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
297,882
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.
49
-------
10-1-0029
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statements of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2009
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 21)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Notes 20, 21)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 21)
3,920,963 $
773,612
8,147,351 $
Restated
FY 2008
8,675,411
675,865
7,999,546
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
50
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statements of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2009
(Dollars in Thousands)
10-1-0029
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)
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note
19)
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
Healthy
Clean & Safe Land Preservation Communities &
Clean Air Water & Restoration Ecosystems
$ 187,484 $ 191,558 $ 386,549 $ 271,028
874,787 3,236,903 1,821,301 1,134,155
1,062,271 3,428,461 2,207,850 1,405,183
15,455 4,758 101,767 20,047
3,036 3,208 580,119 42,267
18,491 7,966 681,886 62,314
$ 1,043,780 $ 3,420,495 $ 1,525,964 $ 1,342,869
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,244,279
$ 7,676,684
8,920,963
$ 146,098
$ 627,514
773,612
$ 8,147,351
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
S 207,660
609,538
817,198
4,071
(1,116)
2,955
$ 814,243
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
51
-------
10-1-0029
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
S 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.
52
-------
10-1-0029
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 S
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 $
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.
53
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2008 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
10-1-0029
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
Restated FY
2008
Earmarked
Funds
5,886,227
(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 $
-
- $
-
-
-
-
_
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.
54
-------
10-1-0029
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Restated
FY2009 FY2008
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1: $ 3,551,880 $ 3,541,387
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) - -
Adjusted Subtotal 3,551,880 3,541,387
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (Note 28) 220,329 281,117
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation 15,276,374 7,268,236
Borrowing Authority 5 34
Contract Authority
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected 631,378 706,594
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 2,884 (22,170)
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received 29,183 79,716
Without Advance from Federal Sources (93,701) 59,780
Anticipated for Rest of Year, Without Advances
Previously Unavailable
Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds 57,392 37,151
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 627,136 861,071
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 32) 1,371,077 1,387,967
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 28) - (6,366)
Permanently Not Available (Note 28) (32,732) (125,526)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 27) $ 21,014,069 $ 13,207,920
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $ 16,740,272 $ 9,035,912
Reimbursable 570,775 620,128
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 27) 17,311,047 9,656,040
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 29) 3,440,829 3,204,800
Exempt from Apportionment - -
Total Unobligated Balances 3,440,829 3,204,800
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 29) 262,193 347,080
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 21,014,069 $ 13,207,920
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
55
-------
10-1-0029
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.
56
-------
10-1-0029
Environmental Protection Agency
Statements of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Restated
FY2009 FY2008
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Cash Collections:
Fines and Penalties $ 101,613 $ 126,283
Other (14,079) (13,733)
Total Cash Collections $ 87,534 $ 112,550
Accrual Adjustment 16,390 8,107
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 26) $ 103,924 $ 120,657
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund) $ 87,520 $ 112,695
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred 16,404 7,962
Total Disposition of Collections $ 103,924 $ 120,657
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 26) $ - $ -
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
57
-------
10-1-0029
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-
136, 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-136, the
Statement of Net Cost has been prepared with cost segregated by the Agency's strategic
goals.
B. Reporting Entities
The EPA was created in 1970 by executive reorganization from various components of other
federal agencies to better marshal and coordinate federal pollution control efforts. The
Agency is generally organized around the media and substances it regulates - air, water, land,
hazardous waste, pesticides, and toxic substances.
For FY 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
58
-------
10-1-0029
Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems; and
Reduction of Global and Cross Border Environmental Risks.
b. Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation: The S&T appropriation,
Treasury fund group 0107, finances salaries, travel, science, technology, research
and development activities including laboratory supplies, certain operating
expenses, grants, contracts, intergovernmental agreements, and purchases of
scientific equipment. These activities provide the scientific basis for the Agency's
regulatory actions. In FY 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.
59
-------
10-1-0029
g. Payments to Leaking Underground Storage Tank Appropriation: The Payment
to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank appropriation, Treasury fund group
0251, authorizes appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance
activities conducted through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program.
h. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under
Treasury fund group 0118, Program Account, for interest subsidy and
administrative support; under Treasury fund group 4322, Financing Account, for
loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan collections on post-FY 1991 loans;
and under Treasury fund group 2917 for pre-FY 1992 loans receivable and loan
collections.
The Asbestos Loan Program was authorized by the Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act of 1986 to finance control of asbestos building materials in
schools. Funds have not been appropriated for this Program since FY 1993. For
FY 1993 and 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
60
-------
10-1-0029
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.
2. Revolving Funds (Treasury Fund Group 4000 - 4999)
a. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): The FIFRA
Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group 4310, was authorized by the FIFRA Act
of 1972, as amended in 1988 and as amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996. Pesticide Maintenance fees are paid by industry to offset the
costs of pesticide re-registration and reassessment of tolerances for pesticides
used in or on food and animal feed, as required by law.
b. Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund
group 4311, was authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are
paid by industry for federal services to set pesticide chemical residue limits in
or on food and animal feed. The fees collected prior to January 2, 1997 were
accounted for under this fund. Presently these fees are being deposited in the
FIFRA fund (see above).
c. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under
Treasury fund group 4322, Financing Account for loan disbursements, loans
receivable and loan collections on post-FY 1991 loans. Refer to General Fund
Appropriations paragraph h. for details.
d. Working Capital Fund (WCF): The WCF, Treasury fund group, 4565,
includes four activities: computer support services, financial system services,
employee relocation services, and postage. The WCF derives revenue from
these activities based upon a fee for services. The WCF's customers currently
consist primarily of Agency program offices and a small portion from other
federal agencies. Accordingly, those revenues generated by the WCF from
services provided to Agency program offices and expenses recorded by the
program offices for use of such services, along with the related
advances/liabilities, are eliminated on consolidation of the financial
statements.
61
-------
10-1-0029
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)," 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
62
-------
10-1-0029
qualifying for the Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) are reduced and
addressed through a process involving site assessment and analysis and the design
and implementation of cleanup remedies. NPL cleanups and removals are
conducted and financed by the EPA, private parties, or other federal agencies. The
Superfund Trust Fund includes Treasury's collections and investment activity.
b. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust
Fund, Treasury fund group 8153, was authorized by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. The LUST appropriation provides funding to respond
to releases from leaking underground petroleum tanks. The Agency oversees
cleanup and enforcement programs which are implemented by the states. Funds
are allocated to the states through cooperative agreements to clean up those sites
posing the greatest threat to human health and the environment. Funds are used
for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes under Section 8001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The program is financed by a one cent
a gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in 2011.
c. Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund, Treasury
fund group 8221, was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Monies
were appropriated to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is
responsible for directing, monitoring and providing technical assistance for major
inland oil spill response activities. This involves setting oil prevention and
response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA and
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing
response actions when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve
response actions to oil spills including research on the use of remediation
techniques such as dispersants and bioremediation. Funding for oil spill cleanup
actions is provided through the Department of Transportation under the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other federal agencies.
d Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed
Funds Trust Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act) as amended by (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.
63
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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.
64
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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."
65
-------
10-1-0029
The Superfund program receives most of its funding through appropriations that may be
used, within specific statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures (primarily
equipment). Additional financing for the Superfund program is obtained through:
reimbursements from other federal agencies, state cost share payments under Superfund State
Contracts (SSCs), and settlement proceeds from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3) placed in special accounts. Special accounts were
previously limited to settlement amounts for future costs. However, beginning in FY 2001,
cost recovery amounts received under CERCLA Section 122 (b)(3) settlements could be
placed in special accounts. Cost recovery settlements that are not placed in special accounts
continue to be deposited in the Trust Fund.
The majority of all other funds receive funding needed to support programs through
appropriations, which may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital
expenditures. However, under Credit Reform provisions, the Asbestos Loan Program
received funding to support the subsidy cost of loans through appropriations which may be
used within statutory limits. The Asbestos Direct Loan Financing fund 4322, an off-budget
fund, receives additional funding to support the outstanding loans through collections from
the Program fund 0118 for the subsidized portion of the loan. The last year Congress
provided appropriations to make new loans was 1993.
The FIFRA and Pesticide Registration funds receive funding through fees collected for
services provided and interest on invested funds. The WCF receives revenue through fees
collected for services provided to Agency program offices. Such revenue is eliminated with
related Agency program expenses upon consolidation of the Agency's financial statements.
The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund receives funding through reimbursements.
Appropriated funds are recognized as Other Financing Sources expended when goods and
services have been rendered without regard to payment of cash. Other revenues are
recognized when earned (i.e., when services have been rendered).
F. Funds with the Treasury
The Agency does not maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Cash receipts and
disbursements are handled by Treasury. The major funds maintained with Treasury are
Appropriated Funds, Revolving Funds, Trust Funds, Special Funds, Deposit Funds, and
Clearing Accounts. These funds have balances available to pay current liabilities and finance
authorized obligations, as applicable.
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
66
-------
10-1-0029
losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity (see
Note 4).
H. Notes Receivable
The Agency records notes receivable at their face value and any accrued interest as of the
date of receipt.
I. Marketable Securities
The Agency records marketable securities at cost as of the date of receipt. Marketable
securities are held by Treasury and reported at their cost value in the financial statements
until sold (see Note 4).
J. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable
The majority of receivables for non-Superfund funds represent penalties and interest
receivable for general fund receipt accounts, unbilled intragovernmental reimbursements
receivable, allocations receivable from Superfund (eliminated in consolidated totals), and
refunds receivable for the STAG appropriation.
Superfund accounts receivable represent recovery of costs from PRPs as provided under
CERCLA as amended by SARA. However, cost recovery expenditures are expensed when
incurred since there is no assurance that these funds will be recovered (see Note 5).
The Agency records accounts receivable from PRPs for Superfund site response costs when a
consent decree, judgment, administrative order, or settlement is entered. These agreements
are generally negotiated after site response costs have been incurred. It is the Agency's
position that until a consent decree or other form of settlement is obtained, the amount
recoverable should not be recorded.
The Agency also records accounts receivable from states for a percentage of Superfund site
remedial action costs incurred by the Agency within those states. As agreed to under SSCs,
cost sharing arrangements may vary according to whether a site was privately or publicly
operated at the time of hazardous substance disposal and whether the Agency response action
was removal or remedial. SSC agreements are usually for 10 percent or 50 percent of site
remedial action costs, depending on who has the lead for the site (i.e., publicly or privately
owned). States may pay the full amount of their share in advance or incrementally throughout
the remedial action process.
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.
67
-------
10-1-0029
L. Loans Receivable
Loans are accounted for as receivables after funds have been disbursed. Loans receivable
resulting from obligations on or before September 30, 1991, are reduced by the allowance for
uncollectible loans. Loans receivable resulting from loans obligated on or after October 1,
1991, are reduced by an allowance equal to the present value of the subsidy costs associated
with these loans. The subsidy cost is calculated based on the interest rate differential between
the loans and Treasury borrowing, the estimated delinquencies and defaults net of recoveries
offset by fees collected and other estimated cash flows associated with these loans.
M. Appropriated Amounts Held by Treasury
For the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds and for amounts appropriated from the Superfund
Trust Fund to the OIG, cash available to the Agency that is not needed immediately for
current disbursements remains in the respective Trust Funds managed by Treasury.
N. Property, Plant, and Equipment
EPA accounts for its personal and real property accounting records in accordance with
SFFAS No. 6, "Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment." For EPA-held property, the
Fixed Assets Subsystem (FAS) automatically generates depreciation entries monthly based
on acquisition dates.
A purchase of EPA-held or contract personal property is capitalized if it is valued at $25
thousand or more and has an estimated useful life of at least 2 years. Prior to implementing
FAS, depreciation was taken on a modified straight-line basis over a period of 6 years
depreciating 10 percent the first and sixth year, and 20 percent in years 2 through 5. This
modified straight-line method is still used for contract property; detailed records are
maintained and accounted for in contractor systems, not in FAS. All EPA-held personal
property purchased before the implementation of FAS was assumed to have an estimated
useful life of 5 years. New acquisitions of EPA-held personal property are depreciated using
the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life, ranging from 2 to 15 years.
Personal property also consists of capital leases. To be defined as a capital lease, it must, at
its inception, have a lease term of two or more years and the lower of the fair value or present
value of the minimum lease payments must be $75 thousand or more. Capital leases may
also contain real property (therefore considered in the real property category as well), but
these need to meet an $85 thousand capitalization threshold. In addition, the lease must meet
one of the following 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.
68
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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.
69
-------
10-1-0029
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 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
70
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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.
71
-------
10-1-0029
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, consist of the following:
Entity
Assets
62,631 J
25,169
2,441
7,153
80,293
390
15,122,481
247,877
15,518,435 j
FY2009
Non-Entity
Assets
1 tt1
> - $
-
-
-
-
-
9,482
i 9,482 $
Total
62,631
25,169
2,441
7,153
80,293
390
15,122,481
257359
15,557,917
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill &Msc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Toleratice
Working Capital
Cr. Reform Finan
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
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.
Entity
Assets
45,5% $
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
Status of Fund Balances:
FY 2009
FY2008
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 (3,583,119) (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
72
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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)
Discount
Interest
Receivable
Investments,
Net
Market
Value
Cost
Intragovemnieiital
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.
73
-------
10-1-0029
Note 5. Accounts Receivable, Net
The Accounts Receivable as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 (restated) consist of the
following:
Restated
FY 2009 FY 2008
Intragovernmental:
Accounts & Interest Receivable $ 39,362 $ 34,636
Total $ 39,362 $ 34,636
Non-Federal:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable $ 137,593 $ 113,359
Accounts & Interest Receivable 1,376,831 1,339,523
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles (696,580) (952,290)
Total $ 817,844 $ 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 FY2008
Intragovernmental:
Advances to Federal Agencies $ 214,654 $ 107,327
Advances for Postage 177 106
Total $ 214,831~$ 107,433
No n-Federal:
Travel Advances $ (183)$ 135
Letter of Credit Advances 8 88
Other Advances 2,146 2,934
Operating Materials and Supplies 147 159
Inventory for Sale 110 339
Total $ 2,228 $ 3,655
74
-------
10-1-0029
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
Value of
Loans Assets Related Loans
Receivable, to Direct Receivable,
Gross Allowance* Loans Gross Allowance*
Direct Loans
Obligated Prior $ $ _ $ $ $ _ $
to FY 1992
Value of
Assets Related
to Direct
Loans
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.
75
-------
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
10-1-0029
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)
76
-------
10-1-0029
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
Intragovernmental :
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
following:
Acquisition
Value
EPA-Held $ 246,999 $
Equipment
Software 373,964
Contractor Held 79,855
Equip.
Land and Buildings 607,131
Capital Leases 41,068
Total S 1,349,017 S
2008, General PP&E consist of the
FY2009
Accumulated Net Book
Depreciation Value
(138,385)$ 108,614$
(118,115) 255,849
(47,207) 32,648
(166,316) 440,815
(26,506) 14,562
(496,529) S 852,488 S
Acquisition
Value
238,051 $
307,883
63,132
595,597
47,505
1,252,168 S
FY2008
Accumulated Net Book
Depreciation
(130,045)$
(93,925)
(28,417)
(154,986)
(30,542)
(437,915) S
Value
108,006
213,958
34,715
440,611
16,963
814,253
77
-------
10-1-0029
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:
MOher Funds IY20Q9 FY2008
Beguiling Net Ending Beguiling Net Ending
Balance Bomming Balance Balance B)iraving Balance
Intragoremmental:
EetttoTreasury $ 13,158$ (3,175)$ 9,983$ 1^156$ (2,998)$ 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 32 33
Additions 2 1
Withdrawals 1_ 2_
Ending Balance 33 32
Superfund Sites with Land
Acquired
Beginning Balance 31 32
Additions 0 2
Withdrawals 1 3
Ending Balance 30 31
78
-------
10-1-0029
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
54
108.577 $
79,490 $
8,330
230
27,868
19,875
960
60,043
27,642
3
54
10,068
22,000
32.068 $
10,068
22,000
140.645
79,490
8,330
230
27,868
87.820 $
28.098
115.918
79
-------
10-1-0029
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
3
5
77,089
8,810
Not Covered
by
Budgetary
Resources
77,463 $
9,914
22,000
31,914 $
230
29,520
Total
17,125
3,166
14,489
41,586
1,089
3
5
9,914
22,000
109,377
77,089
8,810
230
29,520
85,899 $
29,750 $
115,649
80
-------
10-1-0029
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
FY2010, 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
81
-------
10-1-0029
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
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.
82
-------
10-1-0029
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 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.
83
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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 legal commitment under a non-cancellable agreement, subject to the availability
of funds, with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). This agreement enables
EPA to provide funding to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol. Future payments totaling $9.5 million have been deemed reasonably possible and
are anticipated to be paid in FY 2010.
84
-------
Note 19. Earmarked Funds
10-1-0029
Environmental LUST
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2009 Services
Assets
Fund Balance with Treasury 3
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities 3
Total Liabilities 3
Cumulative Results of Operations 3
Total Liabilities and Net Position 3
Statement of Changes in Net Cost for the
Period Ended September 30, 2009
Gross Program Costs 3
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations 3
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
Superfund
Other Earmarked Total Earmarked
Funds Funds
231,821
231,821
1
1
231,820
231,821
-
_
he
211,282
t:
20,538
20,538
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25,169
3,422,610
217
3,447,996
1 1 ,693
1 1 ,693
3,436,303
3,447,996
98,901
79
98,822
3,244,497
124,088
169,186
(3,000)
354
(98,822)
191,806
62,631 $
3,457,338
769,531
104,735
4,394,236 "
977,700 $
977,700 $'
3,416,536 $
4,394,236 $
$ 1,672,246 $
615,577
$ 1,056,669 $
2,702,763 $
52,065
(1,479)
1,693,519
26,338
(1,056,669)
713,774 ' $'
25,650 $
4,157
4,827
34,635
32,817 $
32,817 $"
1,817 $
34,634 $
75,485
55,411
20,074 $
231,820 $ 3,436,303 $ 3,416,537 $
1,989 $
15
17,687
2,199
(20,074)
(173) $|
1,816 $"
345,271
6,879,948
773,688
109,780
8,108,687
1,022,211
1,022,211
7,086,476
8,108,687
1,846,632
671,067
1,175,565
6,160,531
176,168
188,245
1,708,206
28,891
(1,175,565)
925,945 '
7,086,476 '
85
-------
10-1-0029
Balance sheet as of September 30, 2008
Assets
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
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 Assets
Total Liabilities
Enviorn mental
Services
211,282
211,282
211,282
211,282
Net Cost of Operations
LUST
12,711
3,240,675
27
72
3,253,485
8,988
3,244,497
3,253,485
77,702
32
Restated
Superfund
45,596
2,926,233
468,626
89,408
3,529,863
827,100
827,100
1,530,979
543,841
Other
Earmarked
Funds
23,765
7,921
4,404
2,487
38,577
36,588
36,588
73,284
52,425
77,670 $
987,138
20,859
Restated
Total
Earmarked
Funds
293,354
6,174,829
473,057
91,967
7,033,207
872,676
872,676
2,702,763 $
3,529,863 $
1,989 $
38,577 $
6,160,531
7,033,207
1,681,965
596,298
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
188,371
22,911
3,023,769
3,023,769
127,346
170,762
1
289
(77,670)
22,911 $ 220,728
2,670,425
(93.6131
2,576,812
114,340
10,442
969,606
18,701
(987,138)
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
211,282 $ 3,244,497 $ 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
86
-------
10-1-0029
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 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.
87
-------
10-1-0029
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): The FIFRA Revolving Fund,
Treasury fund group 4310, was authorized by the FIFRA Act of 1972, as amended in 1988
and as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Pesticide maintenance fees are
paid by industry to offset the costs of pesticide re-registration and reassessment of tolerances
for pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by law.
Tolerance Revolving Fund: The Tolerance Revolving Fund, Treasury fund group 4311, was
authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees are paid by industry for Federal
services to set pesticide chemical residue limits in or on food and animal feed. The fees
collected prior to January 2, 1997 were accounted for under this fund. Presently these fees
are being deposited in the FIFRA fund.
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992
Act, "Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389)," Treasury fund group
5297, has funds available to carry out authorized environmental restoration activities.
Funding is derived from the collection of reimbursements under the Exxon Valdez settlement
as a result of an oil spill.
Note 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.
88
-------
10-1-0029
Note 21. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
FY 2009 FY 2008
intragovern- With the intragovern- With the
mental Public TOTAL mental Public TOTAL
Clean Air
Program Costs $ 187,484 $ 874,787 $ 1,062,271 $ 181,467 $ 816,336 $ 997,803
Earned Revenue 15,455 3,036 18,491 18,360 2,043 20,403
NET COST $ 172,029 $ 871,751 $ 1,043,780 $ 163,107 $ 814,293 $ 977,400
Clean & Safe Water
Program Costs $ 191,558 3,236,903 $ 3,428,461 $ 162,679 3,334,953 $ 3,497,632
Earned Revenue 4,758 3,208 7,966 7,615 2,841 10,456
NET COST $ 186,800 $ 3,233,695 $ 3,420,495 $ 155,064 $ 3,332,112 $ 3,487,176
Land Preservation &
Restoration
Program Costs $ 386,549 $ 1,821,301 $ 2,207,850 $ 347,011 $ 1,654,205 $ 2,001,216
Earned Revenue 101,767 580,119 681,886 73,829 501,719 575,548
NET COST $ 284,782 $ 1,241,182 $ 1,525,964 $ 273,182 $ 1,152,486 $ 1,425,668
Healthy Communities
& Ecosystems
Program Costs $ 271,028 $ 1,134,155 $ 1,405,183 $ 281,767 $ 1,126,764 $ 1,408,531
Earned Revenue 20,047 42,267 62,314 22,710 39,407 62,117
NET COST $ 250,981 $ 1,091,888 $ 1,342,869 $ 259,057 $ 1,087,357 $ 1,346,414
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Program Costs $ 207,660 $ 609,538 $ 817,198 $ 176,376 $ 593,853 $ 770,229
Earned Revenue 4,071 (1,116) 2,955 5,540 1,801 7,341
NET COST $ 203,589 $ 610,654 $ 814,243 $ 170,836 $ 592,052 $ 762,888
Total
Program Costs $ 1,244,279 $ 7,676,684 $ 8,920,963 $ 1,149,300 $ 7,526,111 $ 8,675,411
Earned Revenue 146,098 627,514 773,612 128,054 547,811 675,865
NET COST $ 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.
89
-------
10-1-0029
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
90
-------
10-1-0029
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 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.
91
-------
10-1-0029
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:
FY20Q8
Budgetary
Resources
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Adjustments to Undelivered Orders and
Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S.
Government
13,207,920
Obligations
9,656,040
Offsetting
Receipts
1,118,429
Net Outlays
9,052,419
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)
92
-------
10-1-0029
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
93
-------
10-1-0029
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 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 FY 2009 FY 2008
U.S. Navy $ (8,000)$ (7,875)
Small Business Administration (2,953) -_
Total Appropriation Transfers (Other Funds) $ (10,953) (7,875)
Net Transfers from Invested Funds 1,3 82,030 1,3 89,902
Transfer to Another Agency (10,953) (7,875)
Allocations Rescinded - 5,940
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
Budgetary Resources $ 1,371,077 $ 1,387,967
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:
94
-------
10-1-0029
Type of Transfer/Funds
FY 2009
FY 2008
Earmark
Other
Funds
Earmark
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
(57,392) $ 57,392 $ (37,204) $
1,905
$ (39,705) $ 57,392 $ (18,190) $
Other
Funds
37,204
17,687
17,056
53
(53)
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 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:
95
-------
10-1-0029
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).
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
96
-------
10-1-0029
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 Not Covered
Budgetary by Budgetary
Resources Resources
Total
57,004 $
31,307
3,177
-
91,488 $
46,966 $
30,659
2,670
-
80,295 $
- $ 57,004
31,307
3,177
159,129 159,129
159,129 $ 250,617
- $ 46,966
30,659
2,670
152,663 152,663
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.
97
-------
10-1-0029
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
Interest on Trust Fund $
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Total Nonexchange Revenue $
FY2009
176,168 $
169,186
(1,479)
20,538
364,413 $
FY2008
241,873
170,762
10,442
22,911
445,988
98
-------
10-1-0029
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
99
-------
10-1-0029
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
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs
Other
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
Generate Resources in Future Periods
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
Revaluation of Assets and Liabilities
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period
Net Cost of Operations
FY 2009
$ 6,461 $
83
4,529
(337,008)
(3,232)
$ (329,167) $
$ 71,550 $
50,652
$ 122,202 $
$ (206,965) $
Restated
FY 2008
9,807
1,197
44
(176,404)
5,641
59
(159,656)
88,586
86,321
174,907
15,251
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").
100
-------
10-1-0029
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.
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:
101
-------
10-1-0029
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
102
-------
10-1-0029
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)
$ (7.7147 $'
1.898.131
103
-------
10-1-0029
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 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.
