
    Obligations Incurred                                                     $  17,311,047    $     9,656,040
    Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries               (847,465)       (1,142,189)
    Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections                                   $  16,463,582    $     8,513,851
    Less: Offsetting Receipts                                                   (1,884,134)       (1,118,429)
     Net Obligations                                                        $  14,579,448    $     7,395,422
 Other Resources
    Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Property                           $         656    $
    Imputed Financing Sources                                                    213,331           132,525
    Income from Other Appropriations                                          	-_    	-_
     Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities                             $     213,987    $       132,525

 Total Resources Used To Finance Activities                                    $  14,793,435    $     7,527,947

 RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
 NOT PART OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS:
    Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated                                  $  (6,440,873)   $       417,645
    Resources that Fund Prior Periods Expenses                                         (381)              (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                                          3,943             3,985
       Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost                                   136,222           133,455
    Resources that Finance Asset Acquistion                                       (138,030)          (98,715)
    Adjustments to Expenditure Transfers
        that Do Not Affect Net Cost                                            	-_    	-_

 Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations       $  (6,439,119)   $       456,348

 Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations                      $   8,354,316    $     7,984,295
                                         Section III-Page 53

-------
                                                                                     Restated
                                                                      FY 2009        FY 2008
 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                                     $      6,461   $        9,807
    Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability                                  83            1,197
    Increase in Unfunded Contingencies                                          4,529              44
    Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense
    Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables                            (337,008)        (176,404)
    Increase in Workers Compensation Costs                                          -            5,641
    Other                                                                 (3,232)    	59_
 Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
  Generate Resources in Future Periods                                    $   (329,167)  $     (159,656)

 Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
    Depreciation and Amortization                                       $     71,550   $       88,586
    Revaluation of Assets and Liabilities
    Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources                                  50,652     	86,321
 Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources       $    122,202   $      174,907

 Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
  Generate Resources in the Current Period                                 $   (206,965)  $	15,251

 Net Cost of Operations                                                $  8,147,351   $    7,999,546
Note 38. Restatements

EPA has discovered two accounting errors that have resulted in material misstatements of EPA's
financial statements issued for the periods from FY 2002 through FY 2008.  As a consequence,
EPA is correcting the errors by restating its consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2008
and its consolidated statements of net cost and net cost by goal for the period ended September
30, 2008. In addition, EPA is reflecting the cumulative effect of the errors attributable to fiscal
years prior to FY 2008 as an adjustment to the beginning balance of cumulative results of
operations in the statement of changes in net position for the period ended September 30, 2008.

The  first error involves "special accounts", EPA is authorized by section 122(b) (3) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to use
funds it collects under this authority to perform site clean-up actions in accordance with
settlement agreement (e.g., consent decrees). EPA is authorized to retain these funds in interest-
earning,  site-specific special accounts, which are subaccounts of the EPA Hazardous Substance
Superfund Trust Fund.

For some site clean-up projects, EPA, at a given point in time, will not have as yet incurred costs
("future costs"), whereas for others it will have already incurred costs ("prior costs"). Before
October  1, 2002, EPA's policy  was to defer revenue recognition for both types of projects until
such time as clean-up costs were actually incurred. Since, for prior cost projects, work is in
progress, the policy of deferring all revenue for these projects was incorrect.
                                     Section III-Page 54

-------
As a remedy, EPA, effective on October 1, 2002, implemented a revised policy for revenue
recognition involving prior cost projects.  For prior-cost projects, EPA's revised policy was to
recognize revenue upon the collection of settlement-related funds. EPA, however, did not
properly implement the revised policy and, as a result, revenue was overstated and cashout
advances for superfund was understated by $95.4 million through September 30, 2008.

After discovering the error, EPA recorded a financial statement adjustment to correct for the
cumulative effect of the error within the FY 2009 financial statements, and management directed
its Regional Offices to make corrections at the detailed transaction level during the first quarter
of FY 2010.

The second error involves judgments entered by courts against private sector companies.
Pursuant to its mission and regulations, EPA pursues litigation against companies that have been
deemed to have polluted or contaminated the environment. When these cases are settled or
decided in the Government's favor, settlement agreements are executed with the offending
companies.  Upon being  notified of a settlement agreement, it is EPA policy to record a
receivable as of the date  of the settlement agreement.

During FY 2009, EPA discovered eight settlement agreements in the total amount of $150.9
million that should have  been recorded as receivables and revenue in FY 2008.  This error has
resulted in an understatement of accounts receivable of $150.9 million; revenue of $43.5 million
and advances from the public of $107.3 million.

After discovering the error, EPA recorded a financial statement adjustment to correct for the
cumulative effect of the error within the FY 2009 financial statements, and management
recorded the account receivable and strengthened its internal controls to require that Regional
Counsels certify that all closed settlements are recorded in appropriate tracking systems.

The effect of the restatement is as follows:
                                   Section III-Page 55

-------



Consolidated Balance Sheet
Accounts Receivable, Net
Total Assets
Cashout Advances, Superfund (see Note 16)
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked
Funds
Total Net Position
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
Earned Revenue
Total Net Cost of Operations
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
Land Preservation & Restoration:
Total Earned Revenue
Net Cost of Operations
Consolidated Totals:
Total Earned Revenue
Net Cost of Operations
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net
Position
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Total:
Beginning Balance
Net Cost of Operations
Ending Balance
Earmarked Funds:
Beginning Balance
Net Cost of Operations
Ending Balance
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned:
Collected
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
FY 2008,
as Previously
Reported

349,739
17,106,998
286,630
1,664,042

6,212,479
15,442,956

634,201
8,041,210


533,884
1,467,332

634,201
8,041,210




6,448,800
(8,041,210)
6,768,245

5,886,227
(1,127,331)
6,212,479



708,430

77,880


Adjustment

150,853
150,853
202,801
202,801

(51,948)
(51,948)

41,664
(41,664)


41,664
(41,664)

41,664
(41,664)




(93,613)
41,664
(51,948)

(93,613)
41,664
(51,948)



(1,836)

1,836

FY 2008,
as Restated

500,592
17,257,851
489,430
1,866,843

6,160,531
15,391,008

675,865
7,999,546


575,548
1,425,668

675,865
7,999,546




6,355,187
(7,999,546)
6,716,297

5,792,614
(1,085,667)
6,160,531



706,594

79,716
Section III-Page 56

-------
Note 39. Amounts Held by Treasury (UNAUDITED)

Amounts held by Treasury for future appropriations consist of amounts held in trusteeship by
Treasury in the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds.

Superfund

Superfund is supported 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,
2009 and 2008. 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.
 SUPERFUND FY 2009
 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
$



$
$
$
$
$




$
- $
-
-
3,277,721
3,277,721 $
$
3,277,721 $
3,277,721 $
- $
-
-
-
-
- $
(7,975)
(7,975)
19,624
159,991
171,640

171,640
171,640
96,782
1,374
98,156
1,747,911
52,064
1,898,131
$



$
$
$
$
$




$
(7,975)
(7,975)
19,624
3,437,712
3,449,361

3,449,361
3,449,361
96,782
1,374
98,156
1,747,911
52,064
1,898,131
$   1,905,845    $   (1,905,845)  $
    1,905,845
$   1.905.845~  $'
(1,905,845)
    (7.714)  $    1.898.131
In FY 2009, the EPA received an appropriation of $1.75 billion 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
                                  Section III-Page 57

-------
have been assigned for use and, therefore, are not available for appropriation. As of September
30, 2009 and 2008, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability to EPA for previously appropriated
funds of $3.28 billion and $2.75 billion, respectively.
                                                    Treasury

                                                         2,894 $
                                                         2,894
                                                        11,533
                                                       164,878
           Combined

                2,894
                2,894
               11,533
            2,914,699
                                  $   2,749,821  $      179,305 $   2,929,126
                                  $   2,749,821  $
                                  $

                                  $
179,305  $  2,929,126
  SUPERFUND FY 2008                EPA
  Undistributed Balances
   Uninvested Fund Balance        $	-_ $
  Total Undisbursed Balance
  Interest Receivable
  Investments, Net                     2,749,821
     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      $
   Transfers from CDC (recovery)   $
     Total Outlays
  Net Income                     $

LUST
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In FY
2009 and 2008, 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.
2,749,821

-
-
-
-
-
1,301,315
-
1,301,315
1,301,315
$
$




$
$
$

$
179,305 $
89,975 $
2,850
92,825
984,974
1 14,340
1,192,139 $
(1,301,315) $
1,905 $
(1,299,410)
(107,271) $
2,929,126
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
1,192,139
_
1,905
1,905
1,194,044
                                  Section III-Page 58

-------
LUST FY 2009
      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
            -  $
      305,445
      305,445 $
$
$'
305,445 $
305,445 $
            -  $
            -  $
      312,577$
      312,577
      312,577 $
                 (10,359) $     (10,359)
                               (10,359)
                                22,838
                             3,399,770
 (10,359)
   22,838
3,094,325
                3,106,804 $   3,412,249
3,106,804 $    3,412,249
3,106,804 $    3,412,249
                 159,719$
                   9,454
                      13
                        169,186
                        124,087
                 293,273 $
                (312,577)$
                (312,577)
                 (19,304) $
                159,719
                  9,454
                     13
                               169,186
                               124,087
               293,273
               293,273
                            Section III-Page 59

-------
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 $
3,126,109 $
154,309 $
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
298,108 $
(105,816) $
(105,816)
192,292 $
(2,497)
(2,497)
28,735
3,211,939
3,238,177
3,238,177
3,238,177
154,309
16,240
213
170,762
127,346
298,108

-
298,108
                        Section III-Page 60

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
                         Required Supplementary Information
                               As of September 30, 2009
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
                                     (Unaudited)
1.  Deferred Maintenance

The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: (1) EPA-Held Equipment,
(2) Contractor-Held Equipment, (3) Land and Buildings, and, (4) Capital Leases. The condition
assessment survey method of measuring deferred maintenance is utilized. The Agency adopts
requirements or standards for acceptable operating condition in conformance with industry
practices. No deferred maintenance was reported for any of the four categories.

2.  Stewardship Land

Stewardship land is acquired as contaminated sites in need of remediation and clean-up; thus the
quality of the land is far-below the standard for usable and manageable land.  Easements on
stewardship lands are in good and usable condition but acquired in order to gain access to
contaminated sites.
                                  Section III-Page 61

-------
                                    Environmental Protection Agency
                                 Required Supplementary Information
                                         As of September 30, 2009
                                           (Dollars in Thousands)
                                                  (Unaudited)

  3.   Supplemental Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
       For the Period Ending September 30, 2009
BUDGETARY RESOURCE                        EPM

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
Permanently not available
Total Budgetary Resources

STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
  Direct
  Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
  Unobligated funds apportioned
  Unobligated balance not available
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                         $2,374,209  $~
                                                      FIFRA
                                                                 LUST
                                                                            S&T
                                                                                       STAG
                                                                                                  OTHER
                                                     TOTAL  |
626,416$
22,107
2,392,079
86,713
1,632
8,879
(114,443)
21,000
60,500
(11,803)
3,093,080 $
2,423,049 $
73,998
2,497,047
387,774
208,259
3,093,080 $
893,902 $
(446,717)
447,185
2,497,047
(2,490,801)
(22,108)
112,811
544,134
878,040
(333,906)
544,134$
2,490,801 $
(116,592)
6,630 $
315

23,713
(1,936)

28,722 $
^^^^^^^^= =
-$
24,560
24,560
4,163
28,723 $
3,659 $
-
3,659
24,560
(24,914)
(316)
-
2,990
2,990

2,990 $
24,914$
(21,778)
7,299 $
1,497
200,000
118
(2)
112,577
321,489 $
^^^^^^^^=
308,295 $
79
308,374
13,114
321,488 $
119,978$
-
119,978
308,374
(98,997)
(1 ,496)
-
327,859
327,859

327,859 $
98,997 $
(116)
226,500 $
8,860
790,051
9,797
(125)
2,849
1,360
26,417
(6,250)
1,053,453 $
822,326 $
6,526
828,852
193,278
37,329
1,059,459 $
473,301 $
(36,499)
436,802
828,852
(869,999)
(8,860)
254
387,049
423,294
(36,245)
387,049 $
869,999 $
(40,552)
1,090,683$
62,560
9,376,464
3,368
(71,453)
(10,000)
10,451,622 $
^^^^^^^^^^= =
9,315,822$
9,315,822
1,135,800
10,451,622 $
6,333,467 $
-
6,333,467
9,315,822
(3,449,797)
(62,560)
-
12,136,932
12,136,932

12,136,932$
3,449,797 $
(3,368)
1,594,352$
124,990
2,517,780
5
507,669
1,377
19,393
19,382
9,975
1,269,453
(4,679)
6,059,697 $
^^^^^^^^^^ !
3,870,780 $
465,612
4,336,392
1,706,700
16,605
6,059,697 $
1,543,787$
(183,030)
1,360,757
4,336,392
(3,735,914)
(124,989)
(20,644)
1,815,602
2,019,275
(203,673)
1,815,602$
3,735,914$
(537,152)
3,551,880
220,329
15,276,374
5
631,378
2,884
29,183
(93,701)
57,392
1,371,077
(32,732)
21,014,069
^^^^^^^^^^^=
16,740,272
570,775
17,311,047
3,440,829
262,193
21,014,069
9,368,094
(666,246)
8,701,848
17,311,047
(10,670,422)
(220,329)
92,421
15,214,565
15,788,389
(573,824)
15,214,565
10,670,422
(719,558)
(1,884,134)
3,136 $    98,881  $   829,447  $    3,446,429 $  3,198,762 $  8,066,730
                                              Section III-Page 62

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
                    Required Supplemental Stewardship Information
                        For the Year Ended September 30, 2009
                                (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 environmental effects on children's health; 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
potential risks of unregulated contaminants in drinking water; the development of recreational
water quality criteria; the health effects of air pollutants such as particulate matter; the protection
of the nation's ecosystems; and the provision of near-term, appropriate, affordable, reliable,
tested, and effective technologies and guidance for potential threats to homeland security. EPA
also supports regulatory decision-making with chemical risk assessments.

For FY 2009, the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities totaled over
$720M. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):

                               FY 2005  FY 2006   FY2007  FY2008  FY2009
      Programmatic Expenses    $628,467  $630,438  $624,088  $597,080  $600,552
      Allocated Expenses         $112,558  $104,167  $100,553  $103,773  $119,630

See Section II of the PAR for more detailed information on the results of the Agency's
investment in research and development. Each of EPA's strategic goals  has a Science and
Research Objective.
                                   Section III-Page 63

-------
INVESTMENT IN THE NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE

The Agency makes significant investments in the nation's drinking water and clean water
infrastructure. The investments are the result of three programs: the Construction Grants
Program which is being phased out and two State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.

Construction Grants Program: During the 1970s and 1980s, the Construction Grants Program
was a source of Federal funds, providing more than $60 billion of direct grants for the
construction of public wastewater treatment projects. These projects, which constituted a
significant contribution to the nation's water infrastructure, included sewage treatment plants,
pumping stations, and collection and intercept sewers, rehabilitation of sewer systems, and the
control of combined sewer overflows. The construction grants led to the improvement of water
quality in thousands of municipalities nationwide.

Congress set 1990 as  the last year that funds would be appropriated for Construction Grants.
Projects funded in 1990 and prior will continue until completion. After 1990, EPA shifted the
focus of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that are provided by State Revolving
Funds.

State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state
revolving funds which state governments use to make loans to individuals, businesses, and
governmental entities for the construction of wastewater and drinking water treatment
infrastructure. When the loans are repaid to the state revolving fund, the collections are used to
finance new loans for new construction projects. The capital is reused by the states and is not
returned to the Federal Government.

The Agency also is appropriated funds to finance the construction of infrastructure outside the
Revolving Funds. These are reported below as Other Infrastructure Grants.

The Agency's expenses related to investments in the nation's Water Infrastructure are outlined
below (dollars in thousands):

                               FY 2005    FY 2006   FY 2007    FY 2008  FY 2009
   Construction Grants             $21,148    $39,193      $9,975   $11,517   $30,950
   Clean Water SRF             $1,127,883$1,339,702  $1,399,616$1,063,825  $835,446
   Safe Drinking Water SRF       $715,060   $910,032    $962,903  $816,038  $906,803
   Other Infrastructure Grants      $385,226   $411,023    $381,481  $388,555  $306,366
   Allocated Expenses             $402,853   $446,113    $443,716  $396,253  $414,249

See the Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water portion in Section II of the PAR for more detailed
information  on the results of the Agency's investment in infrastructure.
                                   Section III-Page 64

-------
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 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007  FY 2008 FY 2009
      Training and Awareness Grants   $46,750  $43,765  $32,845  $30,768  $37,981
      Fellowships                    $10,195  $12,639  $12,185   $9,650   $6,818
      Allocated Expenses             $10,199   $9,320   $7,255   $7,025   $8,924
                                   Section III-Page 65

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency
              Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
                           Balance Sheet for Superfund Trust Fund
                    For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                     (Dollars in Thousands)
                                           (Unaudited)
                                                                FY2009
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
   Fund Balance With Treasury (Note SI)
   Investments
   Accounts Receivable, Net
   Other
Total Intragovernmental

Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
   Total Assets
  62,631
3,457,338
  20,694
  23,100
3,563,763

 748,838
  81,216
     419
                  Restated
                  FY2008
  45,596
2,926,233
   17,832
   21,116
3,010,777

 450,794
  67,541
     751
4,394,236   $
3,529,863
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
   Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
   Custodial Liability
   Other
Total Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
   Total Liabilities

NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position

   Total Liabilities and Net Position
  47,787
     187
  76,051
  124,025

  183,477
   7,829
  572,412
  44,604
  45,353
 977,700   $
3,416,536
3,416,536
   52,639

   50,448
  103,087

  141,049
   7,922
  489,430
  40,902
  44,710
  827,100
2,702,763
2,702,763
4,394,236   $
3,529,863
        The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                       Section III-Page 66

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
             Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
                    Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
                  For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
                                     (Unaudited)

                                                                          Restated
                                                   FY 2009                FY 2008
COSTS

    Gross Costs                              $             1,672,246  $             1,530,979
    Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5)     	130,931   	69,769
     Total Costs                                           1,803,177               1,600,748
     Less:
    Earned Revenue                            	615,577   	543,842

NET COST OF OPERATIONS                     $             1,187,600  $             1,056,906
        The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                  Section III-Page 67

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
            Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
                 For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)
                                       (Unaudited)
Cumulative Results of Operations:

Net Position - Beginning of Period
   Adjustment:
      (b) Correction of Errors
   Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Budgetary Financing Sources:
      Other Adjustments
      Appropriations Used
      Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
      Nonexchange Revenue - Other
      Transfers In/Out
      Trust Fund Appropriations
      Other
      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
                                                                    FY 2009
                                                                  Earmarked
                                                                    Funds
 2,702,763
 2,702,763
   52,065
   (1,479)
  (54,393)
 1,747,911

  130,931
 1,875,035
      (84)
   26,422
   26,338

(1,187,600)

  713,773

 3,416,536
               Restated
               FY 2008
             Earmarked
               Funds
 2,670,425
  (93,613)
 2,576,812
  114,340
   10,441
  (35,246)
  984,974
   19,878
   69,769
 1,164,156



   18,701
   18,701

(1,056,906)

  125,951

 2,702,763
      The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                    Section III-Page 68

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency
              Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
               Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
                   For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)
                                        (Unaudited)
                                                                                         Restated
                                                                     FY 2009             FY 2008
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1:                      $         1,513,176    $        1,245,311

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations                                      118,278             168,480
Budgetary Authority:
   Appropriation                                                            636,392              37,205
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
   Earned:
     Collected                                                             292,403             388,917
     Change in Receivables from Federal Sources                                   1,401              (1,725)
   Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
     Advance Received                                                       12,032              75,873
     Without Advance from Federal Sources                           	4,574      	4,476
      Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections                         310,410             467,541
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual                             1,269,453            1,288,350
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law                                       -              (4,263)
Permanently Not Available                                          	-_    	(54)
Total Budgetary Resources                                        $	3,847,709    $        3,202,570
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
   Direct                                                       $         1,996,048    $       1,425,282
   Reimbursable                                                  	246,297     	264,112
Total Obligations Incurred                                                    2,242,345            1,689,394
Unobligated Balances:
   Apportioned                                                            1,593,443            1,512,670
   Exempt from Apportionment                                      	-     	-
Total Unobligated Balances                                                   1,593,443            1,512,670
Unobligated Balances Not Available                                   	11,921      	506
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (Note S6)                       $	3,847,709    $       3,202,570
        The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                                     Section III-Page 69

-------
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
                              Environmental Protection Agency
               Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
                Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
                    For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                     (Dollars in Thousands)
                                          (Unaudited)

                                                                                             Restated
                                                                        FY 2009              FY 2008
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
   Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1                     $	1,392,311    $      1,361,334
      Adjusted Total                                                         1,392,311           1,361,334
   Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
   Forward, October 1                                                	(112,921)            (110,170)
     Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net                                       1,279,390           1,251,164
Obligations Incurred, Net                                                     2,242,345           1,689,394
Less: Gross Outlays                                                          (1,654,470)           (1,489,936)
Obligated Balance Transferred, Net:
   Actual Transfers, Unpaid Obligations
   Actual Transfers, Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources    	-_    	-_
     Total Unpaid Obligated Balance Transferred, Net
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual                          (118,278)            (168,480)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources            	(5,975)     	(2,752)
     Total, Change in Obligated Balance                                         1,743,012           1,279,390

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
   Unpaid Obligations                                                        1,861,908           1,392,311
   Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources              	(118,896)     	(112,921)
     Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period               $         1,743,012    $      1,279,390
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
   Gross Outlays (Note S6)                                          $          1,654,470    $      1,489,936
   Less: Offsetting Collections (Note S6)                                         (304,434)            (464,790)
   Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts* (Notes S6)                       	(1,244,694)           (1,074,969)
Total, Net Outlays                                                $           105,342    $        (49,823)

*Offsetting receipts line includes the amount in 68X0250 (payment to trust fond) from Treasury
The payment cannot be made directly through the trust fund, but must go through a "pass-through" fund
                                       Section III-Page 70

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
              Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements
                 Related Notes to Superfund Trust Financial Statements
                  For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
                                      (Unaudited)

Note SI. Fund Balance with Treasury for Superfund Trust

Fund Balances with Treasury for the Super Fund as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 is $62.63
million and $45.6 million, respectively. 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 2009        FY 2008
       Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
         Available for Obligation                    $   1,593,443  $     1,512,670
         Unavailable for Obligations                        11,824             463
       Net Receivables from Invested Balances          (3,277,674)      (2,749,821)
       Balances in Treasury Trust Fund                     (7,975)          2,894
       Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed               1,743,013        1,279,390

         Totals                                    $      62,631  $       45,596
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

Cashout Advances 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, 2009 and 2008, cashout advances are $572
million and $489 million as restated, respectively.
                                   Section III-Page 71

-------
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, 2009, the total remaining state credits
have been estimated at $21.9 million. The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2008 was $15.3 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, 2009 and 2008, EPA had 9 outstanding preauthorized mixed
funding agreements with obligations totaling $19.9 million and $25.2 million respectively. 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 2009 and 2008, 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
                                   Section III-Page 72

-------
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 2009
                                                                  FY 2008
   Superfund
   All Others
    Total
Income from
Other
Appropriations
130,931
(130,931)
Expenses from
Other
Appropriations
(130,931) $
130,931

Net
Effect
-
-
- $ - $ -
Income from
Other
Appropriations
69,769
(69,769)
Expenses from
Other
Appropriations
(69,769) $
69,769

Net
Effect
-
-
- $ - $
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund from
the S&T and EPM funds are $234 thousand for FY 2009 and $500 thousand for FY 2008.

Note S6. Reconciliation of the Statement of Budgetary Resources to the President's Budget

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 2009 has not yet been published. We expect it will be
published by March 2010, 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, 2008 are included in EPA's FY 2009 financial statement disclosures.
                                        Budgetary               Offsetting
                              	     Resources    Obligations    Receipts    	Outlays
                                    $    3,202,570      1,689,394     1,074,969 $
              FY 2008
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Rounding Differences*
                                           (570)
(394)
31
                      1,025,146
1,854
Reported in Budget of the U. S. Government   $    3,202,000  S    1,689,000  S  1,075,000 S

    * Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
                                                                             1,027,000
                                    Section III-Page 73

-------
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:

                                                 FY2009   FY 2008
                 Advances                        $14,327      $9,716
                 Expenditure Transfers Payable      $25,189    $26,794
                 Accrued Liabilities                 $2,991      $3,704
                 Expenses                         $29,100    $28,718
                 Transfers                         $54,392    $37,151
                                   Section III-Page 74

-------
Audit Report
      Audit of EPA's
      Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
      Consolidated Financial Statements

      Report No. 10-1-0029
      November 16, 2009

-------
Abbreviations

BPD         Bureau of Public Debt
CTS         Customer Technology Solution
DOJ         Department of Justice
EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFMIA       Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
FMFIA       Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
GAO         Government Accountability Office
IFMS        Integrated Financial Management System
LEO         Legal Enforcement Office
LUST        Leaking Underground Storage Tank
LVFC        Las Vegas Finance Center
MATS       Management Audit Tracking System
OARM       Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCFO       Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OEI         Office of Environmental Information
OIG         Office of Inspector General
OMB        Office of Management and Budget
ORC         Office of Regional Counsel
ORD         Office of Research and Development
RMDS       Resources Management Directive Systems
RPO         Regional Program Office
RSSI         Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
SSC         Superfund State Contract
SFO         Servicing Finance Office
SFFAS       Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
ULO         Unliquidated Obligation
YACT       Year End Closing Table

-------
     £0 SI/,
 \.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General

At  a   Glance
                                                                                          10-1-0029
                                                                                   November 16, 2009
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,
Public Affairs and Management
at (202) 566-2391.

To view the full report, click on the
following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2010/
20091116-10-1-0029.pdf
             Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
             Consolidated Financial Statements
               EPA Receives an Unqualified Opinion
             We rendered an unqualified opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial
             Statements for fiscal 2009 and 2008 (restated), meaning that they were fairly
             presented and free of material misstatement.
             Internal Control Material Weakness, Significant Deficiencies Noted
             We noted the following three material weaknesses:

                 •   EPA understated accounts receivable for fiscal 2008.
                 •   EPA understated unearned revenue.
                 •   Improvement is needed in billing costs and reconciling unearned
                    revenue for Superfund State Contract costs.

             We also noted the following eight significant deficiencies:

                 •   EPA misstated uncollectible debt and other related accounts.
                 •   EPA needs to improve billing and accounting for accounts receivable.
                 •   Headquarters property items were not inventoried.
                 •   EPA should improve its financial statement preparation process.
                 •   Unneeded funds were not deobligated timely.
                 •   Improvement is needed in managing data system's user accounts.
                 •   Las Vegas Finance Center needs improved physical access controls.
                 •   Customer Technology Solutions equipment needs improved planning.
               Noncompliance With Laws and Regulations Noted
             We noted one noncompliance issue, involving EPA's need to continue efforts to
             reconcile intra-governmental transactions.
                                 Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Evaluation
              In a memorandum dated November 12, 2009, from the Chief Financial Officer,
              the Agency recognized the issues raised and indicated it will take corrective
              actions.

-------
           \     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            £                    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
 3          T

 \
                                                                            OFFICE OF
                                                                         INSPECTOR GENERAL
                                   November 16, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
             Consolidated Financial Statements
             Report No. 10-1-0029


FROM:      Paul C. Curtis
             Director, Financial Statement Audits

TO:         Barbara J. Bennett
             Chief Financial Officer

             Craig Hooks
             Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management


Attached is our report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) fiscal 2009 and
2008 (restated) consolidated financial statements. We are reporting three material weaknesses
and eight significant deficiencies. We also identified an instance of noncompliance with laws
and regulations related to reporting intra-governmental transactions.  Attachment 3 contains the
status of recommendations related to the material weaknesses, 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 2009.

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 $2,240,000.

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://www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days of the final report date. The response should address all issues
and recommendations contained in Attachments  1 and 2.  For corrective actions planned but not
completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist us in deciding
whether or not to close this report in our audit tracking system.

Should you or your staff have any  questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 566-2523;
or Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General, Office of Audit, at (202) 566-0899.