EPA
- $
2,749,821
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
SUPERFUND FY 2008
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
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
2.749
,821
,821
-
-
$
$
$
1
1
79
79
89
2
92
984
$
$
$
$
1,
1,
1,
301
301
,31
,31
-
-
5
-
5
301,315
$
$
$
1
1,1
14
92
(1,301
1
,305
,305
,975
,850
,825
,974
,340
,139
,315)
,905
$
$
$
$
$
$
(1,299,410)
$
(107,271)
$
2,929,126
2.929.126
89,975
2,850
92,825
984,974
114,340
1,192,139
1,905
1,905
1,194,044
104
-------
10-1-0029
LUST FY 2009
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA
Treasury
Combined
$
$'
- $
305,445
305,445 $
305,445 $
305,445 $
- $
- $
312,577$
312,577
312,577 $
(10,359) $
(10,359)
22,838
3,094,325
3,106,804$
3,106,804$
3,106,804$
159,719$
9,454
13
169,186
124,087
293,273 $
(10,359)
(10,359)
22,838
3,399,770
3,412,249
3,412,249
3,412,249
159,719
9,454
13
169,186
124,087
293,273
(312,577)$
(312,577)
(19,304) $
293,273
105
-------
10-1-0029
LUST FY 2008 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance $ -_ $ (2,497) $ (2,497)
Total Undisbursed Balance - (2,497) (2,497)
Interest Receivable - 28,735 28,735
Investments, Net 112,068 3,099,871 3,211,939
Total Assets $ 112,068$ 3,126,109$ 3,238,177
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax $ - $ 154,309$ 154,309
Airport TF Tax - 16,240 16,240
Inland TF Tax - 213_ 213_
Total Revenue - 170,762 170,762
Interest Income -_ 127,346 127,346
Total Receipts $ - $ 298,108 $ 298,108
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net $ 105,816 $ (105,816) $ -_
Total Outlays 105,816 (105,816) -_
Net Income $ 105,816 $ 192,292 $ 298,108
$
$
112,068$
112,068$
3,126,109 $
3,126,109 $
3,238,177
3,238,177
106
-------
10-1-0029
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.
107
-------
10-1-0029
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 FIFRA LUST S&T
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 $ 3,136 $ 98,881 $ 829,447
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
32-1 ,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)
1,059,459 $
822,326 $
6,526
828,852
193,278
37,329
1059,459 $
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)
3,446,429 $ 3,198,762
8,066,730
108
-------
10-1-0029
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.
109
-------
10-1-0029
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.
110
-------
10-1-0029
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
111
-------
10-1-0029
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.
112
-------
10-1-0029
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.
113
-------
10-1-0029
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
FY2009
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
FY2008
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.
114
-------
10-1-0029
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)
FY 2009
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1:
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law
Permanently Not Available
Total Budgetary Resources
1,513,176
118,278
636,392
292,403
1,401
12,032
4,574
310,410
1,269,453
Restated
FY 2008
1,245,311
168,480
37,205
388,917
(1,725)
75,873
4,476
467,541
1,288,350
(4,263)
(54)
3,847,709 $
.,202,570
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Exempt from Apportionment
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (Note S6)
1,996,048 $
246,297
2,242,345
1,593,443
1,593,443
11,921
3,847,709 $
1,425,282
264,112
1,689,394
1,512,670
1,512,670
506
3,202,570
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
115
-------
10-1-0029
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 fund) from Treasury
The payment cannot be made directly through the trust fund, but must go through a "pass-through" fund
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
116
-------
10-1-0029
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.
117
-------
10-1-0029
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
118
-------
10-1-0029
appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits, travel, procurement,
and contract activities. This distribution is calculated using a combination of specific
identification of expenses to Reporting Entities, and a weighted average that distributes
expenses proportionately to total programmatic expenses. As illustrated below, this estimate
does not impact the consolidated totals of the Statement of Net Cost or the Statement of
Changes in Net Position.
Superfund
All Others
Total
FY 2009
FY 2008
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 Net
Appropriations Effect
(69,769) $
69,769
- $ - $
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 $ 1,025,146
FY 2008
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Rounding Differences*
(570)
(394)
31
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
119
-------
10-1-0029
Note S7. Superfund Eliminations
The Superfund Trust Fund has intra-agency activities with other EPA funds which are
eliminated on the consolidated Balance Sheet and the Statement of Net Cost. These are listed
below:
FY 2009 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
120
-------
10-1-0029
Appendix II
Agency's Response to Draft Report
11/12/2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements
FROM: Barbara J. Bennett (2710A) /s/
Chief Financial Officer
TO: Bill A. Roderick (2410T)
Deputy Inspector General
Fiscal Year 2009 marks another successful financial statements audit cycle for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This year, we broadened Agency partnerships with a focus
on strengthening fiscal integrity, enhancing core business operations, and contributing to
Agency-wide performance management systems. We are proud of the many accomplishments
and thank you for identifying additional areas for improvement in the draft Inspector General's
Audit Report. The audit work performed will help shape future financial management
initiatives.
Our offices worked together to expand stakeholder involvement, thereby engaging all
parts of the Agency in fiscal stewardship yielding significant results. Attached are the Agency's
responses to this audit report. Detailed corrective action plans will be provided to you and your
staff within 90-days of the issuance of the final audit report. Please let me know if you have any
questions, or your staff can contact Stefan Silzer, Acting Director, Office of Financial
Management on 202-564-5389 regarding the audit.
Attachments
cc:
Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resource Management
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
Linda Travers, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information
Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development
Susan B. Hazen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and
Resource Management
121
-------
10-1-0029
Mike Flynn, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information
Maryann Froehlich, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General
Margaret Schneider, Director, Office of Administration and Policy Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Mark Badalamente, Deputy Director, Office of Administration and Policy Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
Jack Puzak, Director, Office of Science Information Management
Larry Reiter, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory
Dan Heggem, Acting Director, Environmental Sciences Division
Jed Harrison, Director, Radiation & Indoor Environment
Johnny Davis, Acting Director, Enterprise Desktop Solutions Division
Paul Curtis, Director, Financial Statements Audits
Dany Lavergne, Director, Las Vegas Finance Center
Jim Wood, Director, Cincinnati Finance Office
Sheron Johnson, Director, Human Resources Staff: Team Vegas
Dennisses Valdes, Director, Environmental Response Team - West
Richard Bennett, Staff Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff
Jeanne Conklin, Staff Director, Financial Policy and Planning Staff
Eva Ripollone, Staff Director, Applications Management Staff
122
-------
10-1-0029
Attachment 1
Response to Draft Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2009 and 2008 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements
1 - EPA Understated Accounts Receivable for 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 Department of Justice
(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.
Response: (Concur)
The Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC) communicates with regional offices and DOJ on a
daily basis. As settlement documents are identified, the regions are contacted to request
that the documentation be sent to CFC. In addition to the DOJ debt assessed report, CFC
will utilize the DOJ 30-day tracking reports more extensively. As stated in the position
paper, there were additional complexities that prevented this particular bankruptcy
settlement from being forwarded to CFC or entered into the other Agency tracking
systems. CFC staff will reiterate to the Regional Bankruptcy Coordinators that any
bankruptcy settlement also needs to be sent to CFC so that an appropriate accounts
receivable is established.
2. Re-inform and train Legal Enforcement Offices (LEOs), Office of Regional Counsels
(ORCs), and Regional Program Offices (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 Servicing Finance Office (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.
Response: (Concur)
CFC provides training relating to accounts receivables whenever possible. For example,
CFC provided accounts receivable training at the Superfund conference. In light of this
particular bankruptcy issue, the topic was added to the National Bankruptcy Conference
where CFC staff presented the Agency's position on the proper recording of a
bankruptcy. Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) is working on a
Bankruptcy Guidance document to be disseminated to the regional offices outlining roles
and responsibilities for each office within the process. CFC will continue to provide
training, not only on an individual basis, but during regional visits, conferences, etc. and
will continue to use any tools available to search for orders not readily sent to CFC.
123
-------
10-1-0029
2 - EPA Understated Unearned Revenue
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.
Response: (Concur)
A vast majority ($93.6 million) of these corrections relate to transactions between fiscal
years 2003 and 2007. Therefore, a separate accounting model will need to be developed
so that the proper general ledger accounts are impacted. The Office of Financial Services
(OFS) will work with the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to develop an
appropriate accounting model to record the transactions in IFMS. In addition, regional
budget and/or finance personnel will need to be part of the correction process since
reimbursable authority must be requested on a site by site basis for these transactions.
4. Work with Regional Comptrollers to correctly account for the improperly expended
funds at the site level.
Response: (Concur)
The response for this recommendation is addressed with the response to recommendation
3, above. Since the majority of these transactions ($93.6 million) occurred between fiscal
years 2003 and 2007 an accounting model will need to be created to properly record these
corrections.
5. Develop controls over Special Accounts so that, for each site, the fund codes collected
are the fund codes spent.
Response: (Concur)
OCFO will work with Regional Comptrollers to establish adequate controls over Special
Accounts even though the control resides with their offices. The Regional Comptroller
Offices work with the various regional program offices to provide funding for contracts,
lAs, grants, etc. The control over which fund code is available for a particular site
resides at the level where the request for reimbursable authority would occur.
OCFO's OFS will monitor special account fund code usage. The primary control for
ensuring the proper fund codes are requested and used resides with the region requesting
to use the funds.
3- Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling Unearned Revenue for
124
-------
10-1-0029
Superfund State Contract Costs
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.
Response: (Concur)
Based on existing guidance the applicable regions are responsible for identifying if a site
should be open or closed. The regions are directly involved with the SSC negotiations
and are in the best position to determine if a site should be closed. OFS relies on the
regional expertise in this area. OCFO will reiterate regional responsibilities regarding
site status.
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.
Response: (Concur)
The Financial Policy and Planning Staff (FPPS) in coordination with the Reporting and
Analysis Staff (RAS) and the Program Costing Staff (PCS) will work with Regional
Comptrollers and Superfund Program personnel to research transactions in older funds
and eliminate invalid transactions. We plan to have the corrective action completed by
September 30, 2010.
8. Establish a review process for reconciling Superfund site costs to ensure that data and
calculations used are consistent and properly supported.
Response: (Concur)
OFS took over responsibility for entering data onto the SSC spreadsheets in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2008. OFS relied on the audited spreadsheets to that point and relied on
the data as presented at that time. OFS has a process for verifying the data it added
starting in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 forward. Based on vulnerabilities identified
during the audit, OFS will strengthen review/verification controls.
9. Direct the regional offices to bill the States for costs incurred where necessary, including
the $887,583 amount identified.
Response: (Concur)
OFS agrees with the intent of this recommendation for accurate billing.
125
-------
10-1-0029
4 - EPA Misstated Uncollectible Debt and Other Related Accounts
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.
Response: (Concur)
OFM will review the current accounting model and revise it as appropriate to properly
record adjustments for the movement of accounts from expiring or cancelled
appropriations. OFM will review the net impact of entries prior to issuing the accounting
model by June 30, 2010.
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.
Response: (Concur)
OFM will 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.
5 - EPA Needs to Improve Billing and Accounting for Accounts Receivable
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.
Response: (Do not concur)
In calculating the reimbursable accrual, we consider all activity related to non-advance
federal reimbursable agreements to be part of the accrual. CFC did research the credits
which were part of the reimbursable accrual for the 4th quarter. Credits were excluded
from the accrual report if they were not valid or if the offset was in an expired year.
There are valid reasons why the credits left on the report ($1.2 million) should be
included in the overall accrual calculation. Major components include:
• $144K relates to the National Oil Agreement, which includes dozens of Org codes
126
-------
10-1-0029
related to that one agreement. Not including these credits would overstate the accrual
for this agreement. The majority of the oil credits are due to the indirect costs which
are billed and collected at the site level, but distributed at the non-site level.
• Over $682K related to two agreements in which there are multiple Org codes. The
credit lines offset the unbilled expenses against another Org code. By eliminating
these Org codes with credits, it would overstate the overall accrual for those
agreements.
• Over $129K relate to FEMA agreements in which the mission assignments have not
been closed. We are not refunding this until the mission assignments are closed,
which will confirm there are no trailing costs.
13. Work with other federal agencies to resolve each credit balance to ensure the exclusion of
credit amounts from future unbilled accounts receivable calculations.
Response: (Do not concur)
While we do agree that if a credit can be resolved/refunded, it should, and CFC will strive
to monitor and clear credits whenever possible, we disagree that they should be removed
from the accrual calculation. There was not a problem with the calculation itself, and
credits should be included in this calculation unless identified as invalid. While CFC
works closely with other Federal Agencies regarding reimbursable agreements, there is no
reason to seek assistance with the credits on the accrual report.
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.
Response: (Concur)
CFC works closely with the regions and DOJ, and has instituted the use of many tools to
assist with identifying and tracking finalized orders. CFC has a process that has been
identified and supported by Agency policy. This recommendation is similar to
recommendations in the Draft Fines & Penalties Report; hence, additional information
will be outlined in the response to the Fines & Penalties Report, which encompasses all
Offices involved in the Accounts Receivable process
15. Establish a supervisory review process to ensure procedures are being followed, and
interest and federal receivables are properly recorded.
Response: (Concur)
CFC has procedures in place for how to treat interest lines and federal receivables. These
procedures will be reviewed with staff during staff meetings and/or performance reviews
to ensure there is a clear understanding of the proper treatment of these types of
receivables.
127
-------
10-1-0029
16. Establish a process to review the allowance calculation for errors, including proper
application of calculation methods.
Response: (Concur)
CFC will add this review to the quarterly allowance calculation to ensure multiple lines
of a debt are recorded with the same allowance method.
17. Develop a process to review and update receivable status code updates in the financial
system quarterly.
Response: (Concur)
While CFC does review and follow up on delinquent debt, especially the large dollar
debt, they will also ensure that the smaller dollar delinquent debt is followed up on and
resolved as well.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) report has some factual errors and does not
accurately characterize what happened
Page 1 - "in the letter to the Administrator, it references that eight settlement agreements
were not entered." It should state six settlement agreements were not entered.
Page 4 - "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 2009". It
should state fiscal year 2008.
Page 5 - "we identified errors in EPA's accounting and recording for 57 accounts
receivables in the financial system." It should reference that 37 of the 57 accounts
receivables were entered correctly though not within the timeframe listed in Agency
policy.
6 - Headquarters Property Items Not Inventoried
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.
Response: (Concur)
Deployment has been completed for the CIS computers; all Agency property replaced
during the life of the project will not be released for disposal until January 31, 2010.
128
-------
10-1-0029
The speed and volume of deployment has presented challenges from a property inventory
perspective. Despite best efforts of both offices, the property Team was not able to
maintain timely and accurate tracking of the replaced Agency property. There have been
instituted appropriate controls to resolve the identified property management concerns.
The Property Team has developed a plan to locate all of the missing equipment, in
particular the 23 missing capitalized pieces. There will be an inventory done where the
Property Team will perform a wall-to-wall inventory; during which every office, cubicle,
storage room, and conference room will be inventoried. The warehouses in Landover and
the V Street location will also be subject to the comprehensive inventory process.
The Property Team will prepare a message to be issued to all Property Management
Officers as well as the Headquarters Custodial Officers to request a complete inventory of
all equipment replaced at Headquarters as part of the CTS project. At the conclusion of
these activities, the Property Team will conduct a complete reconciliation process and any
outstanding items of personal property will be tracked and accounted for in IFMS and FAS.
7 - EPA Should Improve Its Financial Statement Preparation Process
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.
Response: (Do Not Concur)
OFM/RAS disagrees with the recommendation. In our response to Observation #1 below,
we described our handling of the on-top adjustments, and that the entries did not result in
an out of balance condition.
OIG Observation #1: "During our analysis of the fourth quarter on-top adjustments, we
identified four one sided on-top adjustments. The on-top adjustment should have equal
debits and credit balances. In the case of the four one sided on-tops adjustments, they
either have a debit or credit balance. The Agency reviewed and approved these entries."
RAS Response: RAS clearly labeled on the explanation line on the ontop adjustment
forms in question that the debit/credit differences are reconciled on the next pages, thus,
ensuring that there is no negative impact on the financial statements. The Bureau of
Public Debt consolidates the activities of the Superfund program and the Recovery Act
Superfund program in a single trial balance. This is also the case for the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program and the Recovery Act LUST program.
However, EPA separately records the activities of the Superfund and Recovery Act
Superfund programs as well as the LUST and Recovery Act LUST programs in four
separate trial balances for transparency. To reiterate, in handling this unique situation,
RAS processed four separate ontop adjustments; i.e., one adjustment for the Superfund
program and one adjustment for the Recovery Act Superfund program as well as one
129
-------
10-1-0029
adjustment for the LUST program and one adjustment for the Recovery Act LUST
program and cross referenced and reconciled the debit/credit differences. RAS prepared
similar entries in the FY 2009 2nd and 3rd quarters, and did not receive OIG feedback via
the Agreed Upon procedures that there were issues.
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.
Response: (Concur)
OFM/RAS addressed this recommendation in an e-mail message on October 23, 2009,
and agreed with OIG's suggestion to attach its internal checklist as an appendix to the
Financial Statement Preparation Guide. RAS had not changed its routine for Ontop
Adjustments. RAS has been processing Journal Vouchers (TV's), Standard Voucher(s) or
Ontop Adjustments over the years as needed in accordance with an internal checklist,
"OFM Tasks Impacting FY 2009 Financial Statements Quarter."
21. Update the YACT and the general ledger matrix to identify current fiscal year general
ledger accounts and their related closing activity.
Response: (Concur)
OFM concurs with the intent of having up-to-date matrixes. The YACT table is currently
updated on an annual basis. OFM/RAS will continue this practice. OFM/RAS annually
downloads the General Ledger Account (GLAC) Table into an Excel file that contains
the latest general ledger account updates and crosswalks EPA accounts with the U.S.
Standard General Ledger accounts. This user-friendly tool allows the user to sort, filter
the data, or create Excel pivot tables for additional analysis. The example that the OIG
cited in their write-up was already addressed by RAS in the Agreed Upon Procedures
during the year.
Annually, OFM/RAS has provided OIG staff with a download of the GLAC Table which
contains the latest General Ledger account updates and crosswalks EPA accounts with
the U.S. Standard General Ledger accounts. On May 7, 2009, OFM provided OIG, with
the latest download of the GLAC table. Noteworthy, the download of the GLAC table
into an Excel file is a user-friendly tool which allows the user to sort, filter the data, or
create Excel pivot tables for additional analysis. Once again, annually this process is
evaluated by KPMG in their A-123 Review to ensure its timeliness and correctness.
OFM will post the updated matrix on the OCFO intranet.
130
-------
10-1-0029
8 - Unneeded Funds Not Deobligated Timely
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.
Response: (Concur)
OFM/RAS will confirm with the appropriate Finance Center that it processed all
deobligation requests that it has received.
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
Response: (Concur)
While OCFO agrees with the intent of the recommendation to deobligate unneeded funds,
it will continue to use its current year-end certification process to identify unneeded funds
that were not deobligated.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) report has some factual errors and does not
accurately characterize what happened.
The OIG report indicates that the Stratospheric Protection Division identified in July
2009 $58,414 in miscellaneous unneeded funds for deobligation, but that the
Stratospheric Protection Division did not inform the Office of Administration and
Resources Management (OARM) to take the necessary action to deobligate the unneeded
funds. Actually, in an e-mail dated July 24, 2008, the Stratospheric Protection Division
asked its OAM contracting officers to deobligate a number of unliquidated obligations
that totaled approximately $130,000. The $58,414, in miscellaneous unneeded funds of
interest to the OIG, was a subset of the transactions that the Stratospheric Protection
Division requested to have deobligated on July 24, 2008.
As part of our annual review of unliquidated obligations in 2009, we found that our
original e-mail request of July 24, 2008 was not completed. In examining our original e-
mail request of July 24, 2008, we can see that the request could be misinterpreted — that
the e-mail request was not crystal clear. In the future, when we request that unliquidated
obligations be deobligated, we will make our communications crystal clear, and we will
follow-up with OARM to ensure that our requests are completed.
131
-------
10-1-0029
9 - Integrated Financial Management System User Account Management Needs
Improvement
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.
Response (Concur) The Office of Technology Solutions concurs with all
recommendations. The Office of Technology Solutions in coordination with the FPPS
will develop and implement a policy regarding the segregation of duties. Based on this
policy the Applications Management Staff will develop and implement detective
controls to enforce the integrity of the internal control environment regarding user
account management in the IFMS. We plan to have the corrective action completed by
December 30, 2010.
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. Response (Concur) - see 24
above
26. Update the Request Database to identify and alert the requestor of incompatible
functions. Response (Concur)-see 24 above
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. Response
(Concur) - see 24 above
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. Response (Concur) - see 24 above
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.
Response (Concur) - see 24 above
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. Response (Concur) - see 24 above
132
-------
10-1-0029
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. Response (Concur) - see 24 above
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. Response (Concur) - see 24 above
10 - Las Vegas Finance Center Needs Improved Physical Access Controls
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development:
33. Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all organizations are provided with
the information necessary to monitor and review the access to their space both if and
when the transfer takes place as well as in the interim until the transfer takes place,
including:
a. Providing electronic copies of the following reports to the director of each
organization supported by the system on a monthly basis to enable them to
monitor and review the access to their space.
i. A Standard 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.
ii. A Standard 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.
iii. For reviewing the logged history of users' access, a standard 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.
b. Providing, upon request, the reports as requested by the organizations in a timely
manner (within 2 working days) for special situations.
Response (Concur)
ORD will work collaboratively with other AA-ships to appropriately redistribute physical
security responsibilities. Given this information, we believe that the most prudent course
of action would be for the AA-ships occupying the La Plaza facilities to have their own
physical access system, Physical Security Program, and supporting policies and
133
-------
10-1-0029
procedures.
During the recent Las Vegas EPA Director's meeting held on October 22, 2009, the La
Plaza EPA offices agreed to implement a physical access system for La Plaza and are
working on the technical requirements with the vendor. Barring any unforeseen
complications, the non-ORD offices are expected to be off the ORD system no later than
March 31, 2010. To address Recommendation 33, in the interim, ORD/OSIM will update
the current standard operating procedures (SOP) to provide electronic reports allowing
each organization to monitor and review access to their space until an independent card
access system is implemented, and responsibility for this function transfers to the
responsible organization. Expected completion date is December 18, 2009.
34. Develop and implement a formal procedure that ensures each organization supported by
the 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. Response
(Do Not Concur)
35. Develop and implement a formal procedure that ensures each organization supported by
the 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. Response (Do
Not Concur)
The appropriate course of action for Recommendations 34 and 35 will require more
discussions between the Agency leaders and the OIG staff. We do not believe it is
appropriate or prudent for ORD to have oversight responsibility for La Plaza AA-ships
given that ORD will not have the authority or the responsibility for the La Plaza Physical
Security Program.
11 - Customer Technology Solutions Equipment Needs Improved Security Planning
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 plan to
recommend in a separate report that EPA:
A. Develop and implement a vulnerability testing and remediation process for CTS
equipment consistent with existing EPA security policies and procedures.
Response: (Do Not Concur)
In accordance with the Agency Network Security Policy, CTS conducts regular vulnerability
testing and remediation on its assets at least once a quarter. Additional annual vulnerability
134
-------
10-1-0029
testing and remediation is completed via its annual assessment activity. CIS is however, in
the process of reviewing its vulnerability testing and remediation process to in an effort to
establish roles and responsibilities for local Information Security Officers (ISO) to ensure
their ability to management vulnerability testing and remediation independently as we have
identified this area as a potential area of interest.
B. Issue a memorandum to Agency Senior Information Officials requiring their program
office to conduct vulnerability testing of CIS equipment until a formal vulnerability testing
and management process with CIS has been established.
Response: (Do Not Concur)
The Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) has issued a memorandum to the
Agency Senior Information Officials (SIO) reminded them and the staffs of the NIST
requirements for vulnerability testing and remediation. We understand that this
memorandum did not address the recommendation to conduct vulnerability testing and
remediation on a monthly basis vs. quarterly as identified in NIST SP 800-123. This
recommendation is being considered by the Agency Information Security Program Work
Group.
C. 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.
Response: (Concur)
CTS Zone Representatives shall conduct a quarterly review with each Primary Information
Security Officer (ISO) demonstrating the evidence of the timely corrective actions taken to
remediate identified vulnerability from our testing and remediation activities.
D. Ensure that all CTS security documents have been developed and approved by the
appropriate EPA officials.
Response: (Do Not Concur)
All CTS security documents have been developed and approved by the appropriate EPA
officials. A copy of the entire Certification & Accreditation (C&A) package has been
provided to the OIG as requested. Additionally, copies of the security documentation
produced prior to deployment are being provided to demonstrate the level of risk assessed
prior to deployment.
12 - EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile Intra-governmental Transactions
Recommendation
We recommend that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
135
-------
10-1-0029
36. 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.
Response: (Concur)
The Cincinnati Finance Center will continue to work with trading partners to reconcile
balances and make appropriate adjustments to comply with Federal financial reporting
requirements.
Responsible Managers:
Signature/Date
Stefan Silzer , Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, OCFO
Signature/Date
Raffael Stein, Acting Director, Office of Financial Services, OCFO
Signature/Date
Kathy O'Brien, Acting Director, Office of Technology Solutions, OCFO
Signature/Date
David Bloom, Director, Office of Budget, OCFO
Signature/Date
Patrice Kortuem, Deputy Director, Office of Resources and Information Management, OCFO
Signature/Date
Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development
Vaughn Noga, Acting Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning
Office of Environmental Information
Signature/Date
Signature/Date
Craig Hooks, Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resource Management
136
-------
10-1-0029
Appendix
Distribution
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Acting Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information
Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
Director, Office of Science Information Management, Office of Research and Development
Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Acting Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, Office of Environmental
Information
Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Acting Director, Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Research Triangle Park Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Cincinnati Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Las Vegas Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Acting Director, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer
Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Acting Director, Office of Technology Solutions, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Policy and Planning Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Acting Director, Payroll Management and Outreach Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Accountability and Control Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Agency Audit Follow-up Coordinator
Agency Follow-up Official
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Grants and Debarment
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Offices of Financial Management and Financial Services
General Counsel
Acting Inspector General
137
-------
Vk V" f";
•O M1
3
Performance and Accountability Report
Section IV
Other Accompanying Information
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 IV- Page 1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Management challenges and integrity weaknesses represent vulnerabilities in program
operations that may impair EPA's ability to achieve its mission and threaten the Agency's
safeguards against fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. These areas are identified
through internal Agency reviews and independent reviews by EPA's external evaluators, such
as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG). This section has two components: 1) a brief
discussion of EPA's progress in addressing its FY 2009 integrity weaknesses, and 2) key
management challenges identified by EPA's OIG, followed by the Agency's response.
Under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), all federal agencies must provide
reasonable assurance that policies, procedures, and guidance are adequate to support the
achievement of their intended mission, goals, and objectives. (See Section I, "Management
Discussion and Analysis," for the Administrator's assurance statements.) Agencies also must
report any material weaknesses identified through internal and/or external reviews and their
strategies to remedy the problems. Material weaknesses are vulnerabilities that could
significantly impair or threaten fulfillment of the Agency's programs or mission. As of September
30, 2009, EPA reported two new material weaknesses under FMFIA. During the FY 2009
financial statement audit process, EPA's OIG identified an additional material weakness related
to reporting of unearned revenue and accounts receivable. The Agency 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. Additionally, the Agency has identified several
less severe Agency-level weaknesses or significant deficiencies for which corrective actions are
underway. In FY 2009, the Agency completed corrective actions for two Agency-level
weaknesses ("Key Applications Need Security Controls" and "Redistribution of Superfund
Payments") and one significant deficiency ("Superfund State Cost Share"). (See page 3 of this
section for a discussion of new, existing, and corrected weaknesses and significant
deficiencies.)
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires OIG to identify, briefly assess, and report
annually the most serious management and performance challenges facing the Agency. In FY
2009, OIG identified 10 areas it considers to be EPA's most pressing management challenges.
(See page 11 of this section for OIG's report to the Administrator.) Most of the issues identified
are recurring issues that will take time to resolve (e.g., "Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,"
"Chesapeake Bay Program," and "Performance Measurement"). EPA has made progress in
addressing the issues OIG identified and will continue to work diligently in assessing and
resolving vulnerabilities before they become serious management issues.
EPA's senior managers remain committed to maintaining effective and efficient internal controls
to ensure that program activities are carried out in accordance with applicable laws and sound
management policy. EPA leaders meet periodically to review and discuss progress the Agency
is making to address issues raised by OIG and other external evaluators, as well as progress in
addressing current weaknesses and emerging issues. The Agency will continue to address its
remaining weaknesses and report on its progress.
Section IV-Page 2
-------
ERA'S PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING
FY 2009 WEAKNESSES AND SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES
(Prepared by EPA)
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In FY 2009, EPA continued to address its
internal control weaknesses and
significant deficiencies. This section
discusses the weaknesses and significant
deficiencies resolved in FY 2009, as well
as those for which corrective actions are
still underway.
Material Weaknesses
Understated Unearned Revenue
During the audit of the Agency's FY 2009
financial statements, the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) determined that
EPA materially understated its unearned
revenue. This resulted from its recording
expenditures of 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
majority of these transactions ($93.6
million) occurred between FY 2003 and
FY 2007. EPA restated its FY 2008
financial statements to reflect the correct
unearned revenue. The Agency will
develop a separate accounting model so
that proper general ledger accounts are
impacted for future transactions. Additionally, the Agency will coordinate corrective actions
among its Regional offices, and monitor special account fund code usage. EPA will also explore
developing an Agency-level control to eliminate recurrences. The Agency expects to complete
all corrective actions and resolve this weakness in FY 2010.
Understated Accounts Receivable
During the audit of the Agency's FY 2009 financial statements, OIG determined that EPA
materially understated the FY 2008 accounts receivables by not recording approximately $151
million in receivables. EPA's Servicing Finance Office (SFO) was not aware of legal documents
supporting seven receivables until the end of FY 2009. EPA's Regional legal Enforcement
Offices, Offices of Regional Counsel, and Regional Program Offices did not inform the SFO of
the multi-party settlements in time to record the receivables in the financial system during the
proper fiscal year. EPA recorded the account receivable and restated its FY 2008 financial
statements to reflect the correct accounts receivable balance. To prevent future occurrences,
the Agency will utilize the Department of Justice 30-day tracking reports more extensively to
monitor unrecorded bankruptcy settlements. Additionally, staff will reiterate to the Regional
EPA's FY 2009 Weaknesses and Significant
Deficiencies
Material Weaknesses
Understated Unearned Revenue
Understated Accounts Receivable
Improvements in Billing Costs and Reconciling
Unearned Revenue for Superfund State Contract
Costs
Agency-Level Weaknesses
Key Applications Need Security Controls*
Redistribution of Superfund Payments*
Implementation of Data Standards
Program Evaluation
Permit Compliance System
Streamlining EPA's Process for Developing
Chemical Assessments Under IRIS
Strengthening the Agency's Implementation of
FMFIA
Significant Deficiencies
Superfund State Share Cost (Improved Quarterly
Cost Reporting)*
* All corrective actions associated with these
weaknesses or significant deficiencies were completed
in FY 2009.
Section IV-Page 3
-------
Bankruptcy Coordinators that any bankruptcy settlement also needs to be sent to the SFO so
that an appropriate accounts receivable is established. Finally, EPA will coordinate with its
program offices to develop a bankruptcy guidance document to be disseminated to the Regional
offices outlining the roles and responsibilities for each office within the process. The Agency
expects to complete all corrective actions and resolve this weakness in FY 2010.
Improvement Needed in Billing Costs and Reconciling Unearned Revenue for Superfund
State Contract Costs
During the audit of the Agency's FY 2009 financial statements, OIG stated EPA did not properly
review the calculations used to reconcile unearned revenue for Superfund State Contract (SSC)
costs. Although the Agency did not concur with some of OIG's findings, it concurred with the
intent of all recommendations. To remedy this deficiency, the Agency will improve
accountability for the SSC contract requirements and site status information, research
transactions in older funds to determine validity, and strengthen the review/verification process
for reconciling Superfund site costs to ensure that data and calculations used are consistent and
properly supported. EPA expects to implement the aforementioned corrective actions and
resolve this weakness in FY 2010.
Agency-Level Weaknesses
Key Applications Need Security Controls
In FY 2007, OIG found that two critical applications at EPA's Cincinnati Finance Center, the
Billing & Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System (BRAINS) and the Relocation
Expense Management System (mLINQS), lacked key security planning documents. To remedy
these deficiencies, EPA developed security and contingency plans for both applications that
comply with federal security requirements specified by the National Institute for Standards and
Technology. In October 2008, an independent risk assessment was completed, and the security
plan was updated to address deficiencies identified. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) now has in place a formal authorization to operate, which includes security certification
and accreditation for BRAINS and mLINQS. The Agency has completed all corrective
actions for this Agency-level weakness.
Redistribution of Superfund Payments
In a July 2006 report entitled EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to
Specific Sites, OIG stated that EPA did not make timely redistribution of Superfund cooperative
agreements, interagency agreements, and small purchase payments from the general site
identifier "WQ" to the specific Superfund site or other general site identifiers. OIG recommended
that EPA 1) develop written "WQ" procedures for implementing Superfund site-specific
accounting policies, 2) provide an appropriate level of training for responsible personnel, 3)
change cooperative agreement conditions to require recipients to provide cost details within 24
hours of drawing down funds, and 4) redistribute the remaining historical "WQ" costs.
In December 2008, under the Resource Management Directive System, the Agency issued new
policies and procedures on "Direct Charging of Superfund Cost Site-Specific Cost Accounting
Methods." The new policy incorporates all of OIG's audit recommendations. The Agency
believes the actions taken (e.g., implementation of the new WQ policy, renewed focus on
collaboration with internal partners, and a streamlined "tickler" system that alerts responsible
partners of needed actions) has helped to significantly decrease the undistributed "WQ" costs
for cooperative agreements and small purchases.
Section IV- Page 4
-------
EPA will continue to focus on the timely redistribution of costs by monitoring WQ balances on a
quarterly basis. The Agency has completed all of the corrective actions for this Agency-
level weakness.
Implementation of Data Standards
In FY 2005, EPA acknowledged implementation of data standards as an Agency weakness.
EPA needs to establish a process for ensuring that each data standard adopted by the Agency
is fully implemented in a cost-effective and timely manner.
The Agency has made progress in addressing the implementation of data standards and is on
track to complete all of the corrective actions associated with this weakness and validate
effectiveness by FY 2010. To date, EPA has developed a training manual for implementers of
data standards and conducted four training sessions. To make training more accessible, the
Agency plans to offer the training module online in December 2009. The training will give
program offices and developers information on how to identify applicable standards used in their
systems and data products. The Agency will continue to coordinate with internal system
managers and developers about the importance of implementation of data standards. The
Agency expects to complete all corrective actions and resolve this weakness in FY 2010.
Program Evaluation
In its September 2007 report, Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management
Control Process, OIG identified several limitations to systematically conducting program
evaluations at EPA. These include 1) lack of internal expertise, 2) lack of external expertise, 3)
funding limitations, 4) the need for strategic investment in program evaluation, 5) complexity of
measuring long-term outcomes, 6) insufficient data/performance measurement information, and
7) limited program evaluation partnerships with states.
EPA managers recognize the need to strengthen program evaluation as part of the Agency's
overall effort to improve performance management. The Agency has already taken steps to
strengthen its program evaluation capability. Among these steps, EPA has:
• Developed a two-part strategy, including various focus areas, to strengthen EPA's
evaluation capabilities.
• Delivered a "Logic Modeling & Performance Measurement" course at the Sustainable
Communities Conference.
• Delivered a presentation on the use of logic models to support requirements of EPA
Environmental Results Order 5700.7.
Further plans include:
• Developing a Web 2.0 interactive, self-directed logic modeling course.
• Developing a new course that will emphasize the use of statistically valid measurements
and help document program outcomes.
The Agency will continue to work internally to implement the strategy. The Agency expects to
complete corrective actions and resolve this weakness in FY 2011.
Section IV- Page 5
-------
Permit Compliance System
In FY 1999, EPA acknowledged its Permit Compliance System (PCS) as an Agency weakness.
EPA needs to revitalize or replace PCS to provide an information system in a format that both
the states and EPA can use to ensure complete and accurate National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and discharge data.
EPA has developed and successfully implemented a modernized, national information system
designed to meet the needs of today's NPDES permitting and enforcement program—the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). However, not all of the states have yet been
migrated from PCS to the new system. The closure date for this weakness has been extended
until the newly modernized PCS can accommodate the electronic transfer of data from state
systems and all states have been moved from PCS to the new system.
Currently, 31 states, two tribes, and nine territories are using the new system. Twenty-four of
these states are generally referred to as "direct users," because they directly use ICIS to
manage the NPDES program. Two other groups of states are still using PCS and need to be
moved to ICIS:
• "Hybrid states" electronically transfer (batch) the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data
from their state systems to ICIS and directly enter other NPDES data into the new system.
• Full batch states have their own NPDES information systems and do not use PCS to directly
manage the NPDES program. Thus, these states need to electronically transfer (batch) all of
the necessary data from their systems into the new system.
In May 2008, EPA migrated the first "hybrid state" by implementing the DMR batch component
of ICIS, which allows for the submission of NPDES DMR data from state systems to ICIS in the
Extensible Mark-up Language format via the National Environmental Information Exchange
Network and EPA's Central Data Exchange. Approximately five additional states (four "hybrid"
users and one "direct" user) were migrated to ICIS with the completion of the DMR batch
component of ICIS in FY 2008.
In FY 2008, EPA also conducted, with input from states, an Alternative Analysis of the ICIS
business case that included an analysis of technical approaches for developing the full batch
component of the PCS modernization. OMB requires all federal agencies to periodically conduct
Alternative Analyses of their large information systems to evaluate the benefits and costs of the
current systems (the status quo) in achieving the business need, and to compare this to three
alternative approaches for meeting the same business need. As a result of the Alternative
Analysis, the Agency decided to change the currently planned technical approach for
completing the full batch component of PCS modernization. The new plan is for the full batch
component.
In FY 2009, three additional states were migrated to ICIS. Also, the Agency completed final
testing and production implementation of EPA NetDMR Tool and began identifying a select
number of states to work with to convert and migrate their data from Legacy PCS to ICIS-
NPDES.
The final closure date for this Agency weakness is now projected to be the end of fourth quarter
FY 2013 (PCS to be shut down in FY 2014). This completion date is based on various
Section IV-Page 6
-------
assumptions and estimates that extend more than six years into the future and, therefore,
should be recognized as speculative.
Streamlining EPA's Process for Developing Chemical Assessments Under IRIS
In its January 2009 High-Risk Series, GAO identified "Transforming EPA's Processes for
Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals" as a high-risk area. In its report, GAO states that
the Agency needs to take actions to increase the transparency of the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) and enhance its ability under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) to obtain health and safety information from the chemical industry. EPA acknowledges
the issues that GAO has raised and has already begun to address concerns.
IRIS is an electronic database that contains quantitative and qualitative risk information on
human health effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. Through
IRIS, EPA provides high quality science-based human health assessments to support Agency
regulatory activities. In May 2009, the Agency announced reforms to IRIS that are designed to
maintain the scientific quality and enhance the transparency and timeliness of risk assessments.
Under the new process, EPA intends to post the majority of assessments on IRIS within two
years of the start date. The Agency has also updated the IRIS standard operating procedures
and the template for the Toxicological Review and IRIS summary.
EPA agrees with GAO and, in FY 2009, identified "Streamlining EPA's Process for Developing
Chemical Assessments Under IRIS" as an Agency-level weakness. However, while a new
streamlined IRIS process will address some capacity issues, additional staff and training will be
needed to address new data and new risk assessment approaches (e.g., computational
toxicology).
EPA is developing a detailed corrective action strategy that outlines the major milestones and
completion dates to address this weakness.
Strengthening the Agency's Implementation of FMFIA
OIG identified "Reporting on Compliance with FMFIA" as a potential internal control weakness,
noting that the Agency's management integrity guidance for FYs 2008 and 2009 did not require
reporting on compliance with all five of GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, as referenced in OMB Circular A-123. OIG suggested that EPA enhance its
FMFIA guidance to address all five standards more clearly and that the Administrator
communicate to senior managers the significance of the FMFIA certifications and importance of
complying with the GAO standards. In addition, OIG recommended that OCFO develop tiered
training for managers and staff on FMFIA implementation.
EPA acknowledges the need to strengthen the Agency's implementation of FMFIA, and has
already taken steps to strengthen its FMFIA process and to address concerns raised by OIG. In
May 2009, the Agency issued supplemental management integrity guidance to address the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and to ensure that it complies with all GAO internal
control standards in conducting program reviews. The guidance included revised language for
the overall personal statement of assurance that Assistant and Regional Administrators were
required to use for their FY 2009 assurance letters. Additionally, with contractor assistance, the
Agency has begun conducting Program Compliance Reviews in selected program and Regional
offices. These reviews will help to identify needed improvements and training for FY 2010 and
beyond.
Section IV- Page 7
-------
EPA has designated "Strengthening Implementation of FMFIA" as an Agency-level weakness.
The Agency is developing a corrective action strategy that outlines the major milestones and
completion dates to implement OIG recommendations and correct the weakness.
Significant Deficiencies
Superfund State Cost Share (Improved Quarterly Cost Reporting)
EPA identified "Superfund State Cost Share" as a significant deficiency under its FY 2006
review of internal controls over financial reporting. This deficiency relates to how efficiently EPA
tracks Superfund State Cost Share (SSC) contributions and matches them to expenses each
quarter. EPA has taken steps to centrally automate the SSC accrual process. EPA's corrective
actions to remedy this significant deficiency include:
• Developing and generating reports to consolidate the SSC reporting.
• Performing multiple tests and analyses to interpret the data and develop a viable product
that could be used to automate the accrual process.
• Discussing the consolidation of the Regional SSC process with senior managers during the
June meeting of EPA Assistant Regional Administrators.
• Transferring the SSC accrual process to the Cincinnati Finance Center to initiate Regional
consolidation by parallel processing SSC accrual reconciliation with all Regions.
• Implementing a centrally automated spreadsheet.
The Agency has completed all corrective actions for this significant deficiency.
Section IV-Page 8
-------
Summary of Financial Statement Audit
Audit Opinion
Restatement
TBD
Yes
Material Weaknesses
Understated Unearned Revenue
Understated Accounts Receivable
Billing Costs and Reconciling
Unearned Revenue for SSC Costs
Total Material Weaknesses
Beginning
Balance
0
0
0
0
New
1
1
1
3
Resolved
0
0
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
1
1
1
3
Summary of Management Assurance
Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (FMFIA § 2) (A-123 Appendix A)
Statement of Assurance
Qualified
Material Weaknesses
Understated Unearned
Revenue
Understated Accounts
Receivable
Billing Costs and Reconciling
Unearned Revenue for SSC
Costs
Total Material Weaknesses
Beginning
Balance
0
0
0
0
New
1
1
1
3
Resolved
0
0
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
1
1
1
3
Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Operations (FMFIA § 2)
Statement of Assurance
Unqualified
Material Weaknesses
Total Material Weaknesses
Beginning
Balance
0
0
New
0
0
Resolved
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
Ending
Balance
0
0
Conformance With Financial Management System Requirements (FMFIA § 4)
Statement of Assurance
Systems Conform to Financial Management System Requirements
Non-Conformances
Total Non-Conformances
Beginning
Balance
0
New
0
Resolved
0
Consolidated
0
Reassessed
0
Ending
Balance
0
Compliance With FFMIA
Overall Substantial Compliance
1. System Requirement
2. Accounting Standards
3. USSGL at Transaction Level
Agency
Yes
Auditor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Section IV-Page 9
-------
FY 2009 KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BY THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA's Top Major Management Challenges
Reported by the Office of Inspector General
Management Of Stimulus Funds: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) will provide EPA with $7.2 billion through FY 201 1 . The Agency will face
significant challenges in meeting ARRA requirements while carrying out its ongoing programs.
Monitoring recipients' activities while commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as
possible will present further challenges. The ARRA grants EPA awards require additional
monitoring and oversight. EPA will need to rely heavily on state agencies, as the primary
funding recipients, to properly monitor sub-recipients' use of funds. Superfund work will
generally be awarded with contracts, and with the emphasis on awarding funds and starting
work quickly, EPA needs to make sure contractors are ready and able to accept the additional
work.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure: EPA has about 140 offices and laboratories
Due to diminishing resources, the autonomous nature of Regional and local offices, and the
growing pressure to expand its role globally, EPA will be challenged to assess the efficiency
and effectiveness of its current structure.
Performance Measurement: EPA must focus on the logic and design of its performance
and efficiency measures, along with data standards and consistent definitions, to ensure that
adequate information is obtained and used to evaluate and manage EPA programs, operations,
processes, and results.
Threat and Risk Assessments: EPA does not comprehensively assess threats to
human health and the environment across the environmental media for which EPA is
responsible (e.g., air, water) to ensure that actions are planned, coordinated, and budgeted
most efficiently and effectively. This fragmentary approach continues because environmental
laws often focus on single media or threats.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure: Drinking water and wastewater treatment
systems are reaching the end of their life cycle, and huge investments will be needed to
replace, repair, and construct facilities.
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements: EPA needs to implement a strategy to
effectively coordinate and address threats, including developing a scenario to identify resource
needs, internal and external coordination points, and responsible and accountable entities.
Oversight Of Delegations to States: Many states and tribes are responsible for
implementing EPA's programs, enforcing laws and regulations, and reporting on program
performance, with EPA retaining oversight responsibility. Inconsistent capacity and
interpretation among state and tribal entities limit accountability and compliance.
Chesapeake Bay Program: After more than 20 years of effort by federal, state, and local
governments, bay waters remain degraded; required nutrient and sediment reductions will not
be met by the 201 0 target. EPA needs to institute management controls, ensuring that actions
to manage land development, agricultural runoff, nutrient reduction technology, and air
emissions are implemented, and that consistent sources of funding are identified by EPA
partners.
Voluntary Programs: EPA must ensure that voluntary approaches and innovative or
alternative practices are managed using standards, consistent processes, and verifiable data.
This is needed to ensure that programs are efficiently and effectively providing intended and
claimed environmental benefits.
Safe Reuse Of Contaminated Sites: In the last decade, EPA has placed increasing
emphasis on reusing contaminated or once-contaminated properties. However, EPA's
managing of long-term oversight and monitoring for the safe use of these sites has increasingly
lagged as EPA continues to heavily promote reusing these sites without the investment needed
to ensure safety.
FY
2007
•
•
•
•
•
•
FY
2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FY
2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Link to EPA
Strategic
Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 2
Goal 4
Cross-Goal
Goal 4
Goal 5
Goal 2
Goal 4
Cross-Goal
Goal 3
Goal 4
Section IV-Page 10
-------
UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A GENCY
>*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
April 28, 2009
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF
IVIIZIVI^rvMIMUUIVI INSPECTOR GENERAL
SUBJECT: EPA's Key Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2009
TO: Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
We are pleased to provide you with the list of items the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
considers to be key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2009 confronting the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last year, we developed a definition for
management challenges to clarify and distinguish between internal control weaknesses and
management challenges. In general, internal control weaknesses are deficiencies in internal
control activities determined in relation to a standard derived from the concept of internal control
as an activity. In contrast, management challenges are defined as a lack of capability derived
from internal self-imposed constraints or, more likely, externally imposed constraints that
prevent an organization from reacting effectively to a changing environment. For example, lack
of controls over approval of bankcard purchases would be considered a control weakness
because it can be corrected internally by adding the necessary controls. Conversely, the
Agency's ability to address an issue, such as funding shortfalls for water infrastructure repairs,
would constitute a management challenge, as the Agency does not have the ability to solve
these challenges without outside assistance, such as from Congress and States.
We based our decision to include the areas listed primarily on audit, evaluation, or
investigative work we performed and additional analysis of Agency operations. Thus, additional
challenges may exist in areas that we have not yet reviewed or where other significant findings
could result from additional work. We listed our key management challenges below with
detailed summaries provided in the Attachment.
Section IV-Page 11
-------
Management Challenges
Management of Stimulus Funds
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Performance Measurement
Threat and Risk Assessments
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Oversight of Delegations to States
Chesapeake Bay Program
Voluntary Programs
Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
Page
1
3
5
8
9
11
14
16
18
20
This year we added three challenges: 1) Management of Stimulus Funds; 2) Voluntary
Programs; and 3) Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites. While the Agency has taken steps and
has worked diligently to address requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, we believe it is a potentially vulnerable area due to the amount of funding and additional
oversight requirements. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss your reaction to our list
of challenges and any comments you might have.
Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
Attachment
Section IV-Page 12
-------
Attachment
Management of Stimulus Funds
The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act, or ARRA)
on February 17, 2009. The Recovery Act provided EPA with $7.2 billion, roughly equal to EPA's
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 appropriation, for the following six existing programs:
• $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to provide loans and grants that help
communities upgrade wastewater treatment systems.
• $2 billion to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to provide loans and grants for
drinking water infrastructure.
• $600 million to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for site clean-up.
• $300 million to the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program for projects that reduce
diesel emissions.
• $200 million to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program for clean-up
of underground storage tank petroleum leaks.
• $100 million to the Brownfields Program for grants to assess, clean and help revitalize
eligible Brownfield sites.
The purpose of the Recovery Act as it applies to EPA is to preserve and create jobs, promote
economic recovery, and invest in environmental protection and other infrastructure that will
provide long-term economic benefits. EPA leadership is showing a strong commitment to
ensuring Recovery Act funds are used for their intended purposes and are meeting the
objectives of the Act. The Agency has done considerable work in establishing an infrastructure
to mitigate the challenges and to ensure overall management and stewardship of ARRA funds.
The Agency quickly established a Recovery Act Steering Committee and Subcommittees to
focus on specific areas. Early on the OIG was invited to participate in each of these key
committees. EPA is also developing a stewardship plan to reinforce internal controls over the
funds. This plan will address OMB's requirement for agencies to have risk mitigation strategies
for Recovery Act funding.
While the Agency has taken steps and is working diligently to address Recovery Act
requirements it will face significant challenges in meeting all of the Recovery Act requirements
while at the same time carrying out its ongoing environmental programs. In addition, EPA will
have to ensure that requisite environmental approvals, such as those required by the National
Environmental Policy Act, are obtained in a timely fashion for projects funded through other
agencies' ARRA funds.
Managing recipients' activities to achieve the above purposes while commencing expenditures
and activities as quickly as possible will present further challenges. Most Recovery Act funds
will be awarded through assistance agreements or contracts. EPA grants and contracts
personnel will have to manage the stimulus grants and contracts in addition to their normal
workloads. Although EPA may set aside anywhere from 1 to 3.5 percent of ARRA funds for
management and oversight purposes, EPA will be challenged to have sufficient, trained staff to
award and monitor grants and contracts. If EPA does not assign sufficient staff to ARRA
oversight, the Agency increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds. It will also
increase the risk that EPA will award funds to entities that do not have adequate administrative
and programmatic capabilities to efficiently and effectively carry out the work. EPA will also
need to focus considerable attention on ensuring that Recovery Act funds produce desired
results and minimize cost overruns and project delays.
Section IV-Page 13
-------
The grants EPA awards with Recovery Act funding will contain new conditions that require
additional monitoring and oversight. The Act states that grant funds should be awarded to
recipients that will maximize job creation and economic benefits. As EPA competes these
grants it must consider these additional factors along with other ranking factors the laws and
regulations require. For example, the Recovery Act requires each State to use at least 50
percent of the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund amounts for forgiveness of
principal, negative interest loans, or grants. The Act also stipulates that to the extent that there
are sufficient eligible projects, at least 20 percent of the State Revolving Fund allotments are to
fund projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other
environmentally innovative activities. EPA also will need to more closely monitor ARRA funds
because, unlike current programs, ARRA-funded grants do not require a match by the recipient
and there are provisions for loan forgiveness, so not all funds will have to be repaid. These
provisions increase the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.