Attachments

cc: See Appendix III, Distribution

-------

-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)                                 10-1 -0029
Consolidated Financial Statements
                      Table  of Contents
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2009
and 2008 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements              1

   Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information,
   Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and
   Management's Discussion and Analysis	    2

   Evaluation of Internal Controls	    2

   Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations	    7

   Prior Audit Coverage	    9

   Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation	    9


Attachments	   10

   1.  Internal Control Material Weaknesses and Significant Deficiencies	   10

         EPA Understated Accounts Receivable for Fiscal 2008	   11

         EPA Understated Unearned Revenue	   13

         Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling
         Unearned Revenue for Superfund State Contract Costs	   15

         EPA Misstated Uncollectible Debt and Other Related Accounts	   18

         EPA Needs to Improve Billing and Accounting for Accounts Receivable 	   19

         Headquarters Property Items Not Inventoried	   24

         EPA Should Improve Its Financial Statement Preparation Process	   25

         Unneeded Funds Not Deobligated Timely 	   27

         Integrated Financial Management System User
         Account Management Needs Improvement	   30

         Las Vegas Finance Center Needs Improved Physical Access Controls	   33

         Customer Technology Solutions Equipment Needs
         Improved Security Planning 	   35

-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)                                    10-1 -0029
Consolidated Financial Statements
   2.  Compliance with Laws and Regulations 	   37

          EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intra-governmental Transactions...   38

   3.  Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations	   40

   4.  Status of Current Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits	   42


Appendices	   46

     I.     EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (restated) Consolidated Financial Statements....   46

    II.     Agency's Response to Draft Report	  121

   III.     Distribution	  137

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
  Inspector General's Report on  EPA's  Fiscal 2009 and
  2008 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements


The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, or the Agency) as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 (restated), and the related consolidated
statements of net cost, net cost by goal, changes in net position, and custodial activity; and the
combined statement of budgetary resources for the years then ended.  These financial statements
are the responsibility of EPA's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based upon our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards; the
standards applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended August 25,
2008.  These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free of material mis statements. 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 Agency has restated its financial statements for fiscal 2008 due to material errors in
accounting for accounts receivable and unearned revenue. EPA found that six settlement
agreements totaling $150.9 million should have been recorded as receivables and revenue in
fiscal 2008. EPA also found that a revised fiscal 2003 policy for recognizing revenue was not
properly implemented and led to a cumulative $95.4 million understatement of cashout advances
and overstatement of revenue. As a result, EPA determined that it needed to restate the fiscal
2008 financial statements in order to properly reflect accounts receivable, unearned revenue, and
related accounts. The Agency restated the fiscal 2008 financial statements to reflect an increase
in the net book value of receivables of $150.9 million and unearned revenue of $95.4 million,
and made corresponding adjustments to other related accounts. Due to the material errors found
in accounting for accounts receivable, unearned revenue and other related accounts, our report on
EPA's fiscal 2008 financial statements, issued on November 14, 2008, is not to be relied upon.
That report is replaced by this report on the restated fiscal 2008 financial statements. We
reported the internal control deficiencies that resulted in the material errors as material
weaknesses in the Internal Control section of this report.

The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other federal agencies.
Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. Audits of grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements performed at a later date may disclose questioned costs of
an amount undeterminable at this time. The U.S. Treasury collects and accounts for excise taxes
that are deposited into the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds. The
U.S. Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not needed for current disbursements and
                                          1

-------
                                                                            10-1-0029
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, 2009 and 2008 as restated, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information,
Required Supplementary Information,  Supplemental  Information, and
Management's Discussion and Analysis

We inquired of EPA's management as to its 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  2009 and 2008 (restated), which are being
presented for additional analysis  and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
However, our audit was not designed to express an opinion and, accordingly, we do not express
an opinion on EPA's RSSI, Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information,
and Management's Discussion and Analysis.

We did not identify any material  inconsistencies between the information presented in EPA's
consolidated financial statements and the information presented in EPA's RSSI, Required
Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and Management's Discussion and
Analysis.

Evaluation of Internal Controls

As defined by OMB, internal control, as it relates to the financial statements, is a process,
affected by the Agency's management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the following objectives are met:

      Reliability of financial reporting - Transactions are properly recorded, processed, and
      summarized to permit the preparation of the financial statements  and RSSI in accordance
      with generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss
      from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

      Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and government-wide policies -
      Transactions are executed in accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority,
      government-wide policies, laws identified by OMB, and other laws and regulations that

-------
                                                                                  10-1-0029
       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 as amended August 25, 2008.  We did not test all internal
controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations.
The objective of our audit was not to provide assurance on internal controls and, accordingly, we
do not express an opinion on internal controls.

Our consideration of the internal controls over financial  reporting would not necessarily disclose
all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be  significant deficiencies.
Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a significant
deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects
the Agency's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles  such that there is more than a remote
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. A material weakness is a significant
deficiency,  or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or
detected. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses, or
noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted  certain matters discussed
below involving the internal control and its operation that we consider to be significant
deficiencies, of which three are considered to be material weaknesses.

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, as amended August 25, 2008. Our procedures were not designed to provide
assurance on these internal controls and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such
controls.

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
Material Weaknesses

Material weaknesses noted are summarized below and detailed in Attachment 1.

       EPA Understated Accounts Receivable for Fiscal 2008

       EPA materially understated the fiscal 2008 accounts receivables by not recording
       approximately $151 million in receivables.  EPA's Servicing Finance Office was not
       aware of legal documents supporting six receivables until the end of fiscal 2009.
       Regional Legal Enforcement Offices, Offices of Regional  Counsel, and Regional
       Program Offices did not inform the Servicing Finance Office of the multi-party
       settlements in time to record the receivables in the financial system in fiscal 2008. The
       receivables were related to a bankruptcy settlement in which the responsible party was
       implementing a Plan of Reorganization. EPA policies and procedures require regional
       offices to provide the Servicing Finance Office with  legal documentation supporting
       accounts receivable, and the Servicing Finance Office to routinely communicate with
       regional offices to ensure receivables are recorded timely.  EPA subsequently recorded
       the receivables in the financial system during fiscal 2009.  EPA restated its 2008 financial
       statements to reflect proper balances in fiscal 2008.

       EPA Understated Unearned Revenue

       EPA expended more than $97.7  million in Superfund special accounts against the wrong
       fund code, incorrectly reducing EPA's liability for advances and recognizing revenue not
       earned. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer's (OCFO's) Superfund Special
       Account Guidance ".. .establishes financial management guidance for classifying special
       account proceeds applicable to Superfund Cash-Out  settlements in fund code TR2
       (Non-Federal Special Accounts Unearned Revenue), and Superfund amounts received for
       past cost settlements in fund code TR2B (Special Accounts Earned Revenue)...." EPA
       deposited receipts for past costs  in fund code TR2B but did not reclassify related
       obligations from TR2 to TR2B.  The receipts remained recorded in TR2B, yet EPA
       recorded expenditures against the obligations in fund code TR2, which incorrectly
       reduced liabilities and increased earned revenue.  EPA recorded the adjustment to restate
       fiscal 2007 and prior, and restated the fiscal 2008 financial statements.

       Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling Unearned Revenue for
       Superfund State Contract Costs

       EPA did not properly review the calculations used to reconcile unearned revenue for
       Superfund State Contract costs.  We found numerous errors and omissions on the
       spreadsheets, including what appeared to be unbilled amounts of $3.9 million.
       Subsequently, we determined that data was missing from the calculations which reduced
       the unbilled amount to $877,853. In addition, we found, and EPA has reported to us, that
       the schedules used to compute unearned revenue contained numerous errors and
       omissions in information provided by regional offices.  Cincinnati Finance  Center
       personnel informed us that they  do not perform a review of the schedules; instead, they
       rely on the regional offices to provide accurate information and auditor review. EPA
       could not reconcile the Superfund State Contract unearned revenue to the corresponding
       general ledger account. By not reconciling or reviewing the schedules provided by the
                                           4

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
       regions, there is no assurance of the accuracy of the amounts to bill in these funds. The
       lack of an effective review of the schedules has led to errors and omissions in the
       calculations that directly impact the balance in the Superfund State Contract unearned
       revenue account and the Agency's financial statements.

Significant Deficiencies

Significant deficiencies noted are summarized below and detailed in Attachment 1.

       EPA Misstated Uncollectible Debt and Other Related Accounts

       EPA general ledger account, Expense Uncollectible Debt, Other Finances (Uncollectible
       Debt Expense), was misstated by reflecting a credit balance in the account. Uncollectible
       Debt Expense is a debit balance account. A credit balance in this account indicates there is
       a misstatement. We found that the misstatement occurred because of how accounts
       receivable and its related allowance accounts were moved from expiring Treasury funds to
       current Treasury funds. EPA moved the balances from the expiring funds without properly
       reviewing the entries to ensure that there would not be a net impact on current Treasury
       funds.  As a result, uncollectible expense and accounts related to the postings were
       misstated in EPA's financial statements. After we informed EPA of the incorrect credit
       balance, EPA recorded an adjustment for the amount identified in our review.

       EPA Needs to Improve Billing and Accounting for Accounts Receivable

       EPA understated the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter accrual for federal unbilled accounts
       receivable by $1,237,468, due to its spreadsheet improperly containing credit balances
       because the unbilled calculation included credits for reimbursable expenditures, refunds,
       and billings that should not have been included. Further, we identified errors in EPA's
       accounting and recording for 57 accounts receivables in the financial system that
       occurred because EPA did not consistently follow policies and procedures. Those
       accounting and recording errors affect the reliability and integrity of the financial
       statements and the information used to manage the  receivables.

       Headquarters Property  Items Not Inventoried

       EPA did not  conduct a physical inventory of 1,804  items of accountable personal
       property at EPA Headquarters in fiscal 2009 as required by EPA's Personal Property and
       Procedures Manual. EPA did not inventory all Headquarters accountable property
       because it did not develop procedures to adequately account for the replacement of
       thousands of personal computers resulting from EPA implementing a new desktop
       service provider.  Because EPA did not inventory these 1,804 property items, it was not
       exercising proper control over $6.3 million of accountable personal property, of which
       $2.3 million was capitalized  property.

       EPA Should Improve Its Financial Statement Preparation  Process

       Review of EPA's preparation process for its fiscal 2009 draft financial statements
       disclosed: (a) four out-of-balance adjusting entries, (b) an ineffective review process,
       (c) lack of guidance relating  to general ledgers and normal debit/credit balances of
                                           5

-------
                                                                        10-1-0029
accounts, (d) inconsistent recording of on-top adjustments to the financial statements, and
(e) outdated financial statement preparation and closing entry guidance.  According to
EPA guidance, on-top adjustments are for those journal entries that could not be entered
into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) by the closing of the reporting
period but that should be part of the end-of-period statements. Outdated policies and
chart of accounts caused ineffective preparation of financial support and statements,
which could lead to materially misstated financial statements.

Unneeded Funds Not Deobligated Timely

EPA did not deobligate unneeded funds, totaling $1.9 million, identified during the fiscal
2009 annual review of unliquidated obligations (ULO). Federal and Agency guidance
require ULOs to be reviewed annually, and EPA requires responsible offices to review
inactive ULOs and take appropriate action to deobligate unneeded funds. However, EPA
did not take timely actions to notify the appropriate offices to deobligate the unneeded
funds.  As a result, EPA has no assurance that ULOs  are accurate and represent valid and
viable obligations, and that obligated funds are being used efficiently.

Integrated Financial Management System User Account Management Needs
Improvement

EPA needs to improve internal controls over IFMS users' accounts to: (a) ensure users
cannot process financial transactions that could result in theft of funds, (b) establish user
accounts consistent with the authorizing official's approval, and (c) terminate users'
system access when no longer needed. Federal financial management system
requirements state financial applications must comply with the security standards
published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Those standards
prescribe the mandatory  security controls needed to protect IFMS. The weaknesses noted
occurred because management guidance for these areas is outdated or does not exist.
Further, management had not defined which financial management functions should be
separated,  nor had it performed required reviews to ensure user accounts were established
correctly or deactivated when employees no longer needed them. As a result, users could
(1) potentially process financial transactions and redirect funds to unauthorized bank
accounts, (2) receive access to perform functions that are not authorized by management,
and (3) potentially access the IFMS system after they have departed EPA.

Las Vegas Finance Center Needs Improved Physical Access Controls

The Las Vegas Finance Center's (LVFC's) server room and other key areas are
susceptible to unauthorized access by personnel not a part of LVFC. The LVFC areas are
protected by an access control system. However, the system operator - the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) - does not administer the system in a manner that
allows LVFC to monitor access to its area. In particular, ORD had not obtained
authorization from the LVFC Director to grant access to key areas to non-LVFC
personnel.  ORD also had neither provided the LVFC reports detailing who has access to
their areas nor performed the required semiannual review of access rights required by
ORD procedures.  As a result, ORD granted personnel access to sensitive LVFC areas
without proper authorization.

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
       Customer Technology Solutions Equipment Needs Improved Security Planning

       On November 16, 2009, the OIG issued an audit report noting that EPA lacked a process
       to routinely test Customer Technology Solution equipment for known vulnerabilities and
       to correct identified threats. Further, EPA placed Customer Technology Solution
       equipment into production without assessing the risk the equipment posed upon the
       Agency's network and authorized the equipment for operation. OMB requires federal
       agencies to create a security plan for each general support system and ensure the plan
       complies with guidance issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
       Both performing vulnerability management reviews and preparing critical security
       documents are needed to fulfill this requirement.  The weaknesses noted existed because
       EPA undertook an aggressive schedule to install over 11,500 computers at 18 locations
       across the United States, and management focused attention on problems as they arose
       rather than developing a plan.

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
2009 and should be included in considering EPA's  significant deficiencies for fiscal 2009. We
reported less significant matters regarding internal controls in the form of position papers during
the course of the audit. We will not issue a separate management letter.

Comparison of EPA's FMFIA Report with Our Evaluation of Internal Controls

OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements as amended
August 25, 2008., requires us to compare material weaknesses disclosed during the audit with
those material weaknesses reported in the Agency's FMFIA report that relate to the financial
statements and identify material weaknesses disclosed by the audit that were not reported in  the
Agency's FMFIA report.