EPA will rely heavily on State agencies, as the primary fund recipients, to properly manage sub-
recipients of funds awarded under each of these programs. For the State Revolving Funds,
EPA provides funding to States that in turn award funding to a local government entity. The
local government then awards contracts for water infrastructure construction. Given the
significant economic problems many States face, they may not have the resources to properly
oversee these funds. In addition, EPA may not have the information needed to identify fraud,
waste, and abuse at the level where a majority of funds are expended. Currently, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is only requiring States to report information down to the sub-
recipient level. If OMB does not develop a means and a requirement to collect data below the
sub-recipient level, EPA will not have the information to identify potential fraud, waste, and
abuse at the level where it is most likely to occur.
For the Superfund program, activities under the Recovery Act will generally be funded through
contracts. With the emphasis on awarding funds and getting work started quickly, there is a risk
that the contractors will not be ready and able to accept the additional work. While EPA plans
on using existing contracts to obligate Recovery Act funds, the additional funds may result in the
contracts reaching cost ceilings earlier than expected and needing to be re-competed earlier
than planned. These additional activities will strain the current acquisition workforce. Remedial
Action Contracts are a primary acquisition vehicle that the EPA Superfund program uses to
conduct long-term clean-up and remediation support activities. A prior OIG report identified
risks in managing such contracts. The process for determining contractor award amounts and
whether they would be granted was burdensome. The complex contract award fee process
resulted in excessive award fees to the contractor, and EPA viewed the award fees as more of
an expectation for contractors rather than a factor to motivate excellence among the
contractors.
Section IV-Page 14
-------
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
In July 1970, the first Administrator formally organized EPA based upon existing environmental
legislation that encompassed discrete media programs for water, air, pesticides, radiation, and
solid waste, as well as 10 regional offices and a laboratory structure inherited from other federal
agencies.1 Since that time Congress has delegated many additional responsibilities to EPA.
For example, in recent years, Congress assigned EPA Homeland Security responsibilities.2 In
addition, how EPA carries out its programs has changed from program implementation to
delegations to States, with EPA's role involving planning and State oversight. In recent years,
EPA has increased the extent to which it partners with other federal agencies; State, local, and
tribal governments; and the private sector to accomplish its mission.3 EPA also uses voluntary
programs to assist in accomplishing its mission.
Since its inception, the number of EPA personnel has grown from about 5,000 to over 17,000.
As the number of personnel has increased, so has EPA's infrastructure. EPA's portfolio now
includes offices and laboratories in nearly 140 locations throughout the country. Most EPA
regions maintain the majority of staff in a main regional office. Some also maintain a number of
separate operations offices.4 For example, California and Florida each have seven separate
EPA offices. EPA also maintains two offices each in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
EPA's Headquarters is made up of four environmental media offices and an additional eight
offices that comprise a mixture of administrative, research and development, enforcement, and
program support offices. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance maintains a
large Headquarters component, staff in regional offices, and 27 additional locations that house
5 or less staff. According to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, these small
offices are necessary to carry out investigative work in various geographic locations. Likewise,
the Office of Research and Development is centrally located in Headquarters and maintains 13
laboratories across the country in addition to EPA's regional and other program office labs. The
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has personnel in Headquarters and each
regional office and also maintains small (1-or-2-person) offices at numerous clean-up sites
throughout the country.
1 EPA-OIG Report, Studies Addressing EPA's Organizational Structure, Report No. 2006-P-00029, August 16, 2006.
2 US EPA, EPA Strategic Plan for Homeland Security, September 2002.
3 US EPA, Office of State and Local Relations, Joint Policy on State/EPA Relations, July 14, 1994.
4 EPA-OIG Report, Congressionally Requested Report on EPA Staffing Levels and Total Costs for EPA Facilities,
Report No. 09-P-0080, January 14, 2009.
Section IV-Page 15
-------
EPA Facilitv
• Denotes Regional Office
Guam, Puerto Rico "ft "fa &
Virgin Islands, N Mariana it if it
Of EPA's 140 facilities, there are 97 with 5 or fewer employees.5 The Agency's current strategic
plan calls for having the "right people, in the right place, at the right time." However, since
EPA's formation in 1970, a comprehensive study has not been completed to analyze EPA's
mission, organization, and the related number and location of employees needed to most
effectively carry out EPA's mission at the least cost. For example, with the increase in
programs delegated to States, EPA's role and ability to conduct effective oversight of States
becomes increasingly important. EPA might consider evaluating costs and benefits realized by
those regions maintaining separate smaller operations offices in States versus maintaining large
regional offices. EPA might also consider conducting a review of the rationale and benefits
associated with maintaining its cadre of regional and research and development laboratories
around the country to determine whether they are sited and staffed appropriately for the type of
work performed.
Maintaining nearly 140 facilities is resource-intensive and cost the Agency about $300 million for
FY 2008. Demonstrating the cost effectiveness of maintaining such a large number of locations
presents EPA with challenges and opportunities for potential consolidation and cost efficiencies.
Because of the autonomous nature of EPA and its regional and local offices, undertaking such a
study may require the assistance of an independent commission and agreement from EPA's
oversight committees. With diminishing resources along with growing pressure to expand
EPA's role in the global arena, EPA will be challenged to produce operating efficiencies while
expanding its mission. A comprehensive study to assess EPA's mission, workforce, and
infrastructure requirements would provide a rational basis for addressing these challenges.
EPA-OIG analysis of EPA Office of Human Resources data.
Section IV-Page 16
-------
Performance Measurement
Congress' desire to hold agencies accountable for performance was the motivating force behind
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993. The Chief Financial Officers Act established the foundation for improving
management and financial accountability. GPRA created requirements for agencies to generate
performance information that congressional and executive branch decision-makers need in
considering measures to improve government and reduce costs.6
EPA has been recognized for its efforts to align budgeting, planning, and accounting systems to
track and report on resource use. However, EPA continues to be challenged in measuring
human health and environmental results of its environmental programs. Despite the vast array
of data reported and contained in EPA's information systems, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), States, regulated entities, and EPA have pointed out that the Agency does not
have much of the information it needs pertaining to environmental conditions and trends and
potential human health risks of various pollutants. This makes it difficult to evaluate and report
on benefits derived from environmental activities and make optimal decisions about how to
invest EPA's resources to maximize environmental results.7
In 2006, we found that many of EPA's programs received high scores for the program purpose
and program management categories on OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool. However,
EPA did not receive high marks for using information to manage programs and demonstrate
results. Of the 51 programs reviewed, 41 percent (21 programs) did not regularly collect timely
and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, nor use
the information to manage the program and improve performance.8
Our recent evaluations have identified other limitations with EPA performance measures. For
example, in its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA reported radon
performance data without including meaningful baseline measures for comparison.9 In addition,
we identified several limitations with the National Emissions Inventory upon which EPA primarily
bases its performance measures for the Air Toxics Program.10 These limitations include a
heavy reliance on emissions factors that may be inaccurate, as well as the incorporation of data
from various sources that may use different methodologies to estimate emissions. Further, we
found that EPA's 2008 Strategy for Sustainable Ports lacks appropriate performance measures,
milestones, and other management controls that would enable the Agency to transform its
strategic goals into measurable results.11
Measuring environmental performance and demonstrating results is inherently challenging.
Results are not always immediately recognized and programs may take several years to
demonstrate results. In addition, linking environmental activities to outcomes is complicated by
a myriad of external factors, including weather, international environmental issues, economic
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
7 EPA-OIG Report, Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007.
8 EPA-OIG Report, Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007.
9 EPA-OIG Report, More Action Needed to Protect Public from Indoor Radon Risks; Report No. 08-P-0174, June 3,
2008.
10 EPA-OIG Report, Improvements in Air Toxics Emissions Data Needed to Conduct Residual Risk Assessments;
Report No. 08-P-0020, October 31, 2007.
11 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports, Report No. 09-P-0125,
March 23, 2009.
Section IV-Page 17
-------
activity, and others outside of EPA's control.12 As a result, many of EPA's current performance
measures focus on program activities13 (number of enforcement actions, pounds of hazardous
waste reduced, number of permits issued, number of training sessions held, etc.). While these
may be good indications of amount of work performed, they do not measure the corresponding
improvements to human health or the environment.
Further, a majority of EPA's program performance information is collected and reported by
program partners, some under voluntary arrangements, who do not always agree on how and
what information should be collected, tracked or validated, and who do not report the
information to EPA in a consistent manner.14 15 For example, our reviews noted that only 2 of
30 EPA Performance Track members met their environmental improvement commitments,16 the
Pollution Prevention program had no independent validation of results claimed by industry,17
and EPA's ENERGY STAR program's reported savings claims were inaccurate and reported
annual savings unreliably.18
On a broader scale, EPA has worked for the past several years to develop and use
environmental indicators. These indicators are scientifically developed, peer reviewed
measures that seek to demonstrate trends in the condition of the Nation's environment. EPA
publishes this information in its "Report on the Environment" to provide the public important
information on air, water, land, human health, and ecological conditions. While the Report
provides a broad perspective on trends, both positive and negative, on the state of the
environment, it also spells out the limitations, gaps, and challenges EPA faces in gathering and
analyzing information. As a result, the report can only provide partial answers to key
environmental questions.19
To address these factors, EPA management needs to make a concerted effort to focus on the
logic of program design and ensure that the design includes consideration of the performance
information necessary to measure, evaluate, and demonstrate results for the resources used.
Designing programs with clear and measurable results allows for transparency of, and
accountability for, program performance. Program design and the strategic planning process
should include defining measures as well as ensuring the appropriate agreements, funding,
processes, and systems are considered to obtain the necessary information. EPA also needs to
ensure program managers are held accountable for ensuring that programs are designed with
the means to measure and demonstrate program results and that the information gathered is
used to manage and improve program results.20
12 EPA-OIG Report, EPA's Progress in Using the Government Performance and Results Act to Manage for Results,
Report 2001-B-000001, June 13, 2001.
13 US EPA, EPA Strategic Plan 2006-2011, September 30, 2006.
14 EPA-OIG Report, EPA's Progress in Using the Government Performance and Results Act to Manage for Results,
Report No. 2001-B-000001, June 13, 2001.
15 EPA-OIG Reports, Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs Have Limited Potential, Report No. 08-P-0206;
Measuring and Reporting Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need Improvement, Report No.
09-P-0088; and Improvements Needed to Validate Reported ENERGY STAR Benefits, Report No. 09-P-0061.
16 EPA-OIG Report, Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure Value, Report
No. 2007-P-00013, March, 29, 2007.
17 EPA-OIG Report, Measuring and Reporting Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need
Improvement, Report No. 09-P-0088, January 28, 2009.
18 EPA-OIG Report, Improvements Needed to Validate Reported ENERGY STAR Benefits, Report No. 09-P-0061,
December 17, 2008.
19 US EPA, 2008 Report on the Environment, EPA/600/R-07/045F, May 2008.
20 EPA-OIG Report, Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool as a Management Control Process, Report No.
2007-P-00033, September 12, 2007.
Section IV-Page 18
-------
Threat and Risk Assessments
Last year we noted that it had been nearly 20 years since the Science Advisory Board
recommended that EPA target its environmental protection efforts on the basis of opportunities
for the greatest risk reduction. A 1990 Science Advisory Board report described the
fragmentary nature of U.S. environmental policy and the frequently inconsistent and
uncoordinated efforts to address environmental problems. Based on our body of work, including
recent reports on the Agency's enforcement and air programs, we believe the same problem
exists today. The fragmentary nature of EPA's approach continues because underlying
conditions remain: environmental laws often focus on a single media or threat, Agency goals
and units are designed to implement separate legislative mandates, and available technological
solutions address specific pollutant sources. Some EPA programs - like the Chesapeake Bay
Program and the Border 2012 Program - are designed to address ecosystem or geographically-
defined environmental issues rather than single media concerns. However, even these are
organized and implemented to solve threats and risks faced by individual media (e.g., Border
2012 goals are to reduce water contamination, reduce air pollution, reduce land contamination,
etc.).
The relative threats and risks to human health and the environment are not assessed or used
based on the highest priority. In our review of the Indoor Radon Abatement Program, we found
that the Agency had not been reporting program results in relation to homes at risk in its
performance reporting. In our review of the Clean Air Act Risk Management Plan for airborne
chemical releases, we found that many lower-risk facilities were inspected or audited when
many high-risk facilities had never been inspected or audited.21
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's investigation of the 2005 BP Texas
City Refinery explosion linked the accident to corporate spending decisions in the 1990s when
low oil prices triggered cutbacks in maintenance, training, and operator positions at the plant.
Mindful of this finding and other accidents that occurred when companies cut back on process
safety measures in economic downturns, the Board Chairman released a video-taped safety
message in December 2008 urging all chemical companies and refineries to maintain process
safety measures even during a recession.22 The current state of the U.S. economy only
increases the need for EPA to ensure that all high-risk facilities are inspected. As these
examples illustrate, we have observed little change in the Agency's inclination to develop and
apply threat and risk assessments in decision making in the past year.
EPA-OIG Report, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical
Releases, Report No. 09-P-0092, February 10, 2009.
22 US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board news release on December 22, 2008.
Section IV-Page 19
-------
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Approximately 160,000 public drinking water systems provide the Nation with drinking water,
while 16,000 sewage treatment plants treat and dispose of wastewater.23 Under the Clean
Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, water and wastewater facilities are responsible for
treating water to specified levels. EPA is responsible for administering these laws and has a
role in assisting these facilities to meet their treatment requirements.
According to EPA, each year there are approximately 240,000 water main breaks and 75,000
sewer overflows, resulting in public health threats.24 Some of the Nation's water infrastructure
systems have components over 100 years old. The American Society of Civil Engineers
recently assigned an overall "D" grade in its Report Card for America's Infrastructure25 and "D-"
to drinking water and wastewater.26 As an example of the magnitude of costs, a single city, the
District of Columbia, has estimated that it will need to expend $3.6 billion to meet various
requirements of the Clean Water Act.27 Nationally, EPA has estimated that approximately
$1 trillion will be needed to pay for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years.28
EPA estimates that utilities are only planning to spend about half that amount. The remaining
$500 billion has been termed the "water and wastewater infrastructure gap." The gap
represents infrastructure failures that could increase risks to public health and the environment,
as well as damage the national economy.
Meeting standards requires regular investment for treatment plants and distribution systems.
Water and wastewater facilities have made considerable capital expenditures. Local
governments spend more on water infrastructure than they do on everything else except
education.29 However, many drinking water and wastewater systems are failing to keep up with
repairs and new construction required to maintain compliance with federal standards. Many
systems still need to build new facilities and distribution systems, and repair and replace aging
infrastructure. Further, increasingly stringent standards could compel systems to make even
more extensive capital improvements. For example, many wastewater treatment plants are
beginning to install costly nutrient removal technologies. Drinking water facilities will also need
to meet new standards. Between January 2006 and December 2007, EPA issued three new
rules30 and made substantial revisions to the existing Lead and Copper Rule. Implementation
will increase costs through upgrades to meet new requirements, so the infrastructure gap could
continue to grow in size.
The Federal Government does not have a national approach to bridging the water and
wastewater infrastructure gap. EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
23 US EPA, "Safe Drinking Water Act - Basic Information" Website; and US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Biomass and Alternative Methane Fuels Fact Sheet,
July 2004.
24 US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Aging Water
Infrastructure Research Program, Addressing the Challenge through Innovation, EPA/600/F-07/015, September 2007.
25 American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure - full report.
26 American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure - drinking water and wastewater
report cards.
27 The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Power Point presentation on CSOs (2007).
28 US EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap
Analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020, September 2002; US EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey - Overview Page; and
US EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, 2007.
29 US Conference of Mayors, Mayors Water Council, Who Pays for the Water Pipes, Pumps, and Treatment Works?
Local Government Expenditures on Sewer and Water- 1991 to 2005.
30 Final Ground Water Rule (November 2006), Long Term 2 Enhancet
2006), and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (January 2006).
30 Final Ground Water Rule (November 2006), Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (January
Section IV-Page 20
-------
received about $1.6 billion in federal capitalization grants in FY 2008.31 Congress added
$6 billion to these funds in the 2009 ARRA. The U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban
Development and Agriculture also provided grant and loan assistance of about $2 billion in FY
200632 and received funding through the ARRA. However, these programs are small in relation
to the gap and are not part of a comprehensive investment strategy to address water
infrastructure needs; they reflect each agency's mission and congressional direction.
EPA also addresses the gap by advocating for its "Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure."33
One pillar is "full cost pricing." Little has changed since a 2001 GAO survey that indicated more
than 40 percent of wastewater systems were not generating enough revenue to cover their full
cost of service, and about 30 percent deferred maintenance because of insufficient funding.34
EPA supplements its "full-cost pricing" advocacy with programs organized around the remaining
three pillars: "Effective Management," "Water Efficiency," and "Watershed Approaches." The
Office of Water's "Better Management" Website contains several links to information geared at
improving management practices within the water sector.35 EPA has also established a
"National Alliance for Water Efficiency."36 Other incremental programs, such as EPA's
advocacy for "green infrastructure" to reduce storm runoff, contribute to reducing infrastructure
needs.37
EPA's current approach, based on providing a relatively small amount of funding to State
Revolving Funds, and operating programs such as those under the "Four Pillars of Sustainable
Infrastructure," is helpful. Other federal agencies contribute. However, this approach does not
represent a cohesive national strategy for resolving the problem of aging infrastructure. A
comprehensive approach would realistically assess the investment requirements, and work with
States and local governments to organize resources to meet needs. It would also alert the
public and Congress of unfunded liabilities and risks. While EPA has responsibility for
administering the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, it does not have resources or
authority to address this gap by itself. EPA needs to ensure there is a comprehensive federal
understanding of the risks to public health, the environment, and the economy if this critical
resource gap remains unresolved. EPA should also take the lead in organizing a coherent
federal strategy within the limits of its statutory authorities and responsibilities.
31 US EPA, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Allotments; and US EPA, Clean Water SRF Federal Capitalization
Grants by Federal Fiscal Year of Award by State.
32 USDA Rural Development, Water and Environmental Programs, Annual Activity Report - Fiscal Year 2006, p. 6.
33 US EPA, "Sustainable Infrastructure for Water & Wastewater" Website.
34 GAO Report, Water Infrastructure - Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization, GAO-02-764,
August 16, 2002.
35 US EPA, "Sustainable Infrastructure for Water & Wastewater" Website, "Better Management" page.
36 EPA-OIG Report, Summary of Recent Developments in EPA's Drinking Water Program and Areas for Additional
Focus, Report No. 08-P-0120, March 31, 2008, page 11.
37 US EPA, Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, Before the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, of the US Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, September 19, 2007, page 10.
Section IV-Page 21
-------
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
The World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, among
other national emergencies, elevated the Nation's expectations of EPA's emergency response
role. Over the last several years these expectations have formally expanded EPA's traditional
emergency response function. The 2004 National Response Plan, the 2008 National Response
Framework, and multiple Homeland Security Presidential Directives38 have established new
Federal homeland security requirements for EPA. The National Response Framework and
several Homeland Security Presidential Directives direct EPA to support, coordinate, or lead
responses to incidents of national significance, to include certain types of terrorist attacks or
natural disaster events. EPA established its first ever homeland security office in 2003.
EPA needs to ensure it is ready to meet its homeland security requirements. The Agency must
develop incident scenario plans that identify resources needed, planning assumptions, and
accountable EPA entities. In addition, Agency plans need to be coordinated and communicated
among all participating EPA entities as well as with outside federal, State, or local agencies that
may be responding alongside EPA to nationally significant incidents. Reports issued by our
office since 2003 have identified a number of concerns with EPA's homeland security-related
planning efforts and actions.39 Our reports40 show that EPA's plan for responding to incidents
of national significance (1) has undocumented assumptions and unsupported resource
requirements, (2) was developed with little internal or external coordination, (3) is missing key
accountability designations or process descriptions for handling crisis communications, (4) has
not met milestones for completing certain critical homeland security responsibilities, and (5) has
not established accountable entities in EPA with proper authority to complete certain critical
homeland security requirements.
Based on our concerns in this area, since 2004 we have identified "Homeland Security" as an
EPA management challenge.41 Prior to 2004, we identified our concerns in this area under the
38 US Department of Homeland Security, Preparedness and Response website, National Response Framework.
39 EPA-OIG Reports EPA Needs a Better Strategy to Measure Changes in the Security of the Nation's Water
Infrastructure, Report No. 2003-M-00016, September 11, 2003; EPA Needs to Assess the Quality of Vulnerability
Assessments Related to the Security of the Nation's Water Supply, Report No. 2003-M-00013, September 24, 2003;
Decline In EPA Particulate Matter Methods Development Activities May Hamper Timely Achievement of Program
Goals, Report No. 2003-P-00016, September 30, 2003; Survey Results on Information Used by Water Utilities to
Conduct Vulnerability Assessments, Report No. 2004-M-0001, January 20, 2004; EPA's Homeland Security Role to
Protect Air from Terrorist Threats Needs to be Better Defined, Report No. 2004-M-000005, February 20, 2004; EPA
Needs to Better Manage Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response Equipment, Report No. 2004-P-00011, March 29,
2004; EPA's Final Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan May Be Strengthened Through
/Access to Vulnerability Assessments, Report No. 2004-P-00023, July 1, 2004; EPA Needs to Determine What
Barriers Prevent Water Systems from Securing Known Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
Vulnerabilities, Report No. 2005-P-00002, January 6, 2005; EPA Needs to Fulfill Its Designated Responsibilities to
Ensure Effective BioWatch Program, Report No. 2005-P-00012, March 23, 2005; EPA Needs to Better Implement
Plan for Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Used to Respond to Terrorist Attacks and Disasters,
Report No. 2006-P-00022, April 26, 2006; EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency Response
Planning, Report No. 08-P-0055, January 9, 2008; and EPA Plans for Managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency
Response Equipment and Protecting Critical Assets Not Fully Implemented, Report No. 09-P-0087, January 27,
2009.
40 EPA-OIG Reports Exit Memorandum for Preliminary Research of the Effectiveness of EPA's Emergency Response
Activities, Report No. 2006-M-000004, February 24, 2006; EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency
Response Planning, Report No. 2008-P-0055, January 9, 2008; EPA Needs to Better Implement Plan for Protecting
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Used to Respond to Terrorist Attacks and Disasters, Report No. 2006-P-
0022, April 26,2006; and EPA Plans for Managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response Equipment and
Protecting Critical Assets Not Fully Implemented, Report No. 09-P-0087, January 27, 2009.
41 EPA-OIG Website, link to "EPA's Key Management Challenges" 2004-2007 EPA Management Challenges.
Section IV-Page 22
-------
"protection of critical infrastructure" management challenge.42 From FY 2005 to 2008, EPA
identified its efforts in support of Homeland Security as an Agency-level weakness43 and is
currently taking action to strengthen this area, such as: (1) expanding homeland security
planning coordination efforts with other Federal, State or local agencies; (2) recognizing a more
complete range of issues and information that must be considered when developing response
plans for incidents of national significance; (3) developing crisis communication plans and
identifying responsible parties and roles for crisis communications; and (4) completing basic
Homeland Security requirements.
In its FY2008 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA closed its homeland security
management challenge on the basis that it "has completed all corrective actions associated with
this weakness."44 However, our review and follow-up shows that many actions are not complete
and that EPA continues to face challenges in accomplishing key actions, such as internal and
external coordination of plans. The Agency has not yet implemented recommendations from
our 2008 report, and continues to request extensions in completing recommendations.45 The
Agency is also behind schedule in implementing the Radiation Ambient Monitoring System,
which provides real-time monitoring of environmental levels of radiation in the United States. As
a result, EPA may have less information about levels of radiation should a national radiological
or nuclear emergency occur.46 EPA has also not fully implemented a national equipment
tracking system that would be used to respond to another terrorist attack or major catastrophic
event. The nearly 2-year delay in implementing a functional national counter
terrorism/emergency response equipment tracking system may impair EPA's ability to protect
public health and the environment in the event of another terrorist attack or other nationally
significant incident. EPA needs to address these vulnerabilities and mitigate corresponding
risks associated with them through (1) improved monitoring of the Radiation Ambient Monitoring
System contract; and (2) established milestones, accountability, and resources for implementing
the national counter terrorism/emergency response equipment tracking system.
We plan to continue to monitor and report on EPA's progress in managing its homeland security
challenges. Completion of ongoing actions will help the Agency continue on a path toward
better management of the significant challenges posed by its homeland security responsibilities.
However, the challenge of planning and preparing for incidents of national significance,
including the potential for multiple terrorist attacks, will not end with completing ongoing actions.
The expansion of the Agency's current homeland security responsibilities will generally require
different thinking about how to respond, coordinate with others, and communicate in nationally
significant emergencies. In its December 2008 report on Superfund workload needs, the
Agency noted that homeland security represents a new and evolving workload, it is an area
expected to demand new resources, and homeland security workload needs are understaffed.47
In addition to the physical and resource challenges, EPA will also have to change how its
managers think about emergency response. EPA will have to expand its emergency planning
process to include more internal organizations, as well as external organizations. Previously
uninvolved EPA components will have to accept responsibility for planning and coordinating
support to emergency response. These internal and external lines of communication and
42 EPA-OIG Website, link to "EPA's Key Management Challenges" 2001-2003 EPA Management Challenges.
43 US EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, electronic page 5;
2006 Performance and Accountability Report, electronic page 8; and 2007 Performance and Accountability Report,
electronic page 5.
44 US EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2008 Performance and Accountability Report, electronic page 516.