For financial statement audit and financial reporting purposes, OMB defines material weaknesses
in internal control as a significant deficiency, or combination of significant  deficiencies, that
result in a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements
will not be prevented or detected.

The Agency reported that no material weaknesses had been found in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting as of June 30, 2009. We identified material weaknesses
with the Agency's reporting of accounts receivable and unearned revenue accruals and earned
revenue.  Details concerning our findings on the material weaknesses and other significant
deficiencies  can be found in Attachment 1.

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

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
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, as amended August 25, 2008.  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.

       EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intra-governmental Transactions

       Our tests of laws and regulations disclosed the following noncompliance issue. As of
       September 30, 2009, EPA reported $183 million in unreconciled differences for intra-
       governmental transactions with 47 trading partners. Of that amount, the Department of
       the Treasury reported $51 million as material differences. The remaining $132 million
       represented amounts reported for non-verifying agencies, accruals, timing differences,
       and immaterial differences.  Based on our review of correspondence with other agencies,
       EPA had difficulty reconciling these differences as required by Treasury policy primarily
       because of differing accounting treatments and accrual methodologies between federal
       agencies. EPA's inability to reconcile its intra-governmental transactions contributes to a
       long-standing, government-wide problem that hinders the ability of the Government
       Accountability Office (GAO) to render an opinion on the Consolidated Financial
       Statements of the Federal Government. Further details on this noncompliance issue are
       in Attachment 2.

       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.  To meet the FFMIA requirement, we
       performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements.  The results of
       our tests did not disclose any instances where the Agency's financial management
       systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA requirements.

We reported other less significant matters involving compliance with laws and regulations in
position papers during the  course of our audit.  We will not be issuing a separate management
letter.

Our audit work was also performed to meet the requirements in Title 42, U.S. Code,  Section
961 l(k), with respect to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to conduct an annual
audit of payments, obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Fund.  The material
weaknesses and significant deficiencies reported above also relate to Superfund.

-------
                                                                            10-1-0029


Prior Audit Coverage

During previous financial or financial-related audits, we reported weaknesses that impacted our
audit objectives in the following areas:

   •   Oversight of Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Payroll reconciliation
   •   Accruals for Federal Unbilled Receivables
   •   Reconciling Superfund State Contract account to subsidiary ledger
   •   ULO review for interagency agreements
   •   Documentation for IFMS Vendor Table changes
   •   Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances
   •   System Implementation Processes
   •   Capitalized Software
   •   Reporting Anti-Deficiency Act violations
   •   Prompt Payment Act violations
   •   Accounts Receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts
   •   Reconciling and reporting intra-governmental transactions, assets, and liabilities by
       federal trading partner
   •   Information Security Requirements on Key Applications
   •   Access  and Security Practices over Information Technology Assets
   •   Controls over IFMS Suspense Table
   •   Assessing automated application processing controls for IFMS
   •   Maintaining adequate documentation for obligation accounting adjustments

Attachment 3, Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations, summarizes the current status of
corrective actions taken on prior audit report recommendations.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

In a memorandum dated November 12, 2009, 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 16,2009

-------
                                                               10-1-0029
                                                            Attachment 1

      Internal Control Material Weaknesses and
                  Significant Deficiencies

                         Table of Contents

 1 - EPA Understated Accounts Receivable for Fiscal 2008	 11
 2 - EPA Understated Unearned Revenue	 13
 3 - Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling
   Unearned Revenue for Superfund State Contact Costs	 15
 4 - EPA Misstated Uncollectible Debt and  Other Related Accounts	 18
 5 - EPA Needs to Improve Billing and Accounting for Accounts Receivable	 19
 6 - Headquarters Property Items Not Inventoried	 24
 7 - EPA Should Improve Its Financial Statement Preparation Process	 25
 8- Unneeded Funds Not Deobligated Timely	 27
 9 - Integrated Financial Management System
   User Account Management Needs Improvement	 30
10 -  Las Vegas Finance Center Needs Improved Physical Access Controls	 33
11 -  Customer Technology Solutions Equipment Needs
    Improved Security Planning	 35
                                 10

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
        1 - EPA Understated Accounts Receivable for Fiscal 2008

EPA materially understated the fiscal 2008 accounts receivables by not recording approximately
$151 million in receivables.  EPA's Servicing Finance Office (SFO) was not aware of legal
documents supporting six receivables until the end of fiscal 2009. Regional Legal Enforcement
Offices (LEOs), Offices of Regional Counsel (ORCs), and Regional Program Offices (RPOs) did
not inform the  SFO of the multi-party settlements in time to record the receivables in the
financial system in fiscal 2008.  The receivables were related to a bankruptcy settlement in which
the responsible party was implementing a Plan of Reorganization. EPA policies and procedures
require regional offices to provide the SFO with legal documentation supporting accounts
receivable, and the SFO to routinely communicate with regional offices to ensure receivables are
recorded timely. EPA subsequently recorded the receivables in the financial system during fiscal
2009.

Statutory Superfund accounts receivable arise when a court enters a judgment or the Agency
enters into settlement agreements pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (known as Superfund).  The SFO received a June 2009
court order involving numerous Superfund sites and multiple settling parties. The SFO recorded
the receivables for this and other related settlements, totaling $297 million, in fiscal 2009.
However, the SFO identified additional settlements related to the responsible party that were
effective in fiscal 2008.  The SFO researched the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
service system and requested a list of related settlements from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The SFO discovered additional receivables for the same settlement totaling $151 million that
should have been recorded during fiscal 2008.

Resources Management Directive Systems (RMDS) 2550D, Chapter 14, requires the ORCs,
RPOs, and LEOs to forward copies of all entered Superfund consent decrees and judgments to
the SFO within 3 working days of receipt from the DOJ or the court. RMDS 2540, Chapter 9,
requires the responsible  EPA office to forward a copy of the action document to the SFO within
5 days of determining the debt owed to the Agency.  EPA's Office of the Comptroller
Transmittal No. 00-05: Reporting and Tracking Superfund Accounts Receivable states SFOs
must maintain routine communications with the ORCs, RPOs, and LEOs to record accounts
receivables timely. The SFO should review all available information sources to identify
potential accounts receivable and work to obtain accounts receivable documentation.

The SFO stated that the  multi-party bankruptcy settlement was not on the DOJ debt assessed
report because DOJ will not record a bankruptcy settlement until it receives a collection on the
settlement. The SFO stated the program office determined the settlements were not in the
Integrated Compliance Information System and recently decided to enter the information to
ensure accurate reporting of settlements for fiscal 2009. One RPO believed the multi-party
settlements did not establish an obligation to pay the Agency. Another regional attorney was
unaware that the office should inform the SFO of settlements. Because the multi-party
settlement was part of a bankruptcy proceeding, some offices were unclear as to when to notify
the SFO - after the settlement or after bankruptcy.
                                          11

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029


ORC, RPOs, and LEOs are required to forward copies of settlement agreements and other source
documentation establishing amounts due to EPA. If the SFO does not receive these documents
timely, the data reflected in the financial system for the fiscal year is inaccurate. EPA offices
should work together to ensure that accounts receivable are properly recorded within the fiscal
year in which they become valid.

The Agency restated its 2008 financial statements to reflect proper balances in fiscal 2008.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial  Officer:

    1.   Develop a process to communicate routinely with the regional offices on a monthly or
       quarterly basis to identify any settlements not recorded on the DOJ debt assessed report
       or recorded within the Integrated Compliance Information  System. Also, work with the
       offices to  agree on  a process that would include forwarding of settlement documents
       within the required time period.

   2.   Re-inform and train LEOs, ORCs, and RPOs on the requirement to timely  send
       settlements to the finance center so the receivables can be recorded. Also work to
       establish and implement a process to ensure that the SFO is aware of settlements by the
       end of the fiscal year to ensure that current year financial statements include accounts
       receivable for the current  year.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with our findings and recommendations.
                                          12

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
                  2 - EPA Understated Unearned  Revenue

EPA expended more than $97.7 million in Superfund special accounts against the wrong fund
code, incorrectly reducing EPA's liability for advances and recognizing revenue not earned.
OCFO's Superfund Special Account Guidance ".. .establishes financial management guidance
for classifying special account proceeds applicable to Superfund Cash-Out settlements in fund
code TR2 (Non-Federal Special Accounts Unearned Revenue), and Superfund amounts received
for past cost settlements in fund code TR2B (Special Accounts Earned Revenue)...." EPA
deposited receipts for past costs in fund code TR2B but did not reclassify related obligations
from TR2 to TR2B.  The receipts remained recorded in TR2B, yet EPA recorded expenditures
against the obligations in fund code TR2, which incorrectly reduced liabilities and increased
earned revenue. EPA recorded the adjustments to restate fiscal 2007 and prior, and restated the
fiscal 2008 financial statements.

During our review of general ledger account 2317 (Advances, HRSTF, Cash-Out settlements,
N/F), we found that 78 special accounts had negative balances in fund code TR2. The negative
balances indicated the Agency overdrew the special  account for those sites for fund code TR2.

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard^o. 1 states: "When advance fees or
payments are received, such as for large scale, long term projects, revenue should not be
recognized until costs are incurred from providing the goods and services .... An increase in
cash and an increase in liabilities, such as 'unearned revenue,' should be recorded when the cash
is received...."

EPA established different reimbursable fund codes to record cash receipts and disbursements
under Special Accounts to comply with the standard and recognize revenue when earned.  OCFO
published Superfund Special Account Guidance, dated July 16, 2002,  to provide "accounting
procedures for recording and tracking special account funds." This guidance established the
scenarios under which to use the two fund codes:

       TR2 Non-Federal Special Accounts Unearned Revenue. Represents amounts
       received under a non-federal Cash-Out settlement (principal only,  excludes late
      payment interest). This pertains to collections related to non-federal settlement
       amounts for costs to be incurred (work to be performed) in the future.

       TR2B Special Accounts Earned Revenue. Represents amounts for Past Cost
       collections, late payment interest collections from PRPs (principal responsible
      parties), and interest revenue earned on special account collections that have not
       been disbursed.  This pertains to collections related to settlement amounts for
       costs previously incurred.

EPA expended more TR2 funds than it received.  EPA moved the collections for the sites from
TR2 to TR2B to record the funds as reimbursement for past costs and recognized earned
revenue.  EPA left the related obligations in TR2 and, when EPA recorded expenditures, they
were against TR2 when the receipts were recorded in TR2B. The result was that revenue was
double counted and unearned revenue understated.
                                          13

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
EPA established the fund codes needed to record the Special Accounts properly in fiscal 2002.
However, it did not have management reports that effectively identified negative balances in the
fund codes. EPA can currently generate Special Account reports by fund code. These reports
are readily assessable, and identify the fund code balances by site. EPA management was not
aware of the negative amounts in the individual funds codes for the sites, since overall site
balances remained positive.

The Special Account Balances by Fund Code Report indicated that EPA expended $97.7 million
more than it collected in fund code TR2 as of September 30, 2009.  EPA should have expended
that amount from fund code TR2B. The net effect at September 30, 2009, was that EPA's
liability for Cash-Out settlements advances remained underreported by $97.7 million.  EPA
overreported earned revenue by that same amount.

We reported our findings to the Agency and the OCFO determined the net effect of the
accounting error. OCFO determined it needed to record a prior period adjustment for fiscal 2007
and restate the fiscal 2008 financial statements to correct the error.  To correct the accounting
error, OCFO recorded an entry increasing EPA's liability for advances by $97,675,708 and
decreasing its earned revenue by that amount.  The Agency recorded the adjustment to restate
fiscal 2007 and prior,  and restated the fiscal 2008 financial statements.  The correction in the
financial statements (all in fund code TR2) was:

 Account  Description                                               Debit        Credit
 2317     ADVANCES, HRSTF CASH-OUT SETTLEMENTSS,N/F                     $97,675,708
 4222     UNFILLED CUSTOMER ORDERS COLL                    $97,675,708
 4252     REIMB EARNED - COLLECTED                                       $97,675,708
 522P     EARNED REVENUE PUBLIC EXCH                        $2,227,678
 7401     SF SPEC ACCT FY08 RESTATEMENT                       $1,835,442
 7400     SF SPEC ACCT PRE FY08 RESTATE                       $93,612,588

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in conjunction with the Regional
Financial Management Offices and the Office of Budget:

   3.  Prepare the accounting entry to account correctly for the special account expenditures at
       the site level.

   4.  Work with Regional Comptrollers to correctly account for the improperly expended
       funds at the site level.

   5.  Develop controls over Special Accounts so that, for each site, the fund codes collected
       are the fund codes spent.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with  our findings and recommendations.
                                          14

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
        3 - Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling
          Unearned Revenue for Superfund State Contract Costs

EPA did not properly review the calculations used to reconcile unearned revenue for Superfund
State Contract (SSC) costs. We found numerous errors and omissions on the spreadsheets,
including what appeared to be unbilled amounts of $3.9 million. Subsequently, we determined
that data was missing from the calculations that reduced the unbilled amount.  In addition, we
found, and EPA has reported to us, that the schedules used to compute unearned revenue
contained numerous errors and omissions in information provided by regional offices.
Cincinnati Finance Center personnel informed us that they do not perform a review of the
schedules; instead, they rely on the regional offices to provide accurate information and auditor
review.  EPA could not reconcile the SSC unearned revenue to the corresponding general ledger
account. By not reconciling or reviewing the schedules provided by the regions, there is no
assurance of the accuracy of the amounts to bill in these funds.  The lack of an effective review
of the schedules has led to errors and omissions in the calculations that directly impact the
balance in the SSC unearned revenue account and the Agency's financial statements.

SSC Accrual Calculation Contained Numerous Errors and Omissions

Based on our review of the fiscal 2009 third and fourth quarter SSC accrual calculations, we
found that sites were excluded from the calculation, EPA used incorrect State  cost share
percentages, billings were not correctly entered, site were incorrectly classified as closed, and
credits were improperly stated. Our test work identified the following 13 errors and omissions,
totaling $5,053,298 out of $16,671,052 tested:

   •   One site totaling $40,000 was not included in the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter accrual
       calculation.
   •   For nine sites, a total of $733,027 in State  credits was recorded as amounts to bill.
   •   For one site, $293,133 of amounts billed was not included in the calculation.
   •   For one site, $3.6 million of State credits were not included in the calculation.
   •   For one site, data in the accrual calculation did not reconcile to the general ledger account
       for unearned revenue for SSCs by $376,587.

The Cincinnati Finance Center responded that the regions were responsible for new sites and
other data included in the calculations. They were not aware of why sites were not included or
of the errors in the calculations. Our inquiries of several regional financial management offices
regarding the calculations  showed that the calculations included various errors, omissions, and
misstatements. These included credits where there should be none, inclusion of closed sites,
misstatement of data, closed site accruals, over/under statement of costs, inaccurate billable
amounts, billing caps not considered, incorrect percentages, and missing credits. We found
$3.9 million listed as unbilled but subsequently was determined to be offset by credits that were
erroneously omitted from the calculations.  We found $887,583 where costs incurred exceeded
prior billings and therefore should be billed.  The consistency of errors and omissions found in
the 79 out of 478 sites examined indicates that there could be significant undetected errors and
omissions in the remaining sites.
                                          15

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
SSC Costs Not Properly Billed

According to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 35, Subpart O, SSC sites remain valid
until EPA and the State have satisfied the cost share requirement. The State share is a guarantee
payment from the State based on a percentage of the site costs incurred by EPA.  An SSC site is
closed when all SSC collections and expenditures have been made.  It is the EPA regions'
responsibility to verify the data used to calculate the States share of costs, funds collected, and
costs expended before classifying a SSC site as closed.

We reviewed the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter SSC calculations for closed sites and discovered that
the SSC billings and disbursements did not agree to the State share amount.  For closed sites, the
disbursements, billings, and State share should agree without exception. Region 3, 4, 5, and 7
did not correctly bill $887,583 on 19  closed sites.

SSC Unearned  Revenues Need  to Be Reconciled

According to the Chief Financial Officers Act, an agency must have a financial management
system that provides complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information.

EPA recorded about 37 transactions in non-SSC funds between February 1986 and October 1999
that should have been moved to the current SSC expenditure funds in general ledger account
2312 (Unearned Advances, Non-Federal). By not reconciling, there is no assurance of the
accuracy of the amounts to bill in these funds or the SSC unearned revenue account, which
totaled approximately $45 million as  of September 30, 2009. Because the SSC spreadsheet
cannot be reconciled to the general ledger 2312, we examined the older activity in the account.
We identified $6.8 million in general ledger account 2312 that represents prior fiscal year SSC
fund transactions. We provided the Agency with a listing of prior year transactions that we
believe may include invalid transactions, such as billings not collected, disbursements not billed,
unsupported journal voucher entries,  duplicate collections, and non-related SSC activity.

According to EPA guidance, Superfund State Contact Spreadsheet Purpose and Column
Descriptions, Headquarters should use the calculated unearned revenue from the SSC
spreadsheet for assessing whether on-top adjustments  or further analysis of general ledger
account 2312 is needed. However, since it is not known if the amount in the SSC spreadsheet or
the amount in the  general ledger account is correct, no on-tops have been made for general
ledger account 2312 for SSC-related  activity.  To comply with the Chief Financial Officers Act,
EPA must ensure  that its financial accounting system has complete and reliable information.
                                           16

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029


Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

    6.  Direct the Superfund regional offices to verify that closed sites identified in the SSC
       spreadsheet meet the closed site criteria and the SSC site billings and disbursements data
       in the SSC spreadsheet are accurate.

    7.  Have its Office of Financial Policy and Planning Staff work with regional comptrollers
       and Superfund program personnel to research transactions in older funds and eliminate
       invalid transactions.

    8.  Establish a review process for reconciling Superfund site costs to ensure that data and
       calculations used are consistent and properly supported.

    9.  Direct the regional offices to bill the States for costs incurred where necessary, including
       the $887,583 amount identified.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
                                           17

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
   4 - EPA Misstated Uncollectible Debt and Other Related Accounts

EPA's general ledger (GL) account, Expense Uncollectible Debt, Other Finances (Uncollectible
Debt Expense), was misstated by reflecting a credit balance in the account. Uncollectible Debt
Expense is a debit balance account.  A credit balance in this account indicates there is a
misstatement. We found that the mis statement occurred because of how accounts receivable and
its related allowance accounts were moved from expiring Treasury funds to current Treasury
funds.  EPA moved the balances from the expiring funds without properly reviewing the entries to
ensure that there would not be a net impact on current treasury funds. As a result, uncollectible
expense and accounts related to the postings were misstated in EPA's financial  statements. After
we informed EPA of the incorrect credit balance, EPA recorded an adjustment for the amount
identified in our review.

EPA uses standard vouchers to record accounting events that occur on a recurring basis and have
predetermined debit(s) and credit(s) in accordance with EPA Comptroller Policy 93-02, Policies
for Documenting Agency Financial Transactions. The Standard General Ledger and Treasury
Account require expense accounts to have a debit balance.

EPA recorded several transactions resulting in a $5.8 million credit balance in Uncollectible
Debt Expense. The entries incorrectly reduced EPA's general ledger accounts Uncollectible
Debt Expense and 2980 (Custodial Liability). EPA recorded these entries because in its year-end
closing instructions the Office of Financial Management required the SFOs to move accounts
receivable and related allowance for doubtful accounts in expiring funds to fund 3200
(Collection of Receivable from  Cancelled Account).  In doing so, the entries caused an incorrect
credit balance in the general ledger account Uncollectible Debt Expense.

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.  If EPA had properly
reviewed the  account for the effect of the adjusting entries, then EPA could have noticed the net
impact on current treasury funds.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

   10.  Create a receivable billing document matrix to reflect a proper accounting model to
       record standard voucher adjustments and the movement of accounts from expiring or
       cancelled appropriations. Also, review the net impact of adjusting entries prior to issuing
       an accounting model to ensure account balances are proper.

   11.  Review its accounting model provided to SFOs for net impact to expenses and revenues
       from prior periods to ensure that financial  statements are  not misstated.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with our findings and recommendations.
                                          18

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
           5 - EPA Needs to Improve Billing and Accounting for
                               Accounts Receivable

EPA understated the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter accrual for federal unbilled accounts receivable
by $1,237,468, due to its spreadsheet improperly containing credit balances because the unbilled
calculation included credits for reimbursable expenditures, refunds, and billings that should not
have been included. Further, we identified errors in EPA's accounting and recording for 57
accounts receivables in the financial system that occurred because EPA did not consistently
follow policies and procedures.  Those accounting and recording errors affect the reliability and
integrity of the financial statements and the information used to manage the receivables.

Federal Unbilled Accounts Receivable Understated

EPA understated the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter accrual for federal unbilled accounts receivable.
EPA's unbilled accounts receivable spreadsheet for the quarter improperly contained $1,237,468
in credit balances because the unbilled calculation included unjustified credits for reimbursable
expenditures, refunds, and billings; and EPA did not thoroughly review the calculation. OMB
Circular A-127, Policies and Standards for Financial Management Systems, requires federal
financial management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent, timely, and useful
financial management information. The credit balances led to a $1,237,468 understatement of
the unbilled accounts receivable and related revenue in the financial statements.

EPA quarterly calculates federal unbilled accounts receivable and the related revenue. The
unbilled accounts receivable consists of reimbursable expenditures EPA has incurred but has not
yet billed to other agencies for services performed under reimbursable interagency agreements.
The unbilled accounts receivable are assets that should carry a normal debit balance; there should
not be credit balances in the calculation. The credits offset debit entries and reduce the normal
debit balance in unbilled accounts receivable.

The following problems led to the inaccuracy of the fourth quarter accrual calculation:

   •  EPA charged reimbursable expenses against expired and/or deobligated prior year funds;
      EPA is unable to bill and collect these costs from other federal agencies.
   •  Unprocessed refunds are due to other federal agencies.
   •  Billings greater than incurred expenses.

Had EPA properly reviewed the unbilled accounts receivable, it could have identified,
researched, and resolved the credit balances within the calculation before  entry of the fourth
quarter data into IFMS.

Errors  Identified in Accounting for Accounts Receivables

We identified errors in EPA's accounting and recording for 57 accounts receivables in the
financial system. Errors included (a) untimely recording of receivables, (b) incorrectly recording
federal receipts, (c) improperly recording interest on debts assessed, (d) incorrectly calculating
the allowance for doubtful accounts, (e) inadequate pursuit of collection efforts, and (f) improper
                                           19

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
reporting of status codes.  These errors occurred because EPA did not consistently follow
policies and procedures. Federal accounting standards and EPA policies require finance offices
to accurately and timely record transactions, communicate with regional offices, and monitor
debt.  The errors noted affect the reliability and integrity of accounts receivable on the financial
statements and the information used to manage these receivables.

Receivables generally reflect the billing of responsible parties who owe EPA money for
Superfund clean-ups or for goods and services provided. GAO's Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government require accurate and timely recording of transactions and events.
EPA's Office of the Comptroller Transmittal No. 00-05: Reporting and Tracking Superfund
Accounts Receivable, requires SFOs to maintain routine communications with the RPO, ORC,
and Regional LEO to ensure that accounts receivable can be recorded as early as possible.  We
identified the following errors.

   •   ORCs, RPOs, and LEOs did not forward to the EPA Finance Office legal documents and
       supporting documentation for 35 receivables, totaling $42,754,197, within the timeframes
       stated in EPA's guidance. EPA's RMDS 2550D, Chapter  14, requires the ORCs, RPOs,
       and LEOs to forward to the SFO copies of all entered Superfund consent decrees and
       judgments within 3 working days of receipt from the DOJ  or the court. RMDS 2540,
       Chapter 9, requires the responsible EPA office to forward a copy of the action document
       for non-Superfund receivables to the SFO within 5 days of determining the debt owed to
       the Agency. As noted, SFOs must maintain routine communications with the ORCs,
       RPOs, and LEOs to record accounts receivables timely.  The SFO should review all
       available information sources to identify potential accounts receivable and be more
       proactive in efforts to obtain accounts receivable documentation. Untimely receipt of
       accounts receivable source documentation delays recording of accounts receivable in the
       financial management system and understates those receivables.  EPA subsequently
       recorded the receivables in the financial system during fiscal 2009.

   •   EPA did not adequately pursue collection efforts for two accounts receivables with a
       combined outstanding balance of $6,451.  The debts, which had no documented
       collection efforts since 2007, have been outstanding for  1,993 to 2,974 days. The debts
       were coded as "delinquent - in dunning cycle." The receivable file folders did not
       contain any dunning notices.  RMDS 2550D-14, Chapter 14, states that the SFO should
       monitor the status of delinquent debts and adjust the overdue status code accordingly as
       status changes. RMDS 2540, Chapter 9, states that 30 days following the last demand
       letter the finance center "must review the debt to determine whether every reasonable
       effort has been used to collect it." If deemed uncollectible, the SFO should send the debt
       to the Department of the Treasury for collection or to the EPA Claims Officer for write-
       off. If EPA increased its review of older debts for collection, the financial statements
       would accurately reflect the general ledger accounts for the allowance for doubtful
       account and write-offs.  Promptly writing off uncollectable accounts reduces
       administrative monitoring costs.

   •   EPA did not correctly record a federal accounts receivable and related interest for a
       Superfund site.  In June 2009, the regional office notified EPA that settling federal agencies
                                           20

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
   were required to pay EPA $4,865,424, but EPA recorded the amount in the financial system
   as a non-federal receivable. EPA explained that the consent decree was complex and
   included multiple responsible parties, and the amount due to EPA and individual responsible
   parties was unclear.  Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 1
   requires separate accounting and reporting for federal and non-federal receivables.  GAO's
   standards require accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. Classifying a
   federal receivable and interest as non-federal misstates related accounts receivable and
   interest and revenue, and improperly reflects interest due from the responsible parties.  EPA
   subsequently corrected these errors during fiscal 2009.

•  EPA did not correctly record the interest for four accounts receivable totaling $655,016
   included on the DOJ Debt Assessed Report.  GAO's standards require accurate and
   timely recording of transactions and events. RMDS 2540, Chapter 9, requires the
   financial system to determine the interest rate and interest days, and calculate simple
   interest on the outstanding balance.  EPA did not properly reconcile accounts receivables
   on the debt-assessed report to receivables recorded in the financial system to ensure all
   debts (e.g., principal, interest) were recorded in the correct general ledger accounts in the
   financial system.  EPA misclassified interest as principal. As a result, EPA will
   improperly charge excess interest to the responsible parties.  Charging excess interest is a
   violation of the regulation, which stipulates that only simple interest will accrue on
   principal balances.

•  EPA incorrectly calculated the allowance for doubtful accounts for two quarters. The
   calculations contained errors for 12 accounts receivables. EPA calculated the allowance
   for doubtful accounts on each of these receivables using individual lines of accounting
   and differing methods versus using one method for the entire receivable balance. In
   doing so, EPA overstated the  allowance for these receivables by $14,761. EPA should
   use one calculation method per receivable balance to estimate a receivable's
   collectability. RMDS 2540-09-T1 states that each SFO must make a determination of
   what method or methods it will use at the beginning of each fiscal year.  In addition, it
   should document in writing the specific methodology used to determine the allowance for
   doubtful accounts. SFFAS No.  1 states: "... allowances for receivables should be viewed
   in the context of the overall risk of the receivables being assessed."  EPA said the
   accounts receivable with multiple fund codes show up as separate lines in the financial
   system and did not realize the two lines of coding were for one receivable. EPA used the
   percentage analysis method for balances less than $20,000 rather than applying the
   specific identification method to the total receivable balance. Calculating the allowance
   for the receivables using both methods within each receivable led to an overstatement of
   the allowance for doubtful accounts and corresponding understatement in net receivables
   on the financial statements. After we informed EPA of the  error, EPA adjusted the
   allowance amounts by the differences identified in our review.