45 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency Response Planning, Report No. 2008-
P-0055, January 9, 2008.
46 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Plans for Managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response Equipment and Protecting
Critical Assets Not Fully Implemented, Report No. 09-P-0087, January 27, 2009.
47 US EPA Superfund Workload Assessment Report, OSWER Document 9200-2-81, December 2, 2008, page 28.
Section IV-Page 23
-------
coordination will have to be confirmed and tested to maintain a credible capability outside
normal practice. Even when unused, homeland security responsibilities must be accepted as
Agency requirements that compete with current mission needs.
Section IV-Page 24
-------
Oversight of Delegations to States
EPA's oversight of State programs requires improvement. GAO48 and our office49 have
reported that EPA has made some progress in this area; however, there are a number of factors
and practices that reduce the effectiveness of Agency oversight. Key among these are
limitations in the availability, quality, and robustness of program implementation and
effectiveness data, and limited Agency resources to independently obtain such data.
Differences between State and federal policies, interpretations, and priorities make effective
oversight a challenge.
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish its mission, EPA
develops regulations and establishes programs that implement environmental laws. These
programs may be delegated to State, local, and tribal agencies that request to take primacy of
the program. Delegation, however, does not abrogate EPA of its statutory and trust
responsibilities for protecting human health and the environment. EPA performs oversight of
State, local, and tribal programs in an effort to provide reasonable assurance that delegated
programs are achieving their goals. In addition to regulatory programs, EPA sponsors voluntary
partnerships and programs with more than 10,000 industries, businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and State and local governments on more than 40 pollution prevention programs
and energy conservation efforts. Dealing with partners requires different types of management
approaches and controls than when dealing with parties that require oversight. EPA does not
have the resources to effectively administer all its responsibilities directly. EPA relies heavily on
local, State, and tribal agencies for compliance and enforcement and to obtain performance
data. In its FY2007 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA states it delegated the
responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance to the States and
tribes.50
A critical management challenge to EPA is oversight of its delegations to States. Federal
environmental statutes grant EPA a significant role in implementing the intent of the law, and
also authorize a substantial role for States. Federal intent is to give all citizens an equal level of
environmental protection. However, quality data is often lacking to ensure that the intent of the
law is met. For example, EPA lacks the data necessary to assess the benefits of its air toxics
standards, such as decreased incidence of cancer. Data on the program's effectiveness, such
as changes in emissions, concentrations of air toxics in the (ambient) outdoor air, and data on
compliance with air toxics standards are limited and inconclusive.51 Also, Federal requirements
establish consistency for businesses and within industries nationwide. States' discretion adds
flexibility to address specific circumstances and local issues. Joint implementation and
enforcement leads to special challenges in interpretations, strategies, and priorities.
EPA has improved its oversight by implementing the State Review Framework. The Framework
is intended to be a consistent approach for overseeing programs and identifying weaknesses
and areas for improvement. However, EPA has not yet implemented it in a consistent manner.
GAO reported that EPA has made substantial progress in improving priority setting and
enforcement planning with States. However, GAO concluded that EPA's oversight needed
further enhancement. For example, State Revolving Fund reviews show that EPA has limited
48 GAO Report, EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, But EPA's Oversight Needs Further
Improvement, GAO-07-883, July 31, 2007.
49 EPA-OIG Report, Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, Report No. 08-P-0049, January 8, 2008.
50 US EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2007 Performance and Accountability Report - Environmental
Progress, November 13, 2007.
51 GAO Report, EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program, GAO-06-669, June 23, 2006.
Section IV-Page 25
-------
ability to determine whether States are performing timely and appropriate enforcement, and
whether penalties are applied to environmental violators in a fair and consistent manner within
and among States.52 We found that EPA did not exercise effective enforcement oversight of
facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems permits in significant long-term
noncompliance.53 The situation was also exacerbated by a lack of complete and accurate
records of permit compliance and enforcement actions.
Our 2009 evaluation of the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program for airborne chemical
releases found that not all States delegated authority to operate the Clean Air Act Title V
Program are properly addressing Risk Management Program requirements during the
permitting process.54 Of the eight States reviewed, five States used conditional language in
their Title V permits which, according to the Title V Manager, is not sufficient.
In other reports, we noted that EPA's oversight of State activities or data needs to be improved
to make accurate assessments of performance and results. For example, about 20,000 lung
cancer deaths each year in the U.S. are related to indoor exposure to radon.55 Although EPA
established programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s to assist consumers in identifying and
obtaining reliable radon measurements and analyses, in 1998 EPA disinvested in these
programs. Since then EPA has not had data to support the claim that radon test kits or radon
testers are reliable.
EPA's regional offices are responsible for oversight of vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs,56 including ensuring that State I/M programs meet State Implementation Plan
commitments. Our nationwide survey of all 10 EPA regions, covering 34 I/M programs,
indicated that EPA had not been obtaining sufficient information to ensure that States met their
I/M program commitments. As a result, EPA did not have reasonable assurance that emission
reductions claimed by some I/M programs were achieved.
In our view, while EPA has improved its oversight of delegated programs, issues are complex
and changeable. Effective oversight of delegations to States is a continuous management
challenge that requires an agile organization, accurate data, and consistent interpretations of
policy. To provide effective oversight, the Agency must address limitations in the availability,
quality, and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data.
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most biologically diverse estuary.
Improving water quality is the most critical element in the overall protection and restoration of
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries according to the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement.57
Yet after about 20 years of effort by federal, State, and local governments, the Bay waters
remain degraded and the latest targeted clean-up goal will not be met. After a series of reports,
we determined that while EPA could increase its use of some authorities and improve oversight,
52
GAO Report, EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, but EPA's Oversight Needs Further
Improvement, GAO-07-883, July 31, 2007.
53 EPA-OIG Report, Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major Facilities With Water Discharge Permits in Long-
Term Significant Noncompliance, Report No. OIG-2007-P-00023, May 14, 2007.
54 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical
Releases, Report No. OPE-FY08-0001, December 18, 2008.
55 EPA-OIG Draft Report, EPA Does Not Provide Oversight of Radon Testing Accuracy and Reliability, April 2009.
56 EPA-OIG Report, EPA's Oversight of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs Needs Improvement, Report
No. 2007-P-00001, Octobers, 2006.
Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake 2000, page 1 ("chesapeakebay.net" Website).
Section IV-Page 26
-------
this is not nearly sufficient for achieving and sustaining water quality goals.58 EPA quite simply
does not have the resources, tools, or authorities to ensure that the Chesapeake Bay Program
is successful. Changes in national farm policy, local land development decisions, and individual
life styles could have huge impacts on the amount of pollution being discharged to the Bay.
Congress designated EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) with the responsibility to
coordinate clean-up efforts with other federal agencies and State and local governments.59 The
CBPO was also given the responsibility to report to Congress on the progress in cleaning up the
Bay. Congress provides a much higher level of funding to CBPO than it does for any other
geographically-based program. The 2009 budget requests $29 million for CBPO.60 With this
money, the CBPO awards grants and offers various technical information and assistance.
Congress' interest in the Bay is also exhibited in its proposed funding of projects in the Farm
Bill.61
As the most mature watershed restoration program, successful approaches and solutions for
organizing and managing clean-up will be highly relevant to stakeholders in other watersheds.
Success or failure will resonate in communities across the country. The Bay's problems are
national problems. The CBPO can be the prototype for developing ways to address water
quality impairments of other watersheds. The most important water quality issues (nutrient
overloading, habitat loss, and decline in fish populations) faced by the Bay are the same issues
the other 28 estuaries in EPA's National Estuary Program face.62
EPA's CBPO has provided scientific information used by the partnership in setting allocations,
revising water quality standards, and establishing stricter wastewater treatment discharge limits.
Despite these important accomplishments, Bay partners face significant obstacles in achieving
the Bay's water quality goals. It is now widely acknowledged that the nutrient and sediment
reductions that are required will not be met by 2010 as planned. EPA did not meet its strategic
plan goals for the Chesapeake Bay in 2005 and 2006.63 Of the five strategic goals in 2007 and
2008, two were met and three were not. At the current rate of progress, it will take decades for
Bay partners to reach their reduction goals, and that is without factoring in future challenges.
The Bay partners face the following key challenges: (1) managing land development, (2)
increasing implementation of agricultural conservation practices, (3) monitoring and expediting
the installation of nutrient removal technology at wastewater treatment plants, (4) seeking
greater reductions in air emissions, and (5) identifying consistent and sustained funding sources
to support tributary strategy implementation. Few of these steps can be taken by EPA; its
"partners" will need to implement practices to reduce loads. However, EPA will need to institute
management controls to ensure that promised reductions are realistic, and those that are
claimed are actually being achieved.
58 EPA-OIG Reports, Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and
Agricultural Resources, Report No. 2007-P-00004; EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to Reduce
Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed, Report No. 2007-P-00009; Development Growth
Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, Report No. 2007-P-00031; Despite
Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Report No.
08-P-0049; and EPA Needs to Better Report Chesapeake Bay Challenges, Report No. 08-P-0199.
59 Clean Water Act §117.
60 US EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, FY 2009 EPA Budget in Brief, page D-4.
61 US Department of Agriculture, 2007 Farm Bill Proposals.
62 US EPA, Office of Water, "Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds" website, Challenges Facing Our Estuaries, Key
Management Issues.
63 US EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, page 176.
Section IV-Page 27
-------
Actions necessary to address the above challenges will not be easily implemented even if such
practices are described as cost-effective. For example, it will be difficult to convince enough
agricultural producers that conservation practices will not adversely affect productivity. And in
many cases, EPA has no clear authority to control major sources of pollution, such as from land
development. Other practices are controversial because they place restrictions on lives of the
residents of the Bay watershed. Controls may result in property owners near the coast not
being able to construct additions to their homes or develop vacant land. However, to address
these challenges, EPA and its partners will need to make major program improvements. In the
absence of significant steps from government, financial incentives or other mechanisms of
influence, the enormous reductions required will not be forthcoming.
In response to OIG and GAO reports, the CBPO developed the Chesapeake Action Plan to
improve program management and strategic planning. While the Plan will likely improve overall
management, it is unlikely to result in the accelerated progress needed to achieve reduction
goals. It will still be up to local governments to determine how they will develop lands and to
other federal agencies on how they will direct agricultural production or transportation. The Bay
community is responsible for taking action to ensure that Bay-wide commitments are met, and
that water quality goals are achieved and maintained. It is EPA's responsibility to monitor and
assess progress. Bay partners need to commit to implementation plans with realistic
timeframes and generate adequate financial support. Obtaining adequate financial support will
become more difficult with the current economy. EPA should use its reporting responsibilities to
advise Congress and the Chesapeake Bay community on partners' progress in meeting
commitments and identifying any funding shortfalls and other impediments that will affect
progress for restoring the Bay.
Section IV-Page 28
-------
Voluntary Programs
Data verification problems are a recurring theme in voluntary programs. This shortcoming has
been especially acute in the Agency's programs to reduce air emissions, including greenhouse
gases (GHG). Over the last several years, we have reviewed a number of these programs. In
general, these reports determined that EPA voluntary programs have difficulty verifying their
outcomes. We found that EPA had no Agency-wide policies that require voluntary programs to
collect comparable data or conduct regular program evaluations. We also found that several
programs showed weaknesses in their data collection and reporting systems. These problems
were caused by the collection and use of limited, unverified, and anonymous performance data.
Further, we found the ENERGY STAR program (EPA's highest profile GHG avoidance program)
reported benefits that were inaccurate and unsupported. GHG emission reductions have been
deemed a priority, but the numerous voluntary programs established to reduce GHG emissions
have only limited potential. In our review of 11 prominent voluntary programs we found that, on
average, they had the potential of reducing only 19 percent of total GHG emissions.
We documented similar performance and data verification limitations in Agency voluntary
programs that address air toxics, ports, and nanoscale materials. States receive grant money to
collect air toxics data, but only 37 have delivered the data requested. Key voluntary strategies
are used to reduce diesel emissions from port sources. However, these initiatives have suffered
from low participation rates, lack of funding, and emissions data. Low participation rates have
also hindered EPA's ability to achieve greater results in its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship
Program (NMSP). We also observed that the Pollution Prevention Program's verification and
validation procedures did not ensure the accuracy of performance data obtained from voluntary
partners, so program managers had no assurance that performance results data obtained from
voluntary partnerships with industry and other organizations were accurate.
Some of EPA's voluntary programs are not achieving the air quality goals they were created to
achieve. For example, since 1988 when the Indoor Radon Abatement Act was enacted with the
goal that indoor air should be as free of radon as outdoor air, EPA has administered a voluntary
program to reduce indoor radon.64 However, inconsistencies in radon-related requirements
among State and local governments, a lack of incentives, funding constraints, and misuse of the
radon map limit EPA's ability to achieve greater results with this voluntary program. The
problem of radon exposure actually worsens each year. To date, EPA has neither proposed
any indoor radon regulations, nor decided how to use the authorities and tools available to it to
achieve Indoor Radon Abatement Act goals. EPA did not agree with our recommendation to
notify Congress of any limitations in the Act's authorities authorized by Congress, as well as
other limitations that would preclude EPA from achieving the long-term goal of the Act.
EPA is also relying on voluntary programs to help reduce air emissions at U.S. ports, but the
Agency has not successfully implemented key elements of these voluntary programs at many
ports.65 One of the key voluntary strategies for reducing diesel emissions from port sources
relies on participation in regional diesel collaboratives. However, many seaports located in
nonattainment areas for either ozone, particulate matter, or both were not participating in these
voluntary collaboratives. To address the low participation rate, EPA needs to proactively target
and motivate port stakeholders to participate in the regional diesel collaboratives, particularly for
those ports located in nonattainment areas. The lack of funding and emissions data has also
hampered EPA's implementation of port voluntary programs.
64 EPA-OIG Report, More Action Needed to Protect Public from Indoor Radon Risks, Report No. 08-P-0174, June 3,
2008.
65 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports, Report No. 09-P-0125,
March 23, 2009.
Section IV-Page 29
-------
Low participation rates have also hindered EPA's ability to achieve greater results in its NMSP.
EPA implemented this voluntary program to complement and support regulatory efforts on
nanoscale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act.66 NMSP is intended to help
provide a stronger scientific foundation for future regulatory decisions by encouraging the
submission and development of information for nanoscale materials (e.g., chemical identification
and physical properties characterization, hazard, use, potential exposures, and risk
management practices).67 Under the NMSP Basic Program, participants were invited to
voluntarily submit available information by July 29, 2008, on the engineered nanoscale materials
they manufacture, import, process, or use.68 Under the In-Depth Program, participants were
invited to work with EPA and others on developing data over a longer timeframe. As of
December 8, 2008, 29 companies or associations submitted information under the Basic
Program and 4 companies had agreed to participate in the In-Depth Program. As a result of the
low participation, nearly two-thirds of the chemical substances for which commercially available
nanoscale materials are based were not reported under the Basic Program, and approximately
90 percent of the nanoscale materials likely to be commercialized were not reported under the
Basic Program. Further, low rates of engagement in the In-Depth Program suggest that most
companies are not inclined to voluntarily test their nanoscale materials.
Voluntary programs can be an adjunct to regulatory programs. However, their effectiveness
and impacts cannot be assessed without the collection of comprehensive, valid, and reliable
performance data. In light of these systemic findings, EPA should determine the extent to which
voluntary programs can effectively address its pressing environmental and human health
challenges.
US EPA, Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program: Interim Report, OPPT, January 2009.
US EPA, Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 18, Jam
US EPA, Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program: Interim Report, OPPT, January 2009.
Section IV-Page 30
-------
Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
In the last decade, EPA has placed increasing emphasis on the reuse of contaminated or once-
contaminated properties. Today, EPA has a performance measure to define a population of
contaminated sites that are "ready for reuse,"69 and recently released a list of thousands of
contaminated sites marketed as candidates for building renewable energy facilities (e.g., wind,
solar, biomass facilities).70 EPA has had some highly successful efforts in returning actual or
perceived problem sites into properties that reinvigorated communities and created jobs.71
Contaminated properties have been put back into reuse as retail stores, public recreation areas,
housing complexes, sports stadiums, and commercial office space.
EPA's goal to recycle and reuse contaminated property can produce measured economic
benefits, environmental benefits that result from preserving undeveloped lands, and quality of
life improvements for communities. While these goals are notable, EPA's duty is to ensure that
contaminated sites are safe for humans and the environment. EPA faces significant and
increasing challenges in this area due to the common practice of not removing all sources of
contamination from hazardous sites; a regulatory structure that places key responsibilities for
monitoring and enforcing the long-term safety of contaminated sites on non-EPA parties that
may lack necessary resources, information, and skill; changes in site risks as site conditions
change over time; and existing weaknesses in EPA's oversight of the long-term safety of sites.
Many contaminated sites, such as Superfund sites, must be monitored in the long-term (i.e.,
30 years or more) because known contamination is often not removed or remediated and
controls that prevent prohibited activities at sites must be maintained and enforced. New
controls or monitoring may be required because previously undetected or new contaminants
have emerged.72 This can happen directly as a result of a change in the site brought about by
reuse. The lack of effective long-term monitoring and enforcement of reuse controls at
contaminated sites can pose significant risks to human health and the environment. The New
York Department of Environmental Conservation released a report in March 2009 listing
hundreds of "old" Superfund, Brownfields, and other clean-up cases that were reopened to
investigate potential new threats from vapor intrusion.73
EPA has acknowledged challenges to ensuring the long-term safety of contaminated sites.74 In
2005, the Agency released a report that examined a range of long-term stewardship issues75
and challenges it faced, as well as non-EPA parties (i.e., States, tribes, and other federal
agencies) that have a role in ensuring long-term safety of contaminated sites. The Agency
identified five categories of challenges: (1) understanding roles and responsibilities; (2)
69 US EPA, Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance
Measure, Attachment A, OSWER 9365.0 - 36.
70 US EPA, RE-Powering America's Land: Renewable Energy on Contaminated Land and Mining Sites.
71 US EPA, "Superfund Redevelopment" Website.
72 US EPA, Brownfields Technology Primer Vapor Intrusion Considerations for Redevelopment, EPA 542-R-08-001,
March 2008.
73 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Status of Vapor Intrusion Evaluations at Legacy Sites,
February 11, 2009; and Strategy for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion at Remedial Sites in New York, DER-13, October
18,2006.
74 US EPA Long-Term Stewardship: Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups Remain Protective Over Time:
Challenges and Opportunities Facing EPA's Cleanup Programs, EPA 500-R-05-001, September 2005.
75 EPA generally characterizes long-term stewardship activities as activities that ensure (1) ongoing protection of
human health and the environment; (2) the integrity of remedial or corrective actions so they continue to operate
properly, and (3) the ability of people to reuse sites in a safe and protective manner.
Section IV-Page 31
-------
implementing and enforcing institutional controls;76 (3) implementing, enforcing, and monitoring
engineering controls;77 (4) estimating long-term stewardship costs and obtaining funding and
resources; and (5) managing and communicating information to prevent breaches of controls
and ensuring consistent information in databases. The report made a number of
recommendations which generally rely on partnerships and relationships to share,
communicate, and exchange necessary information on roles, responsibilities, and costs
associated with long-term stewardship responsibilities, and to encourage non-EPA parties to
adhere to legal provisions for implementing institutional controls, where applicable (i.e., Uniform
Environmental Covenants Act78). In response to reported GAO concerns in this area, EPA has
also taken some steps to better manage the implementation of institutional controls at
Superfund sites.79 However, there remain many sites where the implementation status of
institutional controls is not available.80
Our work has identified a number of challenges that EPA faces in ensuring effective long-term
monitoring, or stewardship of contaminated sites. We found that some States were not
financially prepared to take over their long-term monitoring and maintenance responsibilities for
Superfund sites.81 We reported State failures to enforce clean up agreements,82 EPA not
following Superfund site deletion guidance,83 five-year review procedures,84 and not having
systems in place to determine whether a site clean-up is in noncompliance.85
It has only been in the last several years that EPA has focused attention on the long-term
stewardship aspects of contaminated sites across its clean-up programs. EPA's management
of the long-term oversight and monitoring requirements for the safe reuse of contaminated sites
has lagged behind their marketing of site reuse opportunities and showcase successes. This
gap promises to increase substantially as EPA continues to heavily promote the reuse of
contaminated sites without investment in the tools needed to ensure the safe, long-term use of
these sites. Many Superfund sites are now moving to the long-term monitoring phase with more
sites expected in the future.86 EPA's December 2008 report on future Superfund workload
needs states that the post-construction workload will require the greatest increase in coming
76 Institutional controls are legal or administrative controls intended to minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination by limiting land or resource use. A local government is often the only entity that has legal authority to
implement certain types of institutional controls (e.g., zoning restrictions).
77 Engineering controls are the engineered physical barriers or structures designed to monitor and prevent or limit
exposure to the contamination.
78The Uniform Environmental Covenants Act confirms the validity of environmental covenants (i.e., institutional
controls/land use controls) by ensuring that land use restrictions, mandated environmental monitoring requirements,
and a wide range of common engineering controls designed to control the potential environmental risk of residual
contamination will be reflected in land records and effectively enforced overtime. Currently, about one half of
U.S. States have passed a Uniform Environmental Covenants Act.
79 GAO Report, Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect the Public,
GAO-05-163 January 28, 2005. See also US EPA, Superfund Website on institutional controls.
80 See US EPA, "Superfund Information Systems" Website, Published Institutional Control Site Reports for All
Regions.
81 EPA-OIG Report, Some Sfafes Cannot Address Assessment Needs and Face Limitations in Meeting Future
Superfund Cleanup Requirements, Report No. 2004-P-00027, September 2004.
82 EPA-OIG Report, Improved Controls Would Reduce Superfund Backlogs, Report No. 08-P-0169, June 2008.
83 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Decisions to Delete Superfund Sites Should Undergo Quality Assurance Review, Report
No. 08-P-0235, August 2008.
84 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps
Needed, Report No. 2007-P-00006 December 2006; EPA-OIG Report, EPA's Safety Determination for Delatte Metals
Superfund Site Was Unsupported, Report No. 09-P-0029, November 2008.
85 EPA-OIG Report, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements, Report No. 08-P-0141,
April 2008.
86 US EPA, Long-Term Stewardship: Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups Remain Protective Over Time:
Challenges and Opportunities Facing EPA's Cleanup Programs, EPA 500-R-05-001, September 2005.
Section IV-Page 32
-------
years and will increase by 89 percent over the current full-time equivalent distribution.87 EPA
will continually need to assess challenges it faces as well as challenges among the diverse
group of non-EPA parties it must work with to ensure sites are safely reused. To address the
challenges, these assessments should include consideration of new or expanded authorities
and regulations, organizational structures, and dedicated funding and resources.
87 US EPA, Superfund Workload Assessment Report, OSWER Document 9200-2-81, December 2, 2008. Post-
construction workload can refer to all activities after the remedy is constructed. This includes long-term monitoring
and reuse activities.
Section IV-Page 33
-------
EPA's Response to Office of Inspector General (OIG) Management Challenges
(PREPARED BY EPA)
Management of Stimulus Funds
Summary of Challenge: EPA received $7.2 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funds for six existing programs: 1) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), 2)
Drinking Water SRF, 3) Hazardous Substance Superfund, 4) Diesel Emissions Reduction, 5)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and 6) Brownfields. OIG acknowledges that the Agency
has already taken steps to address ARRA requirements. However, OIG believes EPA faces
significant challenges in meeting all ARRA requirements while at the same time carrying out
ongoing environmental programs. For instance, since most ARRA funds will be awarded
through assistance agreements and contracts, EPA's grants and contracts personnel will have
to manage stimulus grants and contracts in addition to their normal workload. To reduce the risk
of fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, OIG indicates that EPA will need to assign
sufficient, trained staff to ensure proper oversight of grants and contracts.
Agency Response: EPA is committed to ensuring that public funds are expended responsibly
and transparently. The Agency has done considerable work to demonstrate effective
management and oversight of ARRA funds and activities. For instance, in accordance with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, EPA created a senior-level Steering
Committee to oversee its ARRA strategy. To ensure transparency and accountability of its
ARRA activities, EPA also developed a comprehensive ARRA Stewardship Plan to address
Agency responsibilities in identifying risks (programmatic and administrative) and specific
mitigation actions. 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 plan are based on various internal control
objectives referenced in the OMB guidance.
The vast majority of funding for ARRA activities will be provided using grants and contracts from
existing programs that currently have strong internal controls. The Agency has put in place
additional internal controls for contracts and grants to address ARRA funds. In March and April,
the Agency issued guidance on the award of ARRA contracts and grants (March) and
interagency agreements (April). EPA also developed a plan for a stakeholder outreach initiative
that outlines how it will communicate information on ARRA contracts and grants opportunities to
potential customers and stakeholders (through instructional fact sheets, webinars, etc.). These,
along with the current internal controls and its Stewardship Plan, will help the Agency ensure
proper oversight of ARRA funds for grants and contracts. The Agency will periodically reassess
the risks identified in the Stewardship Plan and make adjustments as needed.
With regard to OIG's concerns about staff workload, the Agency has been working internally to
determine the adequate level of staff and full-time equivalency (FTE) needed to manage the
additional ARRA grants and contracts workload. EPA believes it has adequate contract and
grant personnel to manage its ARRA activities. The Agency will use its contracts and grants
databases to monitor the workload of contracting officers, project officers, and grant specialists.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Summary of Challenge: Since EPA was formed in 1970, a comprehensive study has not been
completed to analyze its mission, organization, and the number and location of employees
needed to most effectively carry out the mission at the lowest cost. OIG believes EPA remains
challenged in maintaining the right number of people in the right places to most effectively
Section IV-Page 34
-------
accomplish its mission and achieve strategic goals. OIG recommends that, with the assistance
of external parties (oversight committees), EPA conduct a comprehensive study to assess its
mission, workforce, and infrastructure requirements in order to accomplish its mission and
reduce operating costs.