•  EPA incorrectly reported the status codes for three accounts receivables in the financial
   management system. The status codes recorded in the financial system placed collection
   responsibility on EPA, while supporting documentation in the receivable files indicated
   EPA had turned the debts over to DOJ for collection or write-off.  EPA incorrectly
                                        21

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
       recorded two receivables with the status code '01" for "Non-Delinquent - Due > 1 Year."
       The file indicated that, in both cases, EPA carries a lien on the property.  The liens
       provide EPA with the right to collect the proceeds of the sale of the properties.  We
       believe status code "19" for "Uncollectible with Liens" would be more applicable to
       these receivables. EPA recorded the third remaining receivable with a status code "96"
       for "Debt Referred to EPA Claims Officer (less than $100,000)." The amount of the debt
       was $118,341, which is greater than the limit for the status code.  We believe status code
       "14" for "Debts Sent to DOJ for Compromise or Write-Off would be more applicable to
       this receivable.  RMDS 2550D, Chapter 14, states that the finance center should monitor
       the status of delinquent debt and adjust the overdue status code for each accounts
       receivable as status changes.  The guidance further states SFOs should refer to DOJ for
       collection statutory Superfund accounts receivables arising under judicial or
       administrative orders.  Accurate status codes give EPA management an accurate picture
       of delinquent accounts receivables.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

   12.  Research and resolve the $1,237,468 of unbilled accounts receivable credit balances to
       ensure the accuracy of future quarterly unbilled accounts receivable before they are
       entered into IFMS.

   13.  Work with other federal agencies to resolve each credit balance to ensure the exclusion of
       credit amounts from future unbilled accounts receivable calculations.

   14.  Work with RPOs, ORCs, and LEOs to obtain legal documentation sooner so receivables
       are recorded timely. Institute a process to review DOJ tracking mechanisms for the status
       of consent decrees and judgments.

   15.  Establish a supervisory review process to ensure procedures are being followed, and
       interest and federal  receivables are properly recorded.

   16.  Establish a process to review the allowance calculation for errors, including proper
       application of calculation methods.

   17.  Develop a process to review and update receivable status code updates in the financial
       system quarterly.

Agency Comments and OIG  Evaluation

OCFO did not agree with our recommendation to research and resolve the $1,237,468 of unbilled
accounts receivable credit balances before they are entered into IFMS or to work with other
agencies to resolve credit balances. OCFO believes there are valid reasons why  the credits that
are left the report should be included in the overall calculation.  OCFO did not provide any valid
reasons to support why  credit balances should be in the report. We still believe the credits need
                                           22

-------
                                                                                10-1-0029
to be researched to determine the nature of the credits. They should have no impact on the
accrual. Working with other agencies on these matters could help the Agency address intra-
governmental reconciling differences.  OCFO generally agreed with our other findings and
recommendations.
                                           23

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
             6 - Headquarters Property Items Not Inventoried

EPA did not conduct a physical inventory of 1,804 items of accountable personal property at
EPA Headquarters in fiscal 2009 as required by EPA's Personal Property and Procedures
Manual. EPA did not inventory all Headquarters accountable property because it did not
develop procedures to adequately account for the replacement of thousands of personal
computers resulting from EPA implementing a new desktop service provider. Because EPA did
not inventory these 1,804 property items, it was not exercising proper control over $6.3 million
of accountable personal property, of which $2.3 million was capitalized property.

During fiscal 2009, EPA began using a new Working Capital Fund service - Computer
Technology Solutions (CIS) - to provide and coordinate all information technology end user
support and services for Headquarters program offices.  Under CIS, the Agency is replacing
thousands of computers, including periphery items, for EPA's Headquarters program offices and
their sites located across the country. The CTS contract required this replacement to take place
during fiscal 2009.  The CTS rapid replacement of computers heavily impacted the Headquarters
Accountability Area and out-paced EPA's efforts to adequately update Agency property records.

The Facilities Management Services Division is responsible for administering the EPA Personal
Property Management Program. EPA's Personal Property and Procedures Manual, Section
3.7.7, states that physical inventories of accountable personal property must be completed
annually. EPA defines accountable personal property "as non-expendable personal property with
an acquisition cost of $5,000 or greater, EPA-leased personal property, or property identified as a
sensitive item."  The fiscal 2009 Headquarters Annual Physical Inventory Certification showed
7,973 accountable personal property items.  However, only 6,169 of the items were inventoried,
leaving 1,804 not inventoried.  The acquisition cost of the  1,804 items not inventoried was about
$6.3  million, with capitalized items accounting for $2.3 million of the total. EPA's not
conducting inventories of this large number of items compromised its property control system
and can lead to the loss or misappropriation of Agency assets.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources
Management:

   18.  Require the Director, Facilities Management and Services Division, to promptly conduct
       an inventory of the 1,804 Headquarters Accountable Property items not inventoried in
       fiscal 2009.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with our findings and recommendation.
                                          24

-------
                                                                                10-1-0029


 7 - EPA Should Improve Its Financial Statement Preparation Process

Review of EPA's preparation process for its fiscal 2009 draft financial statements disclosed:

    •   Four out-of-balance adjusting entries.
    •   An ineffective review process.
    •   Lack of guidance relating to general ledgers and normal debit/credit balances of
        accounts.
    •   Inconsistent recording of on-top adjustments to the financial statements.
    •   Outdated financial statement preparation and closing entry guidance.

According to EPA guidance, on-top  adjustments are for those journal entries that could not be
entered into IFMS by the closing of the reporting period but that should be part of the end-of-
period statements.  Statement adjustments must be made as needed.  Outdated policies and chart
of accounts caused ineffective preparation of financial support and statements, which could lead
to materially misstated financial statements.

EPA Comptroller Policy 93-02, Policies for Documenting Agency Financial Transactions states
"entries must be self-balancing by fiscal year and appropriation." EPA Comptroller Policy
03-11, Preparing EPA 's Interim and Annual Audited Financial Statements states "The OCFO
primary responsibility in preparing the financial statements is to coordinate,  establish, and
maintain policies and procedures for accounting and related reporting essential to the financial
integrity and efficient management of the Agency, and establish, maintain, and monitor EPA
financial controls."

During our analysis of the fourth quarter on-top adjustments, we identified four one-sided on-top
adjustments. The on-top adjustments should have equal debits and credit balances within the
respective funds. In the case of the four one-sided on-top adjustments, they either have a debit or
credit balance because the Agency posted the corresponding entry to a different fund. The
Agency reviewed and approved these entries. The entries were:
Entry
82
83
88
89
Fund
8153
8196
8145
8195
Description
To consolidate balances
LUST from BPD.
To consolidate balances
LUST from BPD.
To consolidate balances
for Superfund from BPD.
To consolidate balances
for Superfund from BPD.
Debits
$3,583,728,202
$200,000,000
$4,780,855,901
$600,000,000
Credits
($3,597,428,202)
($186,300,000)
($4,809,855,901)
$571,000,000
Difference
($13,700,000)
$13,700,000
($29,000,000)
$29,000,000
Fund Description: 8153:  Leaking Underground Storage Tank
               8196:  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Leaking Underground Storage Tank
               8145:  Superfund
               8195:  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-Superfund
Abbreviations:   BPD:  Bureau of Public Debt
               LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Source: Fourth quarter On-top Adjustment Spreadsheet prepared by the Agency.
                                           25

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
In the review of the Agency's Financial Statement Preparation Guide, the fiscal 2008 closing
entries, and the fiscal 2009 general ledger accounts, we found that:

    •  The guide does not explain changing on-top entries into journal vouchers and/or standard
       vouchers.
    •  The Year End Closing Table (YACT) referred to in the guide needs to be updated for
       new accounts and for the year end closing process.  For example, in fiscal 2008, general
       ledger account 4165 (Allocation of Authority - Anticipated) incorrectly closed to
       account 4201 (Total Actual Resources) instead of account 4450 (Authority Available for
       Apportionment), according to the YACT table.
    •  The general  ledger matrix on the EPA OCFO Intranet Website has not been updated
       since 2005.  Since 2005, EPA has created additional general ledger accounts that do not
       have guidance on what are "normal" (i.e., debit/credit) general ledger balances, and the
       Agency no longer documents when  general ledgers are not used.

Creating one-sided adjustments and having an ineffective review process and outdated policies
and procedures could lead EPA to prepare materially misstated financial statements.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

   19.  Implement an effective review process for all on-top adjustments to ensure that individual
       entries within funds will balance (debits/credits) properly.

   20.  Update the Financial Statement Preparation Guide to contain guidance or instructions
       for changing on-top adjustments to either journal vouchers and/or standard vouchers.

   21.  Update the YACT and the general ledger matrix to identify current fiscal year general
       ledger accounts and their related closing activity.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO did not agree with our finding regarding one-sided on-top adjustments. OCFO believes
the on-top adjustments are clearly labeled and there was no  negative impact on the financial
statements. We agree that the end result of the multiple one-sided entries did not negatively
impact the financial  statements. However, we do not believe it is good practice to prepare and
enter one-sided entries at any time in the financial statement preparation process. Entries to any
set of accounts or fund should balance at all times in conformity with the basics of double-entry
bookkeeping. OCFO generally agreed with our remaining findings and recommendations.
                                          26

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
                8 - Unneeded Funds Not Deobligated Timely

EPA did not deobligate unneeded funds, totaling $1.9 million identified during the fiscal 2009
annual review of unliquidated obligations (ULOs).  Federal and Agency guidance require ULOs
to be reviewed annually, and EPA requires responsible offices to review inactive ULOs and take
appropriate action to deobligate unneeded funds.  However, EPA did not take timely actions to
notify appropriate offices to deobligate unneeded funds. As a result, EPA has no assurance that
ULOs are accurate and represent valid and viable obligations and that obligated funds are being
used efficiently.

GAO's Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, Title 7, Chapter 3,
requires each agency to review its ULOs 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
ULOs to ensure that all recorded obligations are still valid and viable. 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 a means to meet the need.

EPA's Procedures and Technical Guidance for FY 2009 Unliquidated Obligations Review
names the responsible officials for reviewing inactive obligations. All responsible officials must
certify that their office/region completed their inactive obligations review and took the necessary
actions to deobligate the funds. Two certifications are required - the FMFIA Assurance Letter
(due August 14, 2009) and the Review of Unliquidated Obligations Year-end Certification (due
October 9, 2009).  The Assurance Letter must include certification that the review of assigned
unliquidated obligations  has been completed and the necessary action taken to deobligate
unneeded funds. The year-end certification certifies that each office has deobligated unneeded
funds.

We found that the Agency identified unneeded funds, totaling $1.9 million, during the fiscal
2009 annual ULO review, which remained open as of September 30, 2009. Specifically:

   •   During our analysis of the Agency's ULO certifications, we found that several regions
       and Headquarters' program offices identified inactive ULOs for deobligation totaling
       $1.7 million. However, timely action was not taken to deobligate the funds before the
       October 9, 2009 certification.
                                           27

-------
                                                                           10-1-0029


Year-end
Certifications











Allowance Holder and
Responsible Planning
and Implementation
Office Certifications
Total
Region/Program Offices

• Regions 1
• Region 5
• Region 7
• Region 8
• Region 10
• Office of International Affairs
• Office of the Chief Financial Officer
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances
• Office of Water
• Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
• Region 6
• Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances
• Office of Research and Development

No. of
Offices
11












3




Funds for
Deobligation
$1,509,366












$245,934



$1,755,300
Source: OIG analysis.

•  In July 2008, the Office of Air and Radiation's Stratospheric Protection Division, in the
   Office of Atmospheric Programs, identified $58,414 in miscellaneous unneeded funds for
   deobligation. However, the Office of Air and Radiation did not inform the Office of
   Administration and Resources Management (OARM) to take necessary action to
   deobligate the unneeded funds. The Stratospheric Protection Division acknowledged in
   July 2008 that the funds were old but did not expressly authorize OARM to deobligate
   the funds. After inquiries by the OIG regarding these unneeded funds, the Stratospheric
   Protection Division identified an additional $32,877 in unneeded Miscellaneous and
   Contract funds for deobligation.  On October 14, 2009, the Stratospheric Protection
   Division formally notified OARM to take the necessary actions to deobligate the
   unneeded funds, totaling $91,291.

•  The Office of Environmental Information had not reviewed 29 inactive Miscellaneous
   Obligations assigned to Headquarters' Allowance Holder 55, totaling $86,250, because it
   was not aware that these obligations had become its responsibility.  OARM was initially
   responsible for reviewing these ULOs before Allowance Holder 55  was eliminated in the
   departmental reorganization 10 years ago.  As part of the reorganization, the Office of
   Environmental Information was established and assigned responsibility for the remaining
   Miscellaneous Obligations under Allowance Holder 55. Office of Environmental
   Information personnel stated they were unaware of the transfer of responsibility for
   reviewing these ULOs until the OIG brought it to their attention.  On October 23, 2009,
   the Office of Environmental Information formally requested  OARM to deobligate these
   funds.
                                       28

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029


   •   In June 2009, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances' Office of
       Pesticides Program identified $4,434 in unneeded miscellaneous ULOs, and requested
       that an OARM Contracting Officer authorize deobligation of these funds.  The
       Contracting Officer did not respond timely to the Office of Pesticides Program's request.
       However, after the OIG's inquiry, the Contracting Officer responded on October 20,
       2009, and authorized the Office of Pesticides Program to deobligate the funds.

By not taking timely and appropriate action to deobligate unneeded funds, EPA has no assurance
that the ULOs are accurate and represent valid and viable  obligations affecting the financial
statements. Further, inadequate ULO reviews could affect the financial statements by not
identifying unneeded funds that should be deobligated.  The deobligation of these funds would
allow for more effective utilization of resources for other environmental purposes.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of Chief Financial Officer:

  22.  Have the appropriate EPA Finance Center deobligate or confirm the deobligation of
       unneeded funds identified during the fiscal 2009 ULO review.

  23.  Have the Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, follow-up with the appropriate EPA
       Finance Center to confirm the amount of funds to be deobligated before yearend.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with our findings and  recommendations.
                                          29

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
                9 - Integrated Financial Management System
              User Account Management Needs Improvement

EPA needs to improve internal controls over IFMS users' accounts to:

   •   Ensure users cannot process financial transactions that could result in theft of funds,
   •   Establish user accounts consistent with the authorizing official's approval, and
   •   Terminate users' system access when no longer needed.

Federal financial management system requirements state financial applications must comply with
the security standards published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Those
standards prescribe the mandatory security controls needed to protect IFMS. The weaknesses
noted occurred because management guidance for these areas is outdated or does not exist.
Further, management had not defined which financial management functions should be
separated, nor had it performed required reviews to ensure user accounts were established
correctly or deactivated when employees no longer need them. As a result, users could
(1) potentially process financial transaction and redirect funds to unauthorized bank accounts,
(2) receive access to perform functions that are not authorized by management, and
(3) potentially access the IFMS system even after they have departed EPA.