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges OIG's concerns and agrees that it could benefit from a
comprehensive review of its organizational structure as it relates to the number and location of
employees needed to effectively accomplish its mission. EPA has neither the resources nor the
authority to conduct such a broad review. However, it has conducted periodic nationwide
assessments to identify cost-saving opportunities as a result of mission and personnel changes.
Currently, EPA maintains an inventory of buildings—owned and leased—that support its
mission. Through its master space planning process, the Agency will continue to identify and
fulfill its long-term facility requirements. The Agency plans to establish a senior-level workgroup
that will examine space management and usage at Agency facilities. The workgroup will identify
options on how the Agency can use space more efficiently and achieve savings from space
rental and facilities costs.
Under the Space Consolidation and Rent Avoidance Project, the Agency has released
approximately 228,000 square feet of space, resulting in an annual rent avoidance of more than
$7.3 million. In FY2010 and 2011, the Agency plans to release approximately 99,300 square
feet of additional space in headquarters and Regional facilities, for an estimated annual rent
avoidance of nearly $3.9 million.
Performance Measurement
Summary of Challenge: While EPA has been recognized for its efforts to align budgeting,
planning, and accounting systems to track and report resources, OIG believes the Agency
continues to face challenges in measuring the human health and environmental results of its
programs. OIG notes that program results are not immediately recognized or demonstrated until
years later, that linking environmental activities to outcomes is difficult due to external factors
beyond EPA's control, and that performance measures often focus on program activities instead
of improvements to human health or the environment. Additionally, OIG indicates that although
the Report on the Environment provides a broad perspective on the condition of the nation's
environment, the Agency still faces limitations, gaps, and challenges in gathering and analyzing
information on key environmental indicators. To address these concerns, OIG recommends that
the Agency focus on the logic of program design to ensure that programs and processes are
designed so that managers can measure, evaluate, and demonstrate results for resources
used, allowing for transparency and accountability for program performance.
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges the inherent difficulties in aligning environmental
information, performance measures, and results. However, the Agency has made performance
measurement improvement and performance management a high priority and is pursuing many
actions to address challenges.
EPA's program offices have the ultimate responsibility in designing their programs and
corresponding performance measures to assess results. The Agency continues to offer training
and technical assistance in logic modeling and program evaluation and design. Additionally, the
Agency has made significant strides in strengthening its performance management framework
and furthering access to and the quality of performance data to improve their utility for decision-
making. For example, senior managers can easily view progress on key performance measures
using "Measures Central," an Agency-wide database, and the Executive Management
Section IV-Page 35
-------
Dashboard, an intranet-based application. Over the last few years, EPA has conducted an
Agency-wide effort to improve the systems, quality of the measures, and data in the systems.
EPA's work to strengthen performance management contributed to the Agency's winning—in
consecutive years—the President's Quality Award for Management Excellence. EPA is the
second federal agency ever to receive this award, and the only agency to have won it twice.
EPA has made significant progress in addressing the inherent challenges of performance
measurement. For instance, the Agency conducted an annual review of FY 2009 and FY 2010
measures to further improve the linkages between its operational measures, senior
management priorities, and long-term environmental and health goals. Additionally, the Agency
strengthened governance/oversight of the overall quality of the measures and data in Measures
Central through modifications to the system, guidance, and training, and it has added ARRA
performance measures to the system. The Agency has also produced Measures Central Mid-
and End-of-Year Reports to improve transparency in performance data reporting across
programs and Regional offices and to monitor progress.
EPA continues to engage with state, tribal, and Regional stakeholders and has developed a
number of tools to increase collaboration, transparency, efficiency, and the management utility
of the Agency's annual commitment process. EPA offices collaborated internally to develop data
quality Management Action Plans (MAP I and MAP II), which will ensure the accuracy and
reliability of ARRA environmental and performance data. These MAPs require the development
and certification of a Data Quality Record for each ARRA performance measure along with pre-
dissemination review, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Agency's Information Quality Guidelines, prior to each public report.
Threat and Risk Assessment
Summary of Challenge: OIG notes that, in the past year, EPA has not developed and applied
threat and risk assessments in decision-making. According to OIG, EPA does not assess
relative threats and risks to human health and the environment and base decisions on the
highest priority. As discussed in its recent reports on EPA's enforcement and air programs, OIG
believes the Agency's environmental laws focus on single media, goals are designed to
implement separate legislative mandates, and available technological solutions address specific
pollutant sources. In 2008, OIG stated that EPA needed to establish and implement a risk-
based strategy to assess threats to human health and the environment across media.
Agency Response: EPA confirms that its last comparative risk study was completed nearly 20
years ago. However, the Agency believes that the approach used at that time—to rank all
environmental risks in a very aggregate manner—is no longer useful. Current Agency analyses,
which look more deeply into environmental threats, are more useful in decision-making. For
instance, the Agency is conducting a forward-looking study that explores the relative risks,
costs, feasibility, and the synergisms of controlling various air pollutants. The Agency is also
nearing completion of the 812 Prospective Study, which reviews the costs and benefits of
various future actions to control air pollution. Additionally, the Agency is working with a number
of watersheds, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and national estuaries, to take a
holistic perspective, considering cross-media issues and planning actions with the greatest
benefit. The Agency has also developed a system that helps identify where to focus permitting
and methods that use measurement tools to focus on enforcement priorities.
EPA has several other efforts underway, such as the Community Action for a Renewed
Environment program, identification of environmental justice communities, sector strategies,
environmental management systems, smart growth, and green building to address risk more
Section IV-Page 36
-------
holistically across media. The Agency believes these initiatives encourage a more
disaggregated approach to identifying risk that will enhance its ability to focus its resources on
the highest risk. EPA will continue to use a variety of means, including its strategic planning and
budgeting processes, to incorporate risk and threat assessment in its decision-making.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure/Reducing Pollution in the Nation's Waters
Summary of Challenge: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA), EPA is responsible for assisting water and wastewater facilities in meeting their water
treatment requirements. Many drinking water and wastewater systems across the country are
unable to maintain compliance with federal water standards due to repairs and new
constructions. Over the next 20 years, EPA estimates that approximately $1 trillion will be
needed to pay for water and wastewater infrastructure to comply with water standards. While
EPA has established programs to help address infrastructure costs, such as the Four Pillars of
Sustainable Infrastructure and National Alliance for Water Efficiency, these programs do not
represent a cohesive national strategy for solving the problem of aging and deteriorating
infrastructure.
Both OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) have cited water infrastructure
as a challenge for the Agency. OIG believes EPA needs to take the lead in developing a
coherent federal strategy, within the limits of its statutory authorities and responsibilities, to
assess the investment requirements and work with states and local governments to organize
resources to meet water and wastewater infrastructure needs. GAO notes that, while EPA
partners with federal, state, and local agencies and others to reduce pollution in the nation's
waters, many pollution sources are difficult to monitor and regulate. Among the most daunting
water pollution control problems, the nation's water utilities face billions of dollars in upgrades to
aging and deteriorating infrastructures that, left unaddressed, can affect the quality of our water.
Agency Response: EPA is doing everything possible within its authority, responsibilities, and
resource constraints to change the way the country views, values, manages, and uses water
and wastewater infrastructure. Its Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Initiative continues to be a top
Agency priority and has been extremely active in the past year. While long-term sustainability
will ultimately occur at the local level, EPA has provided and continues to provide national
leadership.
For example, EPA continues to partner with six of the major professional associations for water
and wastewater to promote the 10 attributes of an effectively managed utility. This first-of-its-
kind national collaboration enables utilities to operate under a common management
framework, which is helping the sector move toward sustainability in a unified manner. Building
on existing efforts, the collaborating organizations have recently released a set of case studies
that document the success of a number of utilities who have used the Effective Utility
Management (EUM) framework. The EUM "Primer" has also been adapted into a Web-based
tool and presentation to make it more available to utilities across the country.
Recognizing that water efficiency has significant implications for infrastructure, EPA has
continued to pursue and expand the WaterSense program, launched in 2006. The WaterSense
label makes it easy for consumers to find products and services that save water while ensuring
performance, thereby reducing the burden on infrastructure and mitigating water availability
challenges. It also helps to build a national consciousness of the value of water and water
services, which is essential to the national awareness and acceptance that everyone must help
pay for our infrastructure needs.
Section IV-Page 37
-------
EPA has also reached out to other federal agencies and departments to work together on
infrastructure sustainability. In collaboration with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the
Agency recently released a set of case studies on asset management, an area of common
interest for water and highway infrastructure. EPA also has recently signed a partnership
agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and DOT that focuses on
sustainable communities and smart growth. This new federal partnership has significant
interconnections with water and wastewater infrastructure. As the nation plans for future growth,
EPA must ensure that water infrastructure and water quality are a priority as it develops policies
to ensure sustainable communities.
Other recent activities taken under the SI Initiative include:
• Engaging state and utility stakeholders across the country to develop a "Sustainability
Policy" for SRF programs. This effort, initiated in response to the President's Budget, will
ensure that infrastructure investments through these federally capitalized programs move
the country toward greater sustainability. The President's Budget also includes significant
increases in capitalization of the funds. One of the objectives of this effort is to use federal
SRF funds to promote effective utility management strategies and practices by utilities that
use these funds.
• Actively working with a long list of partners to implement our Green Infrastructure Action
Plan. The focus of this work is on green infrastructure approaches to managing wet weather.
Among other activities, the Action Plan aims to better document costs, benefits, and
effectiveness of practices; incorporate green infrastructure into Long Term Control Plans for
combined sewer overflows; and foster implementation in communities across the country.
• Initiating an effort to study how the Agency can effectively increase the engagement of local
officials and decision-makers on SI issues. This effort will result in an outreach plan to be
implemented in the coming year.
In these and other ways, EPA has taken a leading role with federal partners and has worked to
increase public awareness and appreciation of the need for sustainable water infrastructure.
Expanding EPA's efforts would require increased authority and resources.
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Summary of Challenge: OIG continues to raise concerns about EPA's homeland security
efforts and actions. Although EPA has taken actions to strengthen homeland security, OIG
reports show that the Agency's plans for responding to incidents of national significance do not
1) document the methodology used to determine the required resources; 2) address
coordination with other federal, state, or local emergency response agencies; 3) contain
designation or process descriptions for handling crisis communications; 4) include key
milestones for completing critical homeland security responsibilities; and 5) establish
accountable entities, within EPA, responsible for completing critical homeland security
requirements. OIG states that the Agency has not yet implemented recommendations outlined
in its 2008 report. Additionally, OIG believes that many of the Agency's actions to address
homeland security (e.g., implementing the Radiation Ambient Monitoring System and a national
equipment tracking system) are behind schedule. OIG notes that effectively managing its
homeland security program will require the Agency to think differently about how it responds,
coordinates with others, and communicates in nationally significant emergencies.
Section IV-Page 38
-------
Agency Response: EPA has a Homeland Security Work Plan, updated annually, that identifies
the Agency's homeland security focus and efforts in four homeland security priority areas: water
security, decontamination, emergency response, and internal preparedness. These priority
areas have been identified as a result of specific responsibilities assigned to EPA by external
entities and the Agency's homeland security requirements and assignments.
As part of this plan EPA developed three tiers of information to be responsive to its homeland
security mandates. This information forms the basis for understanding EPA's highest homeland
security priorities and serves to assess short-, medium-, and long-term goals and results. The
three tiers are:
• Desired end states, which describe the final outcome of homeland security projects or
efforts once EPA believes it has met the President's or other externally imposed directives.
• Desired results, which reflect specific programmatic areas through which EPA seeks to
make progress toward the desired end state.
• Action items, which reflect specific program and Regional office plans (e.g., projects or
efforts) to progress toward desired results and ultimately reach EPA's desired end state.
Although some Regions and special teams currently have systems in place to manage their
equipment inventories, EPA acknowledges the need for a national equipment inventory to
ensure that it can identify and access appropriate equipment in support of nationally significant
events.
To address findings and recommendations for the national equipment tracking system, EPA
expedited development of the Equipment Module of the Emergency Management Portal, a
warehouse management and equipment tracking system. All Regions and special teams are
required to use the new system for tracking emergency response equipment. This application
has been improved over several versions; Version 6.1, scheduled for November 2009, will
complete the off-line synchronization option for those warehouses with poor connectivity. All
warehouses are scheduled to be in production by December 31, 2009.
EPA will continue to use its Homeland Security Priority Work Plan to systematically assess
homeland security priorities and projects and achieve its homeland security objectives.
Oversight of Delegation of States
Summary of Challenge: A critical management challenge for EPA is overseeing its delegation
of programs to the states, mostly due to differences between state and federal policies,
interpretations, strategies, and priorities. While EPA has improved its oversight, particularly in
priority setting and enforcement planning with states, the Agency needs accurate data and
consistent policy interpretation to ensure effective oversight of all delegated regulatory and
voluntary programs. OIG believes that EPA must address the limitations in the availability,
quality, and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data.
Agency Response: As OIG notes, state oversight is a very complex and changeable arena.
Through federal statutes, implementing regulations, and program design, states are allowed
flexibility in how they manage and implement environmental programs. Wthin EPA, national
program managers are directly responsible for state oversight of individual programs. The
Agency has committees, workgroups, special projects, and initiatives to continuously improve
Agency programs delegated to states.
Section IV-Page 39
-------
To provide more collaboration at the national level, the Agency, working with states, established
the Partnership Council of the Office of Water and States (PCOWS). PCOWS addresses the
challenges of increasing workloads, pending demands of energy and climate change, and
declining resources. It also tests the early and ongoing engagement of states in planning,
budgeting, and implementation activities for the national water program. As the first national-
level forum for the discussion of strategic priorities with the states, PCOWS will ensure that core
and key program activities are given appropriate priority in budget decisions and identify
opportunities for work sharing for priority activities and maximizing resources.
EPA has made improvements in its priority setting and enforcement planning. Currently, using
the State Review Framework, the Agency conducts oversight reviews to evaluate the
performance of state compliance and enforcement programs. The State Review Framework
enables assessment of program effectiveness and identification of areas for management
improvements that is consistent across EPA Regions and states.
In July 2009, the Administrator renewed the Agency's commitment to use the National
Environmental Information Exchange, which both EPA and states view as a critical component
of cost-effective exchange of data and information between EPA, states, and the public.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Summary of Challenge: EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office is responsible for overseeing
the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, North America's largest and most biologically diverse
estuary. Despite EPA's efforts—which include providing scientific information to its federal,
state, and local partners for setting resource allocations; revising water quality standards; and
establishing stricter wastewater treatment discharge limits—the Agency continues to face
significant challenges in meeting water quality goals. OIG notes that the remaining challenges
include managing land development, increasing implementation of agricultural conservation
practices, monitoring and expediting the installation of nutrient removal technology at
wastewater treatment plants, seeking greater reduction in air emissions, and identifying
consistent and sustained funding sources to support tributary strategy implementation. While
EPA is responsible for monitoring and assessing progress, its partners will need to implement
practices to reduce loads. OIG believes EPA will need to institute management controls to
ensure that the promised reductions are realistic and achievable. EPA should then use its
reporting responsibilities to advise Congress and the Chesapeake Bay community on the
partners' progress in meeting these commitments and identify funding shortfalls and other
impediments that will affect progress for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Agency Response: EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional partnership
that directs and conducts the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by bringing together local,
state, and federal governments, nonprofit organizations, watershed residents, and academic
institutions. The CBP continues to respond to and implement OIG and GAO recommendations.
In spring 2009, the CBP office changed its management structure to better align the policy,
advisory, and technical committees and workgroups with the five goals of the Chesapeake 2000
Agreements: protect and restore fisheries, protect and restore vital habitats, protect and restore
water quality, maintain health watersheds, and foster stewardship. The new structure also aligns
with the Chesapeake Action Plan and provides a clear focus on the goals and outcomes that the
Agency is trying to achieve.
Section IV-Page 40
-------
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration, launching a "new era" of federal leadership and action to protect
and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Order, which establishes a Federal Leadership
Committee that will oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities, will
help define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Bay.
Additionally, the Order describes changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to
implement these actions.
EPA chairs the Federal Leadership Committee, which includes senior representatives of the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior,
Transportation, and well as other agencies. Agencies involved in restoring the Bay will develop
action plans and submit them to the Federal Leadership Committee. Agency action plans will
reflect consultation with the governments of the seven Bay jurisdictions—Delaware, Maryland,
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia—to ensure that
government actions are coordinated and resources, authorities, and expertise are used as
efficiently as possible. These plans will be integrated into an overall federal strategy that will
direct actions to protect and restore the Bay.
In preparing its report on water pollution control strategies, EPA will examine how to make full
use of its authorities under the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the Bay and its
tributaries. (EPA will revise guidance and regulations as necessary.) The strategies and actions
identified by EPA will include:
• Using Clean Water Act tools, including strengthening existing permit programs and
extending coverage where appropriate.
• Establishing new, minimum standards of performance where appropriate.
• Describing a schedule for implementing key actions in cooperation with states, local
governments, and others.
• Constructing watershed-based frameworks that clearly assign pollution reduction
responsibilities while maximizing reliability and cost-effectiveness.
• Implementing a compliance and enforcement strategy.
• Taking the lead role in developing stormwater best practices guidance.
Beginning in 2010, the Federal Leadership Committee will publish annual Chesapeake Bay
Action Plans that describe how federal funding will be put toward Bay restoration in the coming
year. The plans will be accompanied by an annual progress report. To strengthen
accountability, the Committee will ensure that an independent evaluator periodically reports on
progress toward meeting the goals of the Order.
Voluntary Programs
Summary of Challenge: OIG reviews of voluntary programs that address air toxics,
greenhouse gas reduction, pollution prevention, etc., indicate that performance and data
verification for voluntary programs is a systemic problem for EPA. According to OIG, without
comprehensive, valid, and reliable performance data, EPA cannot ensure that programs are
efficiently and effectively providing intended and claimed environmental benefits. EPA needs to
Section IV-Page 41
-------
determine the extent to which voluntary programs can effectively address environmental and
human health challenges.
Agency Response: EPA programs and Regions support a range of regulatory and voluntary
programs designed to help achieve environmental result (e.g., improving air quality, lowering
greenhouse gases, reducing chemical risk). Currently, there are nearly 50 voluntary programs
administered by EPA at the federal level (more exists at the state and local levels). Voluntary
partnership programs can enhance or complement regulatory programs, encourage
environmental performance beyond what is legally required, and help to address issues difficult
to regulate (or not yet ripe for regulation).
The Agency has developed guidelines on partnership program design, measurement,
marketing, and evaluation. However, most voluntary programs are managed by individual
national program managers who use various methods to track and report program effectiveness
and impact on the environment. EPA's Innovation Action Council has identified program
management improvements including codifying minimum requirements for program design and
operation; making new program notification mandatory; defining categories of partnership
programs; and developing new guidelines for evaluating a partnership program.
According to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, "There is
a widespread misperception that EPA's primary stewardship tool consists of voluntary
partnership programs. The reality is, however, that the Agency has many additional assets to
promote stewardship, such as regulatory programs, grants, information, public speeches, and
in-house operations. EPA achieves its most effective results when it uses these tools in
concert."88
EPA is taking steps to improve performance information to determine the effectiveness of
partnership programs. For example, an interim evaluation of the Nanoscale Materials
Stewardship Program notes that as much as 90 percent of the different nanoscale materials that
are likely to be commercially available were not reported. The Agency's conclusion then was
that it had learned a great deal about nanoscale materials in commerce, but the program did not
provide the needed breadth of health and safety data and the participation rate was lower than
hoped. In response, EPA is developing a mandatory reporting rule under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) to require companies to report data on existing uses,
production volumes, specific physical properties, chemical and structural characteristics,
methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available
health and safety data. EPA is also developing a mandatory test rule under TSCA Section 4 to
require companies to test a number of manufactured nanomaterials for health and
environmental effects. The information submitted under these regulations will further EPA's
understanding of the uses and potential risks of manufactured nanomaterials, and strengthen
the scientific basis for taking appropriate risk management actions. Another example of
continuous improvement of performance information can be found with the pollution prevention
(P2) programs. While EPA agrees that not all P2 programs had standard operating procedures
in place for performance data at the time of the audit, many did. The program is currently
working to incorporate lessons learned across the program and develop comprehensive
standard operating procedures and QA/QC practices for performance information.
http://www.epa.qov/ocem/nacept/reports/pdf/2008-0328-everyones-business-final.pdf
Section IV-Page 42
-------
Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
Summary of Challenge: EPA places increasing emphasis on the reuse of contaminated or
once-contaminated properties and has a performance measure to define a population of
contaminated sites that are ready for reuse. EPA faces "significant and increasing" challenges in
this area, however, due to the common practice of not removing all sources of contamination
from hazardous sites; a regulatory structure that places key responsibilities for monitoring and
enforcing the long-term safety of contaminated sites on non-EPA parties that may lack
necessary resources, information, and skill; changes in site risks as site conditions change over
time; and existing weaknesses in EPA's oversight of the long-term safety of sites. EPA will
continually need to assess challenges it faces as well as challenges among the diverse group of
non-EPA parties it must work with to ensure that sites are safely reused. To address the
challenges, these assessments should include consideration of new or expanded authorities
and regulations, organization structures, and dedicated funding and resources.
Agency Response: In its April 2009 report, OIG identified a number of concerns associated
with ensuring the long-term safety of contaminated sites, and EPA agrees with OIG's
recommendations.
OIG stated that "EPA's management of the long-term oversight and monitoring requirements for
the safe reuse of contaminated sites has lagged behind their marketing of site reuse
opportunities and showcase successes." Using a variety of tools, Regions are working closely
with prospective users to ensure they understand the limitations associated with the site and
use the site in a way that prevents exposures. Comfort letters and Ready for Reuse
determinations lay out any limitations that need to be followed to ensure protectiveness. Some
Regions have official processes for prospective users that ensure the reuse will be compatible
with the remedy. In addition, EPA works closely with state and local governments to ensure that
mechanisms such as institutional controls are maintained to permit safe reuse of sites. EPA also
conducts five-year reviews at all sites to ensure continued remedy protection where waste is left
in place.
OIG also notes that states were not financially prepared to take over their long-term monitoring
and maintenance responsibilities. The Agency is aware of a few instances in which states did
not have the funding needed to continue their responsibilities. Though state budgets have been
constrained, states have strived to maintain their responsibilities. Further, OIG specifies that
states failed to enforce cleanup agreements. EPA continually encourages state enforcement of
cleanup agreements, meeting with the Association of State and Territorial Waste Management
Officials member states and offering technical assistance. In response to OIG's concern that
EPA is not following Superfund site deletion guidance or five-year review procedures, the
Agency has new procedures and processes in place to ensure that deletion actions comply with
the National Contingency Plan and EPA guidance. Additionally, current procedures remain in
place to ensure appropriate implementation of five-year review guidance. Finally, OIG believes
that EPA does not have systems in place to determine whether a site cleanup is in
noncompliance. The Agency is working to finalize the draft Guidance on Tracking Substantial
Noncompliance With CERCLA Enforcement Instruments in CERCLIS. Once the guidance is
issued, Regions will begin entering compliance tracking data into CERCLIS in the fourth quarter
of FY 2009.
Section IV-Page 43
-------
IMPROPER PAYMENTS INFORMATION ACT OF 2002 REPORTING
DETAILS
Risk Assessments
Since the implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002, EPA has
reviewed and sampled disbursements made in the Agency's highest risk program inventories.
EPA's programs continue to demonstrate no "significant erroneous payments," as defined by
OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, as payments exceeding $10 million and 2.5 percent of
program payments. Because the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
(SRFs) are former Section 57 programs, EPA was required to submit an IPIA corrective action
plan for them. The Agency's corrective action plan proposed to reduce the error rate of improper
payments in the SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.30 percent over the past five years. EPA has
succeeded in meeting this targeted goal. The error rates for these two programs were and are
as follows:
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Outlays
$2.0 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.1 billion
$1.9 billion
Erroneous Payments
$3.0 million
$3.5 million
$1.64 million
$8.3 million
$.509 million
Error Rate
0.15 percent
0.15 percent
0.07 percent
0.39 percent
0.27 percent
Statistical Sampling Process
Based on EPA having low error rates and less than $10 million in erroneous payments, EPA
requested and was granted relief from annual statistical sampling and reporting requirements for
the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF Programs for FY 2007-FY 2009. Given the recent
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), EPA will need to examine the feasibility of
conducting risk assessments on these programs in FY 2010. EPA is currently conducting
transaction testing on two federal draws from the base funding and four federal draws, twice a
year, on ARRA funds.
Corrective Action Plans
In order to meet the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) objective, EPA established
additional risk assessments by forming four subgroups with expertise in grants, contracts,
payroll, and travel/purchase credit cards to review internal controls, identify and measure high-
risk areas, and develop corrective action plans for each subject area. Updated information on
each of the areas is as follows.
Grants
As described above, EPA was granted relief from annual statistical sampling of direct and
subrecipient SRF payments. Since FY 2006, the Agency has tracked erroneous payments by
grant recipient in the Grantee Compliance Database.
In FY 2009, of the 60 calendar year (CY) 2008 statistically sampled nonprofit grantee recipients
reviewed, 24 were identified as having potential erroneous payments, and five had actual
Section IV-Page 44
-------
erroneous payments upon financial resolution. Final results for these five years are provided in
the table below. The table also reports updated information on the appeal process results (costs
still in the recipient appeal) for these years.
Nonprofit Grantees
Review/Audit
Results
Total dollars drawn
All potential
erroneous payments
cited
Questioned costs
determined allowable
Actual erroneous
payments
(unallowable costs)
Costs that have been
recovered
Costs still in recipient
appeal process
Percent of erroneous
payments
CY 2004
Review
$9,065,389
$650,799
$646,237
$18,755
$18,755
$0
0.207%
CY 2005
Review
$20,222,038
$1,016,967
$329,378
$687,589*
$57,791
$0
3.400%
CY 2006
Review
$29,373,772
$562,394
$523,227
$39,167
$6,280
$0
0.133%
CY 2007
Review
$22,544,462
$384,352
$307,919
$13,433
$13,433
$0
0.059%
CY 2008
Review
$120,209,284
$577,611
$471 ,343
$106,268
$6,835
$0
0.0884%
* Of the $687,589 in final erroneous payments identified for CY 2005, $629,798 (or 91.6 percent) was associated with
a single earmark award. But for this one earmark, erroneous payments for sampled granted during CY 2005 were
$57,791, equal to 0.2857 percent of total disbursements for sampled grants and well below EPA's target metric of 1
percent of total disbursements. In response to the Agency's findings, the earmark grant has been terminated and the
recipient suspended, as shown on the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA's) Excluded Parties List System.
Contracts
EPA continues to monitor reports designed to reduce or eliminate improper payments. These
reports capture the number of improper payments per month and provide information on each
improper payment, including the reason and recovery status. Based on OMB's relief from
reporting and EPA's performance and effective controls, the Agency did not conduct an external
recovery audit in FY 2009. Improper payment data for FY 2005 through FY 2009 are
summarized below.
Results of EPA's Improper Contract Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Number of Erroneous
Payments
21 (of 26, 305)
25 (of 28,098)
14 (of 29, 828)
12 (of 32,043)
31 (of 35,929)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$121.5
$406.5
$65.3
$324.0
$716.4
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.01%
0.03%
0.01%
0.03%
0.05%
Commodity Payments
EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate any improper
payments. The improper commodity payments are attributed to product returns not deducted,
duplicate payments due to keypunch errors and vendor number errors, cash discounts not
Section IV- Page 45
-------
taken, and state and local tax exemptions not taken. In preparation for replacing the core
financial system, EPA reviewed the vendor file to ensure the accuracy of all vendor codes.
Given the low rate of erroneous payments and OMB's relief in reporting, EPA did not conduct an
external recovery audit in FY 2009. The Agency will continue using the monthly Improper
Commodities Payment Report as the tool for monitoring these payments; improper payment
data for FY 2005 through FY 2009 are summarized in the table below.
Results of EPA's Improper Commodity Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Number of Erroneous
Payments
40 (of 42,698)
102 (of 50,665)
63 (of 45, 859)
48 (of 43,629)
32 (of 41, 585)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$416.0
$695.5
$176.5
$215.4
$193.7
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.17%
0.23%
0.06%
0.08%
0.07%
Travel Card/Purchase Card
The Agency continues to monitor travel and purchase charge card transactions in accordance
with its policies and procedures. In addition, EPA monitors the issuance of purchase cards to
ensure that spending limits and span of control are kept to a minimum. The Agency
implemented a monitoring program that requires each Senior Resource Official to perform
biennial reviews of the purchases made within their program offices. These reviews ensure the
integrity of the purchase card program. EPA continues to use several additional controls:
• Daily notification of the card holder's approving official via e-mail for each purchase.
• Routine reviews on various transactions.
• Review Agency Atypical Report which identifies airline ticket purchase without
authorizations.
Improper Payment (IP) Reduction Outlook FY 2005-FY 2010
(Dollars in millions)
Program
Clean
Water and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
^f05 2F005 2006
Outlays |p% |p$
$1,963 0.45 $3.0
target
0.15
actual
^f06 2F006 2M6
Outlays |p% |p$
$2,303 0.40 $3.5
target
0.15
actual
F\f °7 2M7 2M7
Outlays |p% |p$
$2,344 0.35 $1.60
target
0.07
actual
™2008 20^8 2F008
Outlays |p% |p$
$2,143 0.30 $8.3
target
0.39
actual
™2009 20^9 2M9
Outlays |p% |p$
$1.884 0.30 $.509
target
0.27
actual
FY FY FY
2010 2010 2010
Outlays IP% IP $
[$3,639] 0.30 [$1.1]
(est.) target (est.)
[0.30]
(est.)
Ensuring Management Accountability
As previously outlined in the corrective action plans, the Agency continues to strengthen already
strong internal controls in key payment processes. Information on erroneous payments from
reviews and audits for the two state revolving funds (SRFs), our largest grant programs, is
reported semi-annually to management in both the Office of Water and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer. In all cases, action is taken with the appropriate officials to ensure that
improper payments are recovered and to avoid future improper payments.
Section IV-Page 46
-------
Information Systems and Infrastructure
The Agency's information systems are sufficient to monitor the reduction of improper payments
to targeted levels.
Statutory and Regulatory Barriers
None.
Conclusions
The Agency continues to demonstrate a low level of risk for the SRF programs through random
statistical sampling of direct payments and targeted state reviews. This relief from reporting for
statistical testing of SRF transactions covered fiscal years 2007-2009. EPA will need to
examine the feasibility of conducting a risk assessment and reporting on the SRF programs in
the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).
For FY 2010, EPA committed to the following activities:
• Continue to monitor commercial payments to ensure accurate characterization of monitoring
efforts annually in the PAR.
• Conduct statistical assessment and report on FY 2010 SRF program erroneous payments.
• Conduct two transaction tests on base funding draws and two transactions on the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding draws, twice a year. These draws can include as
many as 50 invoices.
Section IV-Page 47
-------
EPA's FY 2009
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix A:
Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2009
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.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 1
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
EPA Does Not Provide
Oversight of Radon Testing
Accuracy and
Reliability/U.S. EPA, Office
of Inspector General
(OIG)/The evaluation
reviewed EPA's radon
program's policies,
procedures, and guidance
documents.
EPA does not perform oversight of
radon testing device accuracy or
reliability. The 1988 Indoor Radon
Abatement Act required that EPA
establish proficiency programs for
firms offering radon-related
services, including testing and
mitigation. EPA established and
operated proficiency programs until
1998, when it disinvested in these
programs. According to Agency
representatives, EPA has neither
the authority nor the resources to
ensure that radon testing devices
and testing laboratories are
accurate and reliable.
The Inspector General (IG)
recommended that EPA clearly state
on its Web-based and printed public
materials that it cannot provide
assurance that commercially
available radon testing devices or
testing laboratories are accurate and
reliable. EPA should inform Congress
that the limitations of reliable radon
testing may negatively affect
achieving Indoor Radon Abatement
Act goals.
EPA Region 8 Needs to
Better Manage the Risk
Management Program for
Airborne Chemical
Releases/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed EPA Region 8's
coordination and
management of the Clean
AirAct(CAA) Risk
Management Program.
The two Region 8 offices jointly
responsible for implementing the
CAA 112(r) Risk Management
Program have not effectively
planned or coordinated compliance
assurance activities. The OIG also
found that Regional operating
guidance for the program is
inconsistent concerning the roles
and responsibilities of each office.
The IG recommended that the
Regional Administrator develop:
1) A strategy for implementing the
Risk Management Program in
Region 8 that defines program
goals, performance measures,
and organizational
responsibilities.
2) An oversight process to evaluate
the Region's success in
implementing the strategy.
EPA Needs to Improve Its
Efforts to Reduce Air
Emissions at U.S.
Ports/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
evaluation reviewed
whether EPA's 1) actions to
address air emissions from
oceangoing vessels have
been effective, and 2) the
strategy to address air
emissions from port
sources is sufficient to
protect human health and
the environment.
Although EPA has issued air
emissions regulations for most port
sources of air emissions, EPA's
actions to address emissions from
large oceangoing vessels in U.S.
ports have not yet achieved the
goals for protecting human health.
The CAA provides EPA with the
authority to regulate emissions from
oceangoing vessel engines when
these emissions cause significant
harm to human health.
The IG recommended that EPA:
1) Assess its authorities and
responsibilities under the CAA to
regulate air emissions from
foreign-flagged vessels in U.S.
ports, and report any shortfalls to
Congress.
2) Assess the extent to which
Emissions Control Areas should
be designated for U.S. coastal
areas.
3) Revise its ports strategy to
include a transformation plan.
EPA Can Improve
Implementation of the Risk
Management Program for
Airborne Chemical
Releases/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed EPA's
EPA can improve its program
management and oversight to
better ensure that facilities covered
under the Clean Air Act's Risk
Management Program submit or
resubmit Risk Management Plans
(RMPs). EPA had not established
The IG recommended that EPA:
1) Implement additional
management controls to identify
facilities with regulated chemicals
that have not filed RMPs.
2) Develop inspection requirements
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 2
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
implementation and
oversight of the Risk
Management Program
under Section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) that is
enacted to reduce the
likelihood of airborne
chemical releases that
could harm the public, and
mitigate the consequences
of releases that do occur.
national procedures for identifying
covered facilities that had not
submitted RMPs.
to target higher priority facilities
for inspection and track its
progress in completing
inspections of these facilities.
EPA Needs a
Comprehensive Research
Plan and Policies to Fulfill
Its Emerging Climate
Change Role/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed EPA's climate
change research policies,
procedures, and plans.
EPA does not have an overall plan
to ensure development of
consistent, compatible climate
change strategies across the
Agency. The lack of an overall
climate change policy can result in
duplication, inconsistent
approaches, and wasted resources
among EPA's Regions and offices.
EPA's Regions and offices need
more information on a variety of
climate change topics.
The IG recommended that the
Deputy Administrator direct Assistant
and Regional Administrators on how
to plan for climate change challenges
in their media areas/Regions until the
Agency develops an overall strategy
and establish guidance for regularly
entering climate change scientific
information in the Science Inventory.
The IG also recommended that the
Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Research and Development (ORD)
establish various management
controls to ensure that EPA fulfills its
emerging climate change role and
related information needs.
EPA Needs an Oversight
Program for Protocol
Gases/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
evaluation reviewed the
accuracy of continuous
emissions monitors that are
critical to the EPA's Acid
Rain Program because
data from these monitors
determine the number of
allowances a utility can
bank, sell, or trade.
The OIG found that 89 percent (233
continuous emissions monitors)
met the Acid Rain Program's
accuracy criterion, and 11 percent
(28 continuous emissions monitors)
did not. Of the 28 that did not meet
the criterion, 17 were within 3
percent of the NIST-determined
true concentration; seven were
within 3 to 5 percent; and four
exceeded the true concentration by
more than 5 percent.
The IG recommended that the Office
of Air and Radiation (OAR)
implement oversight programs to
ensure the quality of EPA Protocol
Gases used to calibrate continuous
emissions monitoring systems and
ambient air monitors; and maintain
the protocol gas procedures to
ensure that the protocol meets the
objectives of the Acid Rain, Ambient
Air, and Stationary Source Air
programs.
EPA Needs to Accelerate
Adoption of Numeric
Nutrient Water Quality
Standards/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
focused on EPA's strategy
to accelerate state progress
in the adoption of numeric
water quality standards.
EPA's 1998 National Strategy to
promote state adoption of nutrient
water quality standards (which
better protect aquatic life and
human health) has been ineffective.
In the 11 years since EPA issued
its strategy, half the states still have
no numeric nutrient standards.
States have not been motivated to
create these standards because
implementing them is costly and
The IG recommended that the
Assistant Administrator for Water:
1) Select significant waters of
national value which need
numeric nutrient water quality
standards to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water
Act.
2) Set numeric nutrient water quality
standards for the waters
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 3
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
often unpopular with various
constituencies. EPA has not held
the states accountable to
committed milestones.
identified in the first
recommendation to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water
Act.
3) Establish EPA and state
accountability for adopting
numeric standards for the rest of
the nation's waters.
4) Establish metrics to gauge the
actual progress made by the
states.
Mid-Cycle Review of ORD's
Water Quality Research
Program (WQRP) at
EPA/EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors
(BOSC)/BOSC "mid-cycle"
reviews are designed to
gauge the program's
progress with respect to 1)
its future direction and 2)
performance and
accountability. While
narrower in focus than the
in-depth technical
evaluation that constitutes
a full BOSC program
review, the mid-cycle
review provides the
program with critical
information on its progress
to date. The evaluation
reviewed the WQRP's
relevance, structure,
performance, quality,
leadership, coordination,
communication, and
outcomes.
The BOSC finds that the WQRP is
serving its clients well in critical
research to meet the regulatory
requirements of the Clean Water
Act. It also has made progress on
prior recommendations for
transparency in prioritizing research
and enhancing partnerships. The
WQRP is making an exceptional
effort to obtain client input. While
the review was assigned an overall
rating of "Meets Expectations," it
was noted that the program was
exceeding expectations in several
areas with respect to quality of
research.
Follow-up recommendations resulting
from the review include:
1) Future BOSC review
subcommittees will need
performance measures related to
transfer and communication of
reports results, institutional
outcomes, management
outcomes, and environmental
outcomes.
2) The Multi-Year Plan (MYP) could
be improved by including an
assessment of how past
accomplishments of the program
have led to current lines of inquiry
and a section showing linkages
and collaborations with other
ORD programs.
3) Th e te rms " pe rfo rma n ce,"
"process efficiency," and
"investment efficiency" need to be
clearly defined.
4) The program needs to dedicate
more effort to establishing a
mechanism for quantifying long-
term outcomes of the WQRP.
5) One shortcoming of the partner
survey is the limited
representation of state partners
among the survey participants.
6) In future bibliometric analyses, it
would be useful to indicate the
criteria used to determine what
papers are included.
7) Several annual performance
goals appear to be carryovers
from previous planning efforts,
rather than the highest priority
areas to support the new Long
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 4
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
8)
Term Goals (e.g., absence of
hydrological modification as a
watershed stressor, absence of
work on invasive species effects,
no information on pesticide
effects). If these fall under ORD's
Ecosystem Services Research
MYP, the WQRP should present
a more complete picture of its
watershed research agenda by
providing a linkage to that plan.
The program should place
greater emphasis on technology
transfer in partnership with the
states and Regional offices as a
means of effective outreach, and
there is little evidence of
partnership with other federal
agencies.
Climate Change: Federal
Actions Will Greatly Affect
the Viability of Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS)
as a Key Mitigation
Option/Government
Accountability Office
(GAO)/The GAO undertook
the evaluation to examine
1) key economic, legal,
regulatory, and
technological barriers
impeding commercial-scale
deployment of CCS
technology and 2) actions
the Department of Energy,
EPA, and other agencies
are taking to overcome
barriers to commercial-
scale deployment of CCS
technology.
EPA issued in July 2008 a
proposed rule to guide the
permitting of large-volume, or
commercial-scale, CO2 injections.
The GAO found that it addressed at
least some of the key issues under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) but left other issues
related to EPA's implementation of
its air, hazardous waste, and
substance statutes unresolved.
Regulatory and legal uncertainties
include questions about liability of
CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2
once injected.
The GAO recommended that EPA
should more comprehensively
examine barriers to CCS
development by identifying key
issues that fall outside the agency's
SDWA authority. Specifically, the
Administrator should direct EPA
offices to collectively examine their
authorities and responsibilities under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and
the CAA for the purposes of:
1) Obtaining the information
necessary to make informed
decisions about the regulation of
(and potential liabilities
associated with) the capture,
injection, and storage of CO2.
2) Using this information to develop
a comprehensive regulatory
framework for capture, injection,
and underground storage of CO2.
3) Identifying any areas where
additional statutory authority
might be needed to address key
regulatory and legal issues
related to CO2 capture, injection,
and storage.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 5
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
Regional Public Liaison
(RPL) Program Needs
Greater Focus on Results
and Customer
Awareness/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed actions taken by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(OSWER) to implement its
Regional Public Liaison
(RPL) program. The OIG
analyzed the current RPL
guidance, identified and
reviewed documentation
and guidance from
predecessor programs, and
visited EPA's Region 2
office to understand how an
extensive RPL effort
operates.
OSWER's RPL program does not
sufficiently focus on or measure
specific outputs and outcomes and
is not consistently implemented
across offices. RPL offices report
results in varied formats, and
OSWER does not consolidate
program results into one
comprehensive report. As a result,
RPL offices report annual results
that cannot be easily consolidated
to show what the RPL program has
achieved. Due to the absence of a
logic model, it is difficult to focus on
results.
The IG recommended that OSWER:
1) Use a logic model approach to
help the RPL program focus on
outputs and outcomes and
ensure that stakeholders are
aware of the program.
2) Revise the 2004 RPL guidance to
reflect program revisions and
build in minimum requirements
for stakeholder awareness
activities, including a national
RPL Web site.
EPA Needs to Improve
Internal Controls to
Increase Cost
Recovery/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed EPA's internal
controls to monitor
expenditures and cost
recovery at non-National
Priorities List (NPL)
Superfund sites. The
evaluation considered
Superfund cost recovery at
a sample of non-NPL
removal sites.
EPA has a management control for
monitoring the statute of limitations
(SOL) on cost recovery. EPA
reports show that the Agency has a
high rate of success in addressing
cost recovery requirements prior to
the expiration of the SOL. However,
EPA has limited controls in other
key areas that affect its ability to
recover the government's costs
from responsible parties. These
include limited oversight of
Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP) searches, inconsistent
documentation of PRP searches,
and data quality problems in EPA
databases that track Superfund
cleanup status and cost recovery.
The IG recommended that EPA
implement improved controls to:
1) Monitor PRP search completions.
2) Document PRP searches
consistently.
3) Ensure data quality in EPA
databases.
4) Review all appropriate Superfund
accounts to ensure that the
government's costs are identified
for possible recovery and use the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and
Liability Information System to
track removal milestones.
Improved Management of
Superfund Special
Accounts Will Make More
Funds Available for Clean-
ups/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
evaluation reviewed EPA's
use of Superfund special
accounts that had high
available balances (at least
$10 million in value) or
were at least 10 years old,
EPA has not established the
management controls needed to
address the challenge of managing
the $1.1 billion it currently keeps in
819 Superfund special accounts.
EPA needs to improve oversight
and management of its special
accounts to ensure that Agency
guidance is followed and money is
properly managed to support
Superfund clean-up, including at
The IG recommended that EPA
implement management controls to
improve its use, management, and
transparency of special accounts.
EPA needs to create a central
management official to implement
new policies and public reporting
requirements, and utilize available
account data.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 6
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
and to check whether the
funds were utilized
consistent with guidance.
sites where human exposure to
toxics is not under control.
EPA's Safety Determination
for Delatte Metals
Superfund Site Was
Unsupported/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed long-term
monitoring results at
Superfund sites deleted
from the NPL to ensure that
EPA has valid, reliable, and
accurate data on the
conditions of these sites.
EPA's protection determination for
the Delatte Metals Superfund Site
was not supported by the data.
Despite evidence of potential
remedy failure, EPA's Region 6
determined in November 2007 that
conditions at Delatte protect
humans and the environment in the
short term.
The IG recommended:
1) Amend the Region's November
2007 Five-Year Review to state
that protectiveness of the site
remedy in both the short and long
term cannot be determined
without further analysis of the
effectiveness of the remedy and
the risk posed by the migration of
metals.
2) Publish EPA's milestones for
obtaining the information required
to make an accurate
determination on the
effectiveness of the site's remedy
and on the risk associated with
continued metal migration.
3) Investigate, quantify, and publicly
report on the discharge of metals
from shallow ground water at the
site to Selsers Creek and its
tributaries and implement an
appropriate response.
4) Implement a comprehensive
evaluation of the effectiveness of
the permeable reactive barrier
(PRB) in minimizing the migration
of metals in ground water off the
site and implement an
appropriate response. Also,
evaluate the impact of ground
water bypassing the PRB.
5) Examine a comprehensive
evaluation of the effectiveness of
the PRB to minimize the
migration of metals in ground
water off the site and implement
an appropriate response. Also,
evaluate the impact of ground
water bypassing the PRB.
6) Require the Louisiana
Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) to modify
quarterly water quality sampling
to include analyses for all metals
of concern, including arsenic,
cadmium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 7
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
7) Require LDEQ to control and
restrict site access by repairing
and maintaining the fence and
gates, and posting clearly visible
signs describing site use
restrictions and hazards.
8) Conduct a new analysis of site
safety that properly considers
information on metal
concentrations in ground water
and surface water, and other
evidence of whether the remedy
is functioning.
Independent Sampling
Generally Confirms EPA's
Data at the Jones
Sanitation Superfund Site
inNewYork/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
reviewed long-term
monitoring results at
Superfund sites deleted
from the NPL to ensure that
EPA has valid, reliable, and
accurate data on the
conditions of these sites.
In April 2008, the IG obtained
ground water and surface water
samples from the Jones Sanitation
Superfund Site and nearby areas
and conducted a site inspection.
The IG's independent sampling
results were generally consistent
with Region 2's historical sampling
data. In addition, OIG site
inspection showed that the site was
properly maintained and secured,
consistent with information Region
2 has obtained on the site
conditions.
The IG recommended:
1) Demonstrate and document in an
Addendum to the 2006 Five-Year
Review that offsite migration of
sodium, nickel, and any other
compounds exceeding applicable
standards are controlled at the
site.
2) Modify and/or reinitiate some
offsite monitoring if the Region
determines it is needed to
adequately support
determinations of site
protectiveness.
An Evaluation of Planning
and Data Processes for
Cleanup Milestones for the
Federal Facilities Response
Program/Industrial
Economics, Incorporated
(EPA contractor)/The
purpose of the evaluation
was to assist with
developing
recommendations and
strategies for improving
planning, targeting, and
data processing for site
cleanup. The evaluation
was limited to Final and
Deleted Superfund NPL
Federal Facility sites.
During the planning process for
Regional cleanup of NPL Federal
Facility sites there is:
• Limited internal communication
during work planning.
• Insufficient coordination with
lead federal agencies.
• Limited Regional use of formal
data planning training.
• Insufficient attention on the
integration of data quality and
planning.
• High overall Regional workload
coupled with staffing shortfalls.
• More complex work at
unfinished sites.
Several work planning
recommendations include:
1) EPA develops and delivers work
planning training.
2) EPA Regional offices include
data planning/accomplishments
in performance agreements.
3) EPA account for uncertainty
quantitatively—documenting
current methods and developing
new approaches.
4) EPA Regional offices document
chain-of-responsibility for
Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and
Liability Information System data
quality/entry.
5) EPA Regional offices encourage
monthly updates from regional
planning managers to increase
awareness of site status and
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 8
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
relevant events.
Mid Cycle Review of the
Office of Research and
Development's Land
Research Program at
EPA/EPA's BOSC/BOSC
"mid-cycle" reviews are
designed to gauge the
program's progress with
respect to 1) its future
direction and 2)
performance and
accountability. While
narrower in focus than the
in-depth technical
evaluation that constitutes
a full BOSC program
review, the mid-cycle
review provides the
program with critical
information on its progress
to date. The evaluation
reviewed the Land
Research Program's
relevance, structure,
performance, quality,
leadership, coordination,
communication, and
outcomes.
The BOSC subcommittee found the
Land Research Program to be very
responsive to the 2005 BOSC Land
Program Review, with only a few
aspects of the 2005 review not
addressed. One relates to the
BOSC recommendation on
considering uncertainty—the need
to provide users with insights into
the uncertainties inherent in the use
of specific tools and methods.
BOSC also recommended an
increase in domestic and
international collaboration. Although
there was evident collaboration
within the United States, it was less
clear there was collaboration at the
international level. BOSC
commended the program for its
revised Land Research MYP and
for providing a clear rationale for
revisions consistent with the BOSC
advice and recommendations. The
program has met its Long-Term
Goals (LTGs) and 100 percent of its
proposed output during 2006 and
2007. The program successfully
restructured within a very quick
two-year turnaround. The
subcommittee assigned an overall
rating of Exceeds Expectations for
the Land Research Program.
Follow-up recommendations
included:
1) Rephrasing LTG 2 because
current phrasing might lose the
original intent for resource
conservation in that goal.
2) Considering ways to speed up
the time to complete work
products under LTG 1 and
improve the way they are
communicated to the user
community.
3) Shifting resources and
responding to recommendations
and budget constraints.
4) Developing a plan on how the
program will address emerging
issues if resources are limited,
such as the consequences to
research or new initiatives as
resources are shifted to
nanotechnology.
EPA Needs a Cohesive
Plan to Clean Up the Great
Lakes Areas of Concern
(Report No. 09-P-
0231)/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
objective of the evaluation
was to study how effective
EPA has been managing
the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern (AOCs) clean-ups,
and in particular,
remediating contaminated
sediments, and achieving
expected results.
The IG found that since 2004, EPA
has completed five Legacy Act-
funded contaminated sediment
clean-ups and remediated
approximately 800,000 cubic yards
of contaminated sediment.
However, EPA does not know the
full extent of the contaminated
sediment problem. Accurate
sediment estimates for more than
30 percent of the remediation sites
remain unknown. Without improved
management, coordination and
accountability across program
offices as well as with states,
localities, and other stakeholders,
EPA will not succeed in achieving
The IG recommended the Agency:
1) Establish an AOC management
plan that includes written
designations of authority and
responsibility for each EPA
program office with regard to
remediating contaminated
sediment.
2) Assign a lead EPA office to each
Sediment Remediation Site and
determine the volume of
contaminated sediment at each
site.
3) Annually measure and publish
estimates of Sediment
Remediation Site sediment
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 9
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
results intended for the AOC
program.
volumes, clean-up costs, and
stakeholder progress for each
site.
Improvements Needed to
Validate Reported
ENERGY STAR
Benefits/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The objective of the
evaluation was to assess
the validity and accuracy of
the reported energy
savings for EPA's ENERGY
STAR program.