Separation of Duties Not  Monitored  by IFMS Security Administrator nor Defined

The IFMS Security Administrator did not perform user security reviews to ensure that separation
of duty requirements were met as required by OCFO policy. The IFMS Security Administrator
indicated that OCFO relies solely on the IFMS coordinators and authorizing officials to make the
determination of what functions should be separated.  In addition, OCFO management had not
established a policy that identified what functions associated with financial management systems
are required to be separated. Without such a policy, the OCFO IFMS Security Administrator did
not have a basis for making the determination on separation duties requirements. We found 39
users who had the access to perform Accounts Payable,  Vendor Bank information, Purchasing,
and Vendor Master File functions as a part of their IFMS role. Lack of documented policies that
clearly define incompatible functions and associated processes to ensure that proper separation of
duties are enforced within applications can lead to individuals being able to perpetrate and
conceal irregularities.

Access Provided Did Not Match Access Requested by Authorizing Officials

EPA granted roles to IFMS users that did not match the  access requested by the authorizing
official. OCFO staff indicated this occurred in some cases because access requestors do not
complete the form appropriately but rather provide comments describing the access they are
requesting. These comments can be misinterpreted by the IFMS Security Administrator.  The
Security Administrator can subsequently grant access that can either be too restrictive or not
restrictive enough.  Additionally, the input of the access rights by the Security Administrator is a
manual process subject to inputting errors  that will not be caught without a control in place to
detect errors.  The Security Administrator  had provided  access for 38 users that did not match the
access requested by the authorizing officials.
                                          30

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
Access to IFMS Not Removed for Departed Employees

EPA had not removed access to IFMS for employees who had left the Agency.  Subsequent to
our notifying OCFO of this issue, OCFO staff showed us that these users' accounts were
disabled within the Resource Access Control Facility. To gain access to IFMS, a user must have
access to both the Resource Access Control Facility and IFMS.  However, OCFO could not
provide evidence that the user accounts were disabled prior to the notice we provided. Even if
the access rights to the Resource Access Control Facility had been removed, there was a
breakdown in controls. Security is intended to be implemented in layers in case one control
breaks down.  Removing user access should be linked to Human Resources and applied through
the same process to ensure that when a user is disabled on one system the user will also be
disabled for all other systems at the same time.  This condition occurred because the current
process relies entirely on the IFMS coordinator manually requesting the Security Administrator
to disable the account.  There is no automated process that ties EPA's Human Resources system
to the other systems  and disables user accounts for terminated personnel as a fail safe.  Lack of
a process to ensure that terminated users' accounts are always deactivated can lead to
unauthorized users gaining access to EPA records.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

   24.  Develop and implement an OCFO policy that formally defines the incompatible functions
       associated with the financial management processes EPA performs related to all of EPA's
       financial management systems.

   25.  Develop and implement a detective control that the IFMS Security Administrator can use
       on at least a monthly basis to identify and remove a user's access rights that allow a user
       to perform incompatible functions within IFMS.

   26.  Update the Request Database to identify and alert the requestor of incompatible
       functions.

   27.  Ensure that all new financial management  systems (including the IFMS replacement
       system) and those undergoing upgrades include a system requirement that the fielded
       system include  an automated control to enforce separation of duties.

   28.  Update the formal standard operating procedures for the IFMS Security Administrator
       requiring that the Security Administrator return all incomplete forms to the requestor and
       that the Security Administrator assist the requestor in completing the form correctly prior
       to granting access.

   29.  Develop and implement a detective control to identify and correct instances where the
       access rights within IFMS do not match the rights requested on at least a monthly basis.
                                          31

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
   30.  Develop and implement a detective control by performing comparative analysis on at
       least a monthly basis of the terminated personnel within the Human Resources system to
       the active users within the IFMS application to identify and disable active users who no
       longer work for the Agency.

   31.  Develop and implement an OCFO policy for all financial management systems to link the
       user administration process to Human Resources data as a fail safe to ensure that all
       transferred/terminated personnel's financial management system user accounts are
       disabled in a timely manner.

   32.  Ensure that all new financial management systems (including the IFMS replacement
       system) and those undergoing upgrades include a system requirement that the fielded
       systems have an automated control in place to provide a fail safe that links to the Human
       Resources data to identify and disable terminated/transferred personnel in the system in a
       timely manner.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with the findings and recommendations and indicated that it plans to have the
corrective actions completed by December 30, 2010.
                                          32

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
              10 - Las Vegas Finance Center Needs Improved
                           Physical Access Controls

LVFC's server room and other key areas are susceptible to unauthorized access by personnel
not part of LVFC. The LVFC areas are protected by an access control system.  However, the
system operator -ORD - does not administer the system in a manner that allows LVFC to
monitor access to its area. In particular, ORD had not obtained authorization from the LVFC
Director to grant access to key areas to non-LVFC personnel. ORD also had neither provided
the LVFC reports detailing who has access to their areas nor performed the required semiannual
review of access rights required by ORD procedures. As a result, ORD granted personnel access
to sensitive LVFC areas without proper authorization.

ORD did not perform its responsibilities associated with managing and administering the
computer-controlled card access system supporting all of the EPA buildings in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  The Standard Operating Procedure for Management/Control of Access to
Environmental Protection Agency Buildings in Las Vegas, NV, dated February 17, 2004, requires
ORD's Environmental  Sciences Division Programs Operations  Staff to:

   •   Grant access to EPA Las Vegas facilities based on the fully completed submission of an
       employee data sheet form LV-172 with all appropriate signatures.
   •   Perform semiannual reviews of all access provided.
   •   Perform a review of the signatures on the LV-172 whenever the access requirements of a
       staff member changes.

The ORD personnel now responsible for this function work within ORD's Office  of Science
Information Management. We found that ORD:

   •   Did not grant access based on appropriately approved and completed LV-172 forms. Our
       review of access to a small sample of doors for which the LVFC Director was a required
       approving official disclosed  personnel  with access whose forms were not approved by the
       LVFC Director.
   •   Did not fully complete the LV-172 forms we reviewed.
   •   Did not perform the required semiannual reviews of the card access provided.  ORD
       indicated that the only review performed was back in 2004, and even for that review it
       could not provide evidence that the review was performed or that any corrective actions
       were taken based on the review.

In addition to not performing the responsibilities identified above, ORD has not been providing
the necessary information to the various EPA organizations serviced by the card access system to
allow them to monitor and review the access to their space.  Radiation and Indoor Environments,
Human Resources, and LVFC all indicated that ORD has not provided them with  the information
necessary to validate personnel who have access to their space.  To enable each organization to
properly monitor  and review the access to their space, ORD needs to provide the following
standard reports to each organization on a monthly basis:
                                         33

-------
                                                                                10-1-0029
   •   A report showing all of the access groups in Las Vegas that lists for each group (1) each
       of the doors the group can access and (2) the days of the week and times that the group
       can access each of the doors.
   •   A report showing all of the access groups in Las Vegas that lists all of the users, their
       associated Card ID, and the expiration date of the access for each  of the users for each
       group.
   •   For reviewing the logged history of users'  access, a report that shows the: (1) criteria
       used for the creation of the report, (2) date and time of the access  attempt, (3) action
       taken by the device, (4) location/site, (5) door, (6) user name, and (7) card ID.

Additionally, ORD needs to be responsive to each organization's special  requests for reports and
provide them in a timely manner.

During subsequent communications with ORD, it indicated that it planned to negotiate the
transfer of the responsibility for the maintenance and oversight of the portion of the card access
system relied upon by the other offices within Las Vegas to one of these other offices.

Due to the number of EPA offices responsible for developing and implementing procedures for
managing facility access, we plan to issue a separate report addressing this issue. In this separate
report, we plan to recommend that the appropriate offices:

   •   Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all organizations are provided with the
       information necessary to monitor and review the  access to their space until offices
       receive responsibility for oversight and maintenance of the card access system.

   •   Develop and implement a formal procedure that ensures each organization supported by
       the card access system performs a review of the logs and access reports provided by ORD
       associated with their space to look for anomalies  on at  least a monthly basis.

   •   Develop and implement a formal procedure that ensures each organization supported by
       the card access system verifies on at least an annual basis that all users associated with
       their space still need their current access to perform their assigned responsibilities.

Agency Comments and OIG  Evaluation

ORD  agreed with the findings. ORD agreed with one of the recommendations but did not
believe it should have responsibility for the other two. ORD stated it plans to transfer oversight
and maintenance responsibility for the card access system to one of the other EPA offices located
in Las Vegas no later than March 31, 2010. ORD does not believe it should have responsibility
for developing and implementing procedures that ensure EPA  offices within Las Vegas perform
their oversight responsibilities. We plan to issue a separate report that will address
recommendations to the appropriate offices.
                                           34

-------
                                                                             10-1-0029
         11  - Customer Technology Solutions  Equipment Needs
                          Improved Security Planning

On November 16, 2009, the OIG issued an audit report {Improved Security Planning Needed for
the Customer  Technology Solutions Program, Report No. 10-P-0028) noting that EPA lacked a
process to routinely test CTS equipment for known vulnerabilities and to correct identified
threats. Further, EPA placed CTS equipment into production without assessing the risk the
equipment posed upon the Agency's network and authorized the equipment for operation. OMB
requires federal agencies to create a security plan for each general support system and ensure the
plan complies with guidance issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Both
performing vulnerability management reviews and preparing critical security documents are
needed to fulfill this requirement. The weaknesses noted existed because EPA undertook an
aggressive schedule to install over 11,500 computers at 18 locations across the United States, and
management focused attention on problems as they arose rather than developing a plan.

Given the widespread use of CTS equipment throughout the Agency, thousands of potentially
unmonitored computers reside on EPA's network. These unmonitored computers could serve as
gateways to providing unauthorized access to the Agency's  network.  As such, EPA lacked
processes to identify these threats or the capability to lessen their impact. We recommended in
Report No. 10-P-0028 that EPA:

   •  Develop and implement a vulnerability testing and remediation process for CTS
      equipment consistent with existing EPA security policies and procedures.
   •  Issue a memorandum to Agency Senior Information  Officials requiring their program
      office to conduct vulnerability testing of CTS equipment until a formal vulnerability
      testing and management process with CTS has been  established.
   •  Require CTS to remediate the issues identified in a timely manner and provide evidence
      to the initiating Senior Information Officer of the completion of the corrective actions
      necessary to remediate the issues identified until a formal vulnerability testing and
      management process with CTS has been established.
   •  Ensure all key actions outlined in the November 9, 2009, CTS authorization to operate
      are completed by the defined milestone dates.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

Management did not agree they needed to implement a vulnerability testing program for the CTS
equipment.  Management indicated the CTS contractor is already performing quarterly
vulnerability testing and is in the process of reviewing its processes in an effort to establish roles
and responsibilities  for local Information Security Officers.  Management did not believe it
needed to issue a memorandum to the Senior Information Officials requiring them to conduct
vulnerability testing as an interim measure.  Management indicated they issued a memorandum
to the Agency Senior Information Officials in August 2009 reminding them of their
responsibility  to conduct vulnerability testing.

Although management believes EPA offices are conducting vulnerability testing of CTS
equipment, our research and interviews disclosed that EPA offices are not conducting
                                         35

-------
                                                                              10-1-0029
vulnerability testing of the CIS equipment and the offices are not aware that a vulnerability
testing process is in place. Therefore, management should take steps to ensure a vulnerability
management framework is in place to protect the Agency's network from commonly known
threats.  Although management issued a memorandum to the Senior Information Officials in
August 2009 reminding them of their duties for conducting vulnerability testing, this
memorandum emphasized the need to conduct vulnerability testing over equipment the
respective Senior Information Official oversees.  Since the Senior Information Officials do not
oversee  CIS equipment, it is incumbent upon management to reissue guidance to the Senior
Information Officials so they understand the scope of their responsibilities for vulnerability
testing includes testing CTS equipment.

On November 9, 2009, management signed a conditional authorization to operate for the CTS
equipment. This conditional authorization outlined key security tasks the CTS contractor must
complete and we modified the report recommendations accordingly.
                                          36

-------
                                                         10-1-0029
                                                      Attachment 2
         Compliance with Laws and Regulations





                       Table of Contents




12 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intra-governmental Transactions	  38
                               37

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
               12 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile
                       Intra-governmental Transactions

As of September 30, 2009, EPA reported $183 million in unreconciled differences for intra-
governmental transactions with 47 trading partners. Of that amount, the Department of the
Treasury reported $51 million as material differences. The remaining $132 million represented
amounts reported for non-verifying agencies, accruals, timing differences, and immaterial
differences.  Based on our review of correspondence with other agencies, EPA had difficulty
reconciling these differences as required by Treasury policy primarily because of differing
accounting treatments and accrual methodologies between federal agencies.  EPA's inability to
reconcile its  intra-governmental 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.

According to the Treasury Financial Manual, verifying agencies are those required to report in
the government-wide 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. Any agency not required is a non-verifying agency. Treasury policy requires
verifying agencies to confirm and reconcile intra-governmental transactions with their trading
partners.

Treasury's fiscal 2009 fourth quarter Intra-governmental Activity Detail Report and Material
Differences Report showed the following material differences for EPA:

 Federal Agency                       Difference       Category of Difference
 Department of State                    $6,831,146      Accounts Receivable/Payable
 Department of the Treasury               22,290, 111      Accounts Receivable/Payable
 Department of the Treasury                6,999,520      Advances to/from Other Agencies
 Tennessee Valley Authority               1,767,350      Buy/Sell Costs/Revenue
 Department of Homeland Security          12.916.322      Buy/Sell Costs/Revenue
 Total                               $ 50,804,449

While the Agency has actively worked with its trading partners to reduce differences,
$50,804,449 material differences continued to exist.  Most of the differences resulted from
confirmed reporting amounts between EPA and the Department of Treasury  and Department of
Homeland Security. According to EPA, other situations that contributed to the differences
included (1)  timing differences between EPA and the Department of State, (2) differences in
advances with Treasury, and (3) expenses with the Tennessee Valley Authority for which EPA
has no reciprocal billing activity.