The ENERGY STAR program's
reported annual energy savings
were inaccurate. The IG identified
several deficiencies with the
manufacturers' data on shipped
products and the methodology used
in calculating energy saving
benefits. Deficiencies included the
lack of a quality review of the data
collected; reliance on estimates and
forecasting, unverified third-party
reporting, and the potential
inclusion of products to be
exported, which should not be
included as benefits.
The IG recommended that EPA:
1) Establish and implement
improved quality controls.
2) Develop and consistently apply a
data-driven methodology to
compute market effect.
3) Validate the model for calculating
the benefits of the ENERGY
STAR commercial sector to
ensure that it accurately reflects
the sector's impacts.
Putting Community First: A
Promising Approach to
Federal Collaboration for
Environmental
Improvement: An
Evaluation of the
Community Action for a
Renewed Environment
(CARE) Demonstration
Program/The National
Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA),
hired by EPA to conduct an
independent third party
evaluation/The evaluation
was conducted in three
phases:
1) An evaluation of the
planning and design of
CARE.
2) An evaluation of the
implementation of
CARE.
3) An evaluation of the
operation and results of
CARE.
The purpose of the
evaluation was not only to
assess the outcome and
results of the CARE
The first phase of this evaluation
was completed with the panel's
submission of both an observations
paper on the Review of the
Planning and Design of EPA's
CARE Program and a Methodology
for Evaluating the Implementation,
Operation and Results of the EPA's
CARE Program. The panel found
that on balance, EPA's design and
planning of the CARE program had
been careful, comprehensive, and
consistent with the principles and
practice of effective public
administration and management.
The second phase of the evaluation
was completed with the submission
of an observations paper, Review
of the Implementation of EPA's
CARE Program. The panel found
that the CARE program had made
good progress against the
evaluation factors selected for this
evaluation. As more CARE
grantees complete their projects
and work through the CARE model,
more data would become available
and allow for a fuller assessment of
the program implementation along
with its results and impact.
Available data suggested that
NAPA's recommended actions (in
NAPA's priority order):
1) Develop and Implement a
Multi-Faceted Information
Sharing Approach. EPA should
develop an information-sharing
system to organize, synthesize,
and share the valuable lessons
learned and methods used by
CARE partnerships in achieving
their goals.
2) Coordinate and Refine Internal
Program Management
Activities. Too much
bureaucracy during the start-up
period can stifle innovation;
CARE took a positive approach
to balancing the need for systems
and accountability with the need
for flexibility when developing the
program. CARE is shifting out of
a start-up phase into an active
development phase...CARE is at
a point where it must put more
attention toward longer-term
program planning activities.
3) Refine Outcome Measures.
While national-level metrics are
commonly applied by EPA, and
have been included in the CARE
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 10
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
program but also to provide
real-time feedback and
advice to EPA to
strengthen the CARE
program in its early phases.
The focus of the evaluation
was on EPA's
administration of the CARE
program, rather than on
individual community
projects.
At the outset of the project,
the panel and EPA
developed seven factors by
which to explore the CARE
program and to evaluate it.
These seven factors were
to be applied at each of the
three evaluation stages.
1) Multi-Sector*
Consensus on Toxic
Priorities (Level I)
2) Multi-Sector* Pursuit of
Risk Reduction
Strategies (Primarily
Level II)
3) Sustainability of Multi-
Sector Partnerships
(Primarily Level II)
4) Risk Reductions
Achieved (Primarily
Level II)
5) EPA CARE Technical
Assistance to Grantee
Communities (Level I
and Level II)
6) Dissemination of
Experiences (Level I
and Level II)
7) Continuous
Improvement at EPA
(Internal to EPA)
* "Multi-Sector" refers to a
community partnership that
has representation from
local organizations,
business, government, and
residents.
CARE has had successes in
establishing new relationships
among community partners,
between communities and EPA,
and among EPA staff at
headquarters and the Regions,
resulting in positive changes in
environmental conditions at the
community level. To maintain and
improve upon these early
successes, the panel focused
CARE's immediate attention on: the
implementation of minimum risk
screening standards; strengthening
CARE applications through further
outreach and support; and
continued work to ensure a smooth
transition between leadership
among EPA program offices.
In the third phase of the
evaluation—operation and results
of CARE—summative conclusions
were not offered. The CARE
demonstration was still in progress,
and at the time of writing the report,
the number of grantees having
completed a CARE grant (12 of 69)
was too small to draw accurate
conclusions. The National Academy
Panel and EPA agreed that a
summative evaluation was
premature. The evaluation factors
and the data collected against them
were reported, and substantial data
were available to support a
formative evaluation. In addition, a
detailed evaluation of the
operational aspects of CARE was
offered from the context of a
"partnership lifecycle" framework,
which further supports the formative
evaluation.
Environmental Results. CARE
partnerships have changed their
environments by reducing pollution
in their communities; a few CARE
communities together have also
had national impact. Many
examples of toxic reductions
achieved as a result of CARE are
demonstration program as well,
the bottom-up nature and smaller
scale of CARE projects warrant
the refinement and further
development of CARE-specific
process, output, and outcome
measures. EPA should revisit
and revise CARE's short-term
and long-term outcomes to
demonstrate the success and
impact of the program.
4) Develop Strategic and
Business Plan for CARE. The
panel recommends that EPA
broaden its focus from day-to-day
management to address more
strategic aspects of program
management. This "pause and
plan" activity is a natural part of
the development of any
programs.
EPA agrees with and is currently
working to implement the majority of
the NAPA recommendations to
improve the program.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 11
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
included in the report.
Capacity Building Outcomes for
Communities. "CARE communities
have developed local
environmental expertise and
organizational capacity through
their partnership members and their
completion of the CARE Roadmap
process.... [CARE] is a promising
mechanism to help foster
sustainable community leadership
and expertise in environmental
matters."
"...community leaders have gained
experience and expertise as they
work through the CARE approach,
and developed a greater capacity to
plan and have measurable impact.
Through CARE, community leaders
have developed further expertise in
sustaining partnerships and
addressing environmental issues,
which provides them with a strong
basis for continued action in the
future as other environmental
threats emerge in their locales."
EPA Organizational Outcomes.
"CARE is a catalyst for change
within EPA...CARE is opening
cracks in the walls between
traditionally 'siloed' programs."
EPA Can Improve
Implementation of the Risk
Management Program for
Airborne Chemical
Releases/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The evaluation
determined to what extent
EPA ensured all facilities
subject to the Risk
Management Program
regulations have submitted
RMPs and how EPA
ensured facility compliance
with the Risk Management
Program regulations. The
IG did not assess the
effectiveness of inspections
EPA can improve its program
management and oversight to
better ensure that facilities covered
by the Clean Air Act's Risk
Management Program submit or
resubmit an RMP. EPA had not
established national procedures for
identifying covered facilities that
had not submitted RMPs. For the
five states that were reviewed, EPA
identified 48 facilities in three states
that reported large amounts of
covered chemicals stored on site
that had not filed RMPs. These
facilities are potential RMP non-
filers. For example, 10 such
facilities reported having over
The IG recommended that EPA
implement additional management
controls to identify facilities with
regulated chemicals that have not
filed RMPs. The IG also
recommended that EPA develop
inspection requirements to target
higher-priority facilities for inspection
and track progress in completing
inspections of these facilities.
Specifically, the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance should:
1) Develop and implement a risk-
based inspection strategy that
incorporates Regional input on
Appendix A- Performance Evaluations- Page 12
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
or audits conducted. RMPs
describe and document the
facilities hazard
assessment, and its
prevention and response
programs. Facilities must
update and resubmit these
plans at least every five
years and when changes
occur.
100,000 pounds of ammonia on site
at one time, which is 10 times
greater than the regulatory
threshold. Further, the status of
nearly one-third (452 of 1,516) of
the facilities EPA identified in 2005
as being past their due date for
resubmitting an RMP had not been
resolved and updated in the RMP
National Database as of March
2008. Also, state permitting
agencies did not properly include
program requirements as a
condition of facilities' Title V
operating permits. When properly
administered, the Title V process
can help ensure that covered
facilities submit RMPs to EPA and
comply with program requirements.
EPA can also strengthen its
inspection process to provide
greater assurance that facilities
comply with Risk Management
Program requirements. EPA had
not inspected or audited more than
half (296 of 493) of the high-risk
facilities identified by EPA's Office
of Emergency Management (OEM).
Since most states have not
accepted delegation of the
program, EPA is responsible for
ensuring compliance for more than
84 percent of facilities nationwide.
Of the 296 uninspected high-risk
facilities managed by EPA, each of
151 of them could affect 100,000
people or more in a worst-case
accident. Accident data suggest
uninspected high-risk facilities are
more than five times as likely to
have an accident than uninspected
lower-risk facilities.
EPA has made efforts to improve
the program. OEM funded studies
to assess facility accident rates and
used this information to develop
and distribute a list of high-risk
facilities to help Regions better
prioritize inspection efforts.
high-risk facilities to prioritize
facilities for inspection based on
risk and other priority measures.
(Recommendation 3-3)
2) Revise the performance
expectation for the Risk
Management Program to
incorporate the inspection of the
high-risk facilities developed in
response to Recommendation 3-
3. (Recommendation 3-4)
3) Track which high-risk facilities
have been inspected by the
Regions and/or delegated
state/local agencies and develop
procedures to provide
expeditious inspection coverage
of those high-risk facilities not
inspected by the Regions or
state/local agencies.
(Recommendation 3-5)
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 13
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
Contaminated Soil Waste
Repository at East Mission
Flats, Idaho/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The purpose of this
study was to determine
whether EPA allowed
appropriate community
involvement and provided
adequate notice when
selecting the East Mission
Flats, Idaho, repository
location, and whether EPA
considered flood controls in
the repository design to
minimize the potential for
releasing contaminants.
The IG found that many physical
aspects of flooding had been
investigated and considered in the
design process. However, the IG
also found that EPA's Region 10
and the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality had not
sufficiently analyzed the
geochemical conditions near the
repository base, the potential for
annual flooding to introduce water
into the repository, and the
possibility that dissolved
contaminants might migrate away
from the repository.
The IG recommended that EPA
Region 10 finish analyzing the
geochemical and physical conditions
that may lead to contaminants
dissolving near the repository base,
then confirm the adequacy of the
repository design to prevent
dissolved contaminants from being
released under these conditions.
Results of Independent
Groundwater Sampling at
Meal's Dump Superfund
Site/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
evaluation presented an
independent assessment of
ground water quality at a
Superfund site to validate
its removal from the NPL.
The IG obtained ground water
samples from two private drinking
water wells on residential properties
adjacent to the Meal's Dump
Superfund Site. The samples from
these residential wells have been
part of EPA's long-term monitoring
conducted at Meal's Dump. Results
showed that polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in the two wells
did not exceed safe levels for
drinking water.
No recommendations.
Program Review of the
Office of Research and
Development's Homeland
Security Research Program
(HSRP) at EPA/EPA's
BOSC/This was a
prospective and
retrospective review of
ORD's HSRP, evaluating
the program's relevance
quality, progress, scientific
leadership, communication,
coordination, and effect.
The HSRP is both expansive and
complex and its overall
responsibility exceeds the available
financial resources. NHSRC has
done a commendable job in
analyzing and delineating the scope
of its research program, particularly
with respect to LTG 1, which
focuses on drinking water systems.
LTG 2 is clearly focused on building
infrastructure and outdoor
environments. It is clear that HSRP
is providing products to its principal
clients, the Office of Water and
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, as well as to
EPA Regional offices. In addition to
the purely technical aspects of
HSRP, the program has begun to
engage behavior sciences in
attempting to define the most
effective ways to communicate its
Follow-up general recommendations
resulting from this review included:
1) The program should consider
opportunities for more extramural
contribution to its research
program and collaboration with
other government agencies and
international programs.
2) NHSRC should explore the use
of an acquisition life cycle model
for individual research program
elements.
3) NHSRC should clarify the role
and responsibility of the national
program director for the center
and more broadly across ORD.
4) The National Academy of
Sciences' recommendation for
additional research in behavioral
science should be considered.
5) NHSRC should establish a
Appendix A- Performance Evaluations- Page 14
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
products to the public and help
them understand the risks
associated with an event. The
subcommittee found enthusiastic
and high-quality researchers and
managers engaged in the HSRP,
and the quality of the research was
judged to be very good. The
program is performing very well in
collaborating with other agencies
and is taking clear leadership
responsibility. Some of the tools
and models may not be fully
calibrated or verified for the most
significant threat scenario. The
pace at which some of the tools
and assessments are becoming
available to the clients is slower
than desired. The research
program has generally been
responsive to reviews,
observations, and
recommendations by outside
groups, with noteworthy exceptions
(i.e., absence of research on the
protection of cyber infrastructure).
The program would also benefit
from a longer-term perspective.
Both research programs for LTG 1
and LTG 2 were assigned a rating
of Meets Expectations.
program to periodically evaluate
the priorities for research goals
and for determining product
delivery within research
programs. The program should
implement a mechanism to
gauge the degree to which these
priorities are heard and
addressed.
6) NHSRC should develop a
specific goal to include
development of well-defined
digital "clearinghouses" of
technical information that are
easy to search and cover each
major topic (e.g., prevention,
detection, mitigation).
7) NHSRC should take a more
integrative, systems-oriented
approach when evaluating key
research objectives to ensure
that the correct questions are
being addressed in the context of
real risk assessment and
management.
8) Greater explanation should be
provided in the MYP for the
current priority of NHSRC
research efforts and how these
priorities may change over the
duration of the plan and realized
budget.
Long-Term Goal 1
Recommendations:
1) Perform sensitivity analyses of
the Real-Time Monitoring System
and Threat Ensemble
Vulnerability Assessment before
they are applied to any more
systems to determine the
variability of the resulting
decisions.
2) Review the Blast Vulnerability
Assessment tool's value, quantify
the merits of further investments,
and make transparent the
process used to conduct this
review, as a model for project life
cycle determinations.
3) Make a clearer presentation of
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 15
-------
Goal
5
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Mid-Cycle Review of the
Office of Research and
Development's Science
Findings
The program addressed all of the
BOSC recommendations from the
previous BOSC program review.
Recommendations
milestones for the subgoal for
water systems, and NHSRC
should undertake an analysis of
what needs to be accomplished
for a more timely release of
useful information derived from
this research.
Long-Term Goal 2
Recommendations:
1) NHSRC should better understand
and evaluate time limitations in
fulfilling research requests from
EPA program offices and in
addressing Regional homeland
security needs; address these
limitations with the appropriate
level of implementation,
recognizing that in some
instances an implemented 50-
percent solution is better than no
implementation of a 100-percent
solution.
2) Customer support surveys should
be broadened to include on-
scene coordinators, the national
decontamination team, and other
state and local responders, and
expanded to include follow-up
assessment, recommendation
disposition, and end-user
response.
3) NHSRC should take a more
active role in identifying field-
ready technology, and initiate an
evaluative board or review
process to allow for and facilitate
civilian/public testing. Draft
information materials and
preliminary tools need to be
developed early on so that
procedures and directions for
actions relating to chemical,
biological, and radiological events
are available more quickly to
clients and the response
community.
Follow-up recommendations resulting
from this review included:
Appendix A- Performance Evaluations- Page 16
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
and Technology for
Sustainability (STS)
Research Program at
EPA/EPA's BOSC/The
objective of the evaluation
was to: 1) evaluate the
progress made by ORD's
STS Research Program
toward completing the
commitments it made in
response to the initial
BOSC program review
(April 25-26, 2007); 2)
evaluate key future
directions for the research
program that have been
developed, and obtain
advice on other potential
areas that could be
considered.
The new direction of the program is
well laid out in the MYP, and the
initiatives and their rationales were
well articulated. The revised plan
that is focused on biofuels is
appropriate and addresses many of
the issues raised by the BOSC in
the full program review. Details of
some of the plans were still vague
and in need of further development.
The panel thought the manner in
which the bibliometric information
was presented—from prior to the
beginning of the program and
mixed together with publications
emanating from grantees with little
or no coordination with EPA
researchers—made it difficult to
assess the outputs. The
bibliometric assessment did not
provide tangible evidence of the
impact of the program and was not
very useful. Clearly, some of the
research produced in the various
STS sub-programs has had a great
deal of impact and is being used,
but currently there is no
coordinated mechanism to collect
information on the outcomes and
impact of the program, such as
tracking the careers of students
and/or postdoctoral fellows who
have participated in research
projects, listing partnerships with
industry.
The BOSC did not think there were
alternative focus areas to be
considered; rather, the STS
Research Program can have the
strongest impact by bringing
sustainability issues to all policy
debates. The BOSC gave the STS
Research Program an overall
assessment rating of Exceeds
Expectations. If the program were
more recognized in the Agency as
being the entity to fill the current
gap relating to sustainability, the
rating would have been
Exceptional.
1) The subcommittee suggested
that the data in the bibliometric
information be broken out
separately to be more useful. It
also suggested that to
demonstrate outcomes and
impact, the program should
develop and implement better
methods to track the quality and
effects of its research programs.
2) It would be useful to have a list of
key "foundation metrics," such as
water quality, water use, water
discharge, carbon dioxide
emissions, energy use, solid
waste generation, solid waste to
landfills, ecological impairment,
and so forth. In going forward, the
metric list needs to be simple,
straightforward, and easily
measurable.
3) The STS Research Program
could focus on developing holistic
metrics and tools to enable
sustainability by focusing on
protecting human health and the
environment and enhancing
economic growth simultaneously.
If another area is contemplated,
the BOSC suggests that the
entire area of sustainability of
water resources be considered.
4) It would be useful to have a
metric that reflects technology
transfer from the STS Research
Program.
5) The STS Research Program
should take a more organized
and aggressive role in
transitioning from support of
regulatory functions to one that
moves the United States toward
true sustainability. The program,
or some other designated and
recognized sustainability-focused
group within EPA, should formally
be established as the focal point
and overall coordinator for a
major sustainability program.
6) There is a need for a better
method to deliver information on
sustainability with a true
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 17
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
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
happen.
ECHO Data Quality Audit-
Phase I Results: The
Integrated Compliance
Information System Needs
Security Controls to Protect
Significant Non-Compliance
Data/U.S. EPA, OIG/The
OIG used a contractor to
evaluate the quality and
integrity of data that resides
in EPA's Enforcement and
Compliance History Online
(ECHO) system. ECHO
provides integrated
compliance and
enforcement information for
approximately 800,000
regulated facilities
nationwide. ECHO allows
users to find inspection,
violation, enforcement
action, informal
enforcement action, and
penalty information about
facilities for the past three
years. ECHO contains
information for the facilities
regulated under the
following environmental
statutes: Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Program,
Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, and
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
EPA implements many effective
processes designed to populate the
Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA) database, which
the ECHO system uses to create
reports for its users. Many EPA
systems that feed data to IDEA
have front-end edit checks
designed to help ensure data
quality. Making data available
through ECHO is a very complex
process that involves many data
systems. EPA has developed a
methodology to manage the states'
data conversions. EPA's data
mapping and system life cycle
documentation, data migration
tools, and lessons learned
processes are effective in
managing this complex data
conversion process.
End users of the Permit
Compliance System and Integrated
Compliance Information System
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES)
can override the Significant Non-
Compliance (SNC) data field
without additional access controls.
This access occurs because EPA
has not implemented database
security features to restrict access
to this field. Further, the ICIS-
NPDES database edit checks do
not prevent access to the SNC
field. As a result, users can change
original data without authorization,
which could directly affect ICIS-
NPDES data made available to the
public via ECHO.
The IG recommended that the
director of the Office of Compliance,
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, implement
database security features to limit the
end users' ability to change the SNC
code in ICIS-NPDES.
EPA Can Improve Its
Process for Establishing
The laws, regulations, guidance,
and other relevant requirements
The IG recommended that the
Assistant Administrator for Research
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 18
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
Peer Review Panels/U.S.
EPA, OIG/The scope of the
evaluation was to study
whether current laws,
regulations, guidance, and
other relevant requirements
for EPA expert peer review
panels are adequate to
produce objective scientific
reviews; the current system
of populating and managing
such panels could be
improved.
governing EPA's peer review
process are adequate to produce
objective scientific reviews, but
certain areas of EPA operating
guidance can be better defined.
and Development, who oversees the
National Center for Environmental
Assessment, improve management
controls by better defining the
concept of "impartiality" and
maintaining records of all
management decisions pertaining to
the selection of peer reviewers,
particularly resolution of potential
conflicts of interest. The IG also
recommended that the Assistant
Administrator develop guidance to
address conflict of interest issues that
arise after panel formulation and
amend contracts for external peer
review services to require that
panelists recertify their conflict of
interest status prior to the panel
convening.
Assistance Agreement and
Contract Recipients With
Open Audit
Recommendations May
Affect Recovery Act
Activities/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The scope of the
evaluation was to study
recommendations still open
from prior OIG audit
reports, focusing on
assistance agreement and
contract recipients and the
potential impact on EPA's
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act activities.
The IG found that as of June 30,
2009, EPA used Recovery Act
funding to award one assistance
agreement and one contract to
recipients with open
recommendations. Providing
funding to recipients with known
weaknesses and open
recommendations increases the
risks of fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement of Recovery Act
funds.
The OIG recommended that EPA
verify whether assistance agreement
and contract recipients have
corrected weaknesses identified in
OIG reports prior to awarding new
funds, and that Recovery Act funding
recipients expedite corrective action
for any open recommendations.
EPA Should UseFMFIAto
Improve Programmatic
Operations/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The scope of the
evaluation was to study
how the EPA develops
annual guidance under the
Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA).
EPA has not implemented and
used FMFIA to improve program
operations, as intended by federal
and Agency guidance. Although
EPA offices rely on annual
guidance that the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
issues, EPA offices have not
developed internal control review
strategies that include elements
such as the Government
Performance and Results Act;
OCFO's guidance and training have
not provided staff and managers
with adequate awareness of GAO's
The OIG recommended that the
EPA's Administrator:
1) Support internal controls by
announcing the Fiscal Year (FY)
2010 FMFIA process and
requiring that senior managers
attend training; develop
comprehensive, tiered FMFIA
training for managers and staff;
and revise the internal checklist
used as part of the strategy for
validating Agency-wide FMFIA
compliance.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 19
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
internal control standards; OCFO's
guidance, until recently, has not
required offices to report on
compliance with all GAO standards;
and OCFO did not devote needed
resources to validate assurance
letters.
2) Codify the Agency's validation
strategy; develop FY2010 FMFIA
guidance that contains OCFO FY
2009 supplemental guidance.
EPA's Office of Research
and Development Could
Better Use the Federal
Managers' Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA) to
Improve Operations/U.S.
EPA, OIG/The scope of the
evaluation was to evaluate
whether EPA's Office of
Research and
Development (ORD) fully
integrated FMFIA into
program operations.
ORD's management integrity
program is inconsistent with
Agency FMFIA guidance. ORD
approaches FMFIA as an
administrative reporting activity
rather than an opportunity to
evaluate and report on research
program performance. As a result,
ORD has not: conducted a
comprehensive risk assessment;
included national program directors
in the FMFIA process; developed
and implemented a strategy to
establish and evaluate the
effectiveness of internal controls
over research programs; provided
FMFIA training to managers and
staff; nor included relevant risk and
program performance information in
assurance letters.
The OIG recommended that ORD:
1) Conduct a risk assessment using
GAO standards and develop a
comprehensive risk-based
program review strategy.
2) Develop comprehensive, tiered
FMFIA training for managers and
staff.
3) Revise its management integrity
program to include programmatic
operations.
EPA Should Stop Providing
Estimates of Total Labor
Hours to Contactors/U.S.
EPA, OIG/The scope was
to evaluate how EPA uses
independent government
cost estimates (IGCEs) to
control contract costs and
receive the best value for
dollars expended.
The IG found that for six of the 22
contracts the OIG reviewed, EPA
provided the contractor with the
government's estimate for total
labor hours prior to receiving the
contractor's proposal. The Federal
Acquisition Regulation provides that
the government may use various
cost analysis techniques to ensure
a fair and reasonable price,
including comparing proposed
prices with IGCEs. Because EPA is
providing total labor hours to the
contractor prior to receiving the
proposal, EPA may be diminishing
its ability to obtain a fair and
reasonable price.
The IG recommended that EPA
revise Environmental Protection
Agency Acquisition Regulation to
eliminate the requirement that EPA
include total estimated labor hours in
work assignments or identify specific
circumstances in which the
requirement should apply.
EPA Has Improved Its
Response to Freedom of
Information Act Requests
but Further Improvement Is
Needed/U.S. EPA,
OIG/The scope was to
The OIG found that some of the
annual personnel and cost statistics
gathered and provided to the
national FOIA officer for inclusion in
the annual report to the Department
of Justice were not accurate.
The OIG recommended that EPA
issue a policy mandating training for
its FOIA officers, coordinators, and
individuals who have FOIA
responsibilities.
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 20
-------
Goal
Evaluation
Title/Evaluator/Scope
evaluate whether the
Agency's Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA)
processing and reporting
procedures were meeting
current FOIA requirements
and if any improvements
could be made.
Findings
Recommendations
Appendix A - Performance Evaluations - Page 21
-------
ERA'S FY 2009
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix B:
Public Access
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.
Appendix B - Public Access - Page 1
-------
EPA invites the public to access its newly redesigned Web site at www.epa.gov to obtain the latest
environmental news, browse EPA topics, learn about environmental conditions in their communities,
obtain information on interest groups, research laws and regulations, search specific program areas, or
access EPA's historical database.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: http://www.epa.gov/recoverv/
EPA newsroom: www.epa.gov/newsroom