During fiscal 2009, EPA continued to  make significant improvements in its intra-governmental
activity  with its partners, and identified the causes of several differences.  However,
unreconciled differences persist, and according to GAO's Report on the Fiscal Year 2008 U.S.
Government Financial Statements, the Federal Government's inability to adequately account for
and reconcile intra-governmental 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.
                                           38

-------
                                                                           10-1-0029


Recommendation

We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

   33. Have its Office of Financial Services continue to reconcile EPA's intra-governmental
      transactions and make appropriate adjustments to comply with federal financial reporting
      requirements.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OCFO agreed with our finding and recommendation.
                                        39

-------
                                                                               10-1-0029
                                                                            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.  During FY 2009, the Agency continued to strengthen its audit-follow-up process
by implementing its plan to improve and assure the quality of data in EPA's Management Audit
Tracking System (MATS). As part of this effort, during FY 2009 the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer has secured contractor support to conduct on-site reviews of offices' MATS
data and supporting documentation. The first of these reviews, with EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation, was completed in September, 2009; additional reviews will be conducted in FY 2010.

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.
                    Significant Deficiencies - Corrective Actions in Process
    Automated Application Processing Controls for IFMS
    EPA has taken additional steps towards correcting this open issue by replacing IFMS with a new
    financial system. EPA's contract with CGI Federal, Inc is moving forward. The anticipated "go live"
    date for the new EPA Financial System is the first quarter of FY 2012. Since the new system has not
    been implemented, a reportable condition will continue to exist concerning the lack of system
    documentation that inhibits our ability to audit IFMS application controls. Therefore, the deficiency will
    continue to exist until the new system is implemented.
 •  EPA Needs to Strengthen Financial Database Security Oversight and Monitor Compliance
    EPA did not complete all corrective actions related to reviewing the effectiveness of its follow-up
    procedures. The critical patch reports being shared and monitored as a part of the process were
    limited to Microsoft patches, but need to include all all other operating Systems and databases used
    by the Agency. EPA has also not escalated critical patch issues identified to appropriate
    management for immediate resolution or agreed to a course of action and time frame to effectively
    mitigate the identified vulnerability.  EPA has not provided a date it expects to complete these
    remaining corrective actions.	
    Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA Information Security Requirements
    EPA has made significant progress in completing the agreed corrective actions but it still needs to
    complete functional testing of all key components of the approved BRAINS and mLINQS contingency
    plans. EPA has not provided an estimated milestone date on when they plan to complete this
    remaining corrective action.	
                                           40

-------
                                                                                   10-1-0029
                     Significant Deficiencies - Corrective Actions in Process
    Access and Security Practices Over Critical Information Technology Assets Need
    Improvement
    EPA has made significant progress in completing the agreed corrective actions.  However, it still
    needs to develop and implement a formal standard operating procedure to conduct verification and
    validation of the implementation and effectiveness of the standard operating procedures. EPA also
    still needs to implement the monthly Vulnerability Scanning. EPA plans to implement a formal
    process to conduct the verification and validation by January 29, 2010.  EPA has not provided an
    estimated milestone date for when they plan to implement the monthly vulnerability scanning.	
     EPA Needs to Reconcile Superfund State Contract Funds and Credits in the General Ledger to
     Subsidiary Accounts
     During FY 2009, the Agency did prepare a reconciliation of the general ledger to the Superfund State
     Contract spreadsheet. However, as described in Attachment 1, Significant Deficiencies, EPA still
     needs to investigate some older general ledger transactions to determine their effect on an
     unexplained variance of $376,586.88 found during the FY2009 reconciliation.	
     Improvement Needed in Monitoring Superfund Special Account Balances
     The Agency has made improvements in the monitoring of special account balances and interest
     drawdowns. However, as described in Attachment 1, EPA did not monitor all special accounts in the
     special account interest drawdown calculation resulting in interest drawdowns in excess of interest
     earned for some special accounts.	
 •   Lack of System Implementation Process Contributed to Financial Applications Not Complying
     with Requirements
     The Agency has made some progress towards implementing the agreed corrective actions, but still
     needs to complete some of the corrective actions.  They need to complete a review of OCFO
     financial systems compliance with prescribed federal and EPA system requirements and document
     the results. They also need to create and put into practice formal standard operating procedures and
     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 life cycle. The Agency indicated they planned to complete the
     corrective actions by September 30, 2010.	
Source: OIG analysis
              Compliance with Laws and Regulations - Corrective Actions in Process
     EPA Needs to Improve Reconciliation of Differences with Trading Partners:
     The Agency has actively worked with its trading partners to reduce unreconciled differences.
     However, as described in Attachment 2, EPA reported $183 million in unreconciled differences for
     intra-governmental transactions with 47 trading partners.	
Source: OIG analysis
                                             41

-------
                                                                                                            10-1-0029
                                                                                                        Attachment 4
              Status  of Current  Recommendations  and
                             Potential  Monetary  Benefits
                                     RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                                     POTENTIAL MONETARY
                                                                       BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Rec.    Page
No.     No.
Subject
                                                     Status1
Action Official
 Planned
Completion
   Date
Claimed     Agreed To
Amount      Amount
        12   Develop a process to communicate routinely with
             the regional offices on a monthly or quarterly basis
             to identify any settlements not recorded on the DOJ
             debt assessed report or recorded within the
             Integrated Compliance Information System. Also,
             work with the offices to agree on a process that
             would include forwarding of settlement documents
             within the required time period.

        12   Re-inform and train LEOs, ORCs, and RPOs on
             the requirement to timely send settlements to the
             finance center so the receivables can be recorded.
             Also work to establish and implement a process to
             ensure that the SFO is aware of settlements by the
             end of the fiscal year to ensure that current year
             financial statements  include accounts receivable
             for the current year.

        14   In conjunction with the  Regional Financial
             Management Offices and the Office of Budget,
             prepare the accounting entry to account correctly
             for the special account expenditures at the site
             level.

        14   In conjunction with the  Regional Financial
             Management Offices and the Office of Budget,
             work with Regional Comptrollers to correctly
             account for the improperly expended funds at the
             site level.

        14   In conjunction with the  Regional Financial
             Management Offices and the Office of Budget,
             develop controls over Special Accounts so that,  for
             each site, the fund codes collected are the fund
             codes spent.

        17   Direct the Superfund regional offices to verify that
             closed sites identified in the SSC spreadsheet
             meet the closed site  criteria and the SSC site
             billings and disbursements data in the SSC
             spreadsheet are accurate.

        17   Have its Office of Financial Policy and Planning
             Staff work with regional comptrollers and
             Superfund program personnel to research
             transactions in older funds and eliminate invalid
             transactions.

        17   Establish a review process for reconciling
             Superfund site costs to ensure that data and
             calculations used  are consistent and properly
             supported.
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     Office of the
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                          42

-------
                                                                                                                               10-1-0029
                                           RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                                                                          POTENTIAL MONETARY
                                                                                                            BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Rec.    Page
No.      No.
                         Subject
                                                              Status1
                       Planned
                     Completion
Action Official            Date
Claimed     Agreed To
Amount      Amount
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
         17    Direct the regional offices to bill the States for costs     0
               incurred where necessary, including the $887,583
               amount identified.
18    Create a receivable billing document matrix to
      reflect a proper accounting model to recorded
      standard voucher adjustments and the movement
      of accounts from expiring or cancelled
      appropriations. Also, review the net impact of
      adjusting entries prior to issuing an accounting
      model to ensure account balances are proper.

18    Review its accounting model provided to SFOs for
      net impact to expenses and revenues from prior
      periods to ensure that financial statements are not
      misstated.

22    Research and resolve the $1,237,468 of unbilled
      accounts receivable credit balances to ensure the
      accuracy of future quarterly unbilled accounts
      receivable before they are entered into IFMS.

22    Work with other federal agencies to resolve each
      credit balance to ensure the exclusion of credit
      amounts from future unbilled accounts receivable
      calculations.

22    Work with RPOs, ORCs, and LEOs to obtain legal
      documentation sooner so receivables are recorded
      timely. Institute a process to review DOJ tracking
      mechanisms for the status of consent decrees and
      judgments.

22    Establish a supervisory review process to ensure
      procedures  are being followed, and interest and
      federal receivables are properly recorded.

22    Establish a process to review the allowance
      calculation for errors, including proper application
      of calculation methods.

22    Develop a process to review and update receivable
      status code updates in the financial system
      quarterly.

24    Require the Director, Facilities Management and
      Services Division, to promptly conduct an inventory
      of the 1,804 Headquarters Accountable Property
      items not inventoried in fiscal 2009.

26    Implement an effective review process for all on-
      top adjustments to ensure that individual entries
      within funds will balance (debits/credits) properly.

26    Update the Financial Statement Preparation Guide
      to contain guidance or instructions for changing on-
      top adjustments to either journal vouchers and/or
      standard vouchers.

26    Update the YACT and the general ledger matrix to
      identify current fiscal year general ledger accounts
      and their related closing activity.
                                                                 0
                                                                     Office of the
                                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                         Assistant Administrator,
                                                                       Office of Administration and
                                                                         Resources Management
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                              Office of the
                                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                       06/2010
                                          $700
               $700
                                                                    43

-------
                                                                                                                          10-1-0029
                                         RECOMMENDATIONS
                                         POTENTIAL MONETARY
                                          BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
                                                                                               Planned
Rec.
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page
No.
29
29
31
31
31
31
31
Subject Status1
Have the appropriate EPA Finance Center 0
deobligate or confirm the deobligation of unneeded
funds identified during the fiscal 2009 ULO review.
Have the Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, 0
follow-up with the appropriate EPA Finance Center
to confirm the amount of funds to be deobligated
before yearend.
Develop and implement an OCFO policy that 0
formally defines the incompatible functions
associated with the financial management
processes EPA performs related to all of EPA's
financial management systems.
Develop and implement a detective control that the 0
IFMS Security Administrator can use on at least a
monthly basis to identify and remove a user's
access rights that allow a user to perform
incompatible functions within IFMS.
Update the Request Database to identify and alert 0
the requestor of incompatible functions.
Ensure that all new financial management systems 0
(including the IFMS replacement system) and
those undergoing upgrades include a system
requirement that the fielded system include an
automated control to enforce separation of duties.
Update the formal standard operating procedures 0
for the IFMS Security Administrator requiring that
Action Official
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Completion
Date


12/2010




              the Security Administrator return all incomplete
              forms to the requestor and that the Security
              Administrator assist the requestor in completing the
              form correctly prior to granting access.

29      31    Develop and implement a detective control to
              identify and correct instances where the access
              rights within IFMS do not match the rights
              requested on  at least a monthly basis.

30      32    Develop and implement a detective control by
              performing comparative analysis on at least a
              monthly basis of the  terminated personnel within
              the Human Resources system to the active users
              within the  IFMS application to identify and disable
              active users who no  longer work for the Agency.

31      32    Develop and implement an OCFO policy for all
              financial management systems to link the user
              administration process to Human Resources data
              as a fail safe to ensure that all
              transferred/terminated personnel's financial
              management system user accounts are disabled in
              a timely manner.
    Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
    Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
    Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
                                                                                                                Claimed
                                                                                                                Amount
                                                      Agreed To
                                                       Amount
                                                                                                                $1,941
                                                        $1,941
                                                                 44

-------
                                                                                                                          10-1-0029
                                                                                                               POTENTIAL MONETARY
                                         RECOMMENDATIONS                                                   BENEFITS (in $OOOs)

                                                                                               Planned
Rec.    Page                                                                                 Completion       Claimed    Agreed To
No.     No.                      Subject                   Status1       Action Official           Date          Amount     Amount
 32      32   Ensure that all new financial management systems     0            Officeofthe
              (including the IFMS replacement system) and                 Chief Financial Officer
              those undergoing upgrades include a system
              requirement that the fielded systems have an
              automated control in place to provide a fail safe
              that links to the Human Resources data to identify
              and disable terminated/transferred personnel in the
              system in a timely manner.

 33      39   Have its Office of Financial Services continue to       0            Officeofthe
              reconcile EPA's intra-governmental transactions               Chief Financial Officer
              and make appropriate adjustments to comply with
              federal financial reporting requirements.
              Other potential monetary benefits achieved based
              on adjustments made as a result of our audit:
                  Increase in unbilled oversight billings             C            Officeofthe                            $213         $213
                                                                      Chief Financial Officer
 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
                                                                 45

-------
                                     10-1-0029
                                   Appendix I
EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
 Consolidated Financial Statements
           SECTION III
       ANNUAL FINANCIAL
          STATEMENTS
                46

-------
                                                                         10-1-0029
                          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, Net
   Note 6.      Other Assets
   Note 7.      Loans Receivable, Net
   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.     FECA Actuarial Liabilities
   Note 16.     Cashout Advances,  Superfund
   Note 17.     Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
   Note 18.     Commitments and Contingencies
   Note 19.     Earmarked Funds
   Note 20.     Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
   Note 21.     Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
   Note 22.     Cost of Stewardship Land
   Note 23     Environmental Cleanup Costs
   Note 24.     State Credits
   Note 25.     Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
   Note 26.     Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
   Note 27.     Reconciliation of President's Budget to Statement of Budgetary Resources
                                      47

-------
                                                                        10-1-0029
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

   Note 28.  Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
   Note 29.  Unobligated Balances Available
   Note 30.  Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
   Note 31.  Offsetting Receipts
   Note 32.  Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
   Note 33.  Imputed Financing
   Note 34.  Payroll and Benefits Payable
   Note 35.  Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
   Note 36.  Non-exchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
   Note 37.  Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget
   Note 38.  Restatements
   Note 39.  Amounts Held By Treasury (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

   1.  Deferred Maintenance
   2.  Stewardship Land
   3.  Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)

Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)

   Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
                                     48

-------
                                                                                               10-1-0029
                                Environmental Protection Agency
                                   Consolidated Balance Sheets
                         As of September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
                                       (Dollars in Thousands)
                                                                   FY 2009
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
   Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
   Investments (Notes 4)
   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

Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 23)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note 16)
Commitments & Contingencies (Notes 18)
Payroll  & Benefits Payable (Note 34)
Other (Note 13)
   Total Liabilities

NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 19)
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds

Total Net Position

   Total Liabilities and Net Position
15,557,917
 6,879,948
    39,362
   214,831
22,692,058

       10
   817,844
    11,645
   852,488
     2,228
24,376,273   S
    76,054
     9,983
    71,200
   140,645
   297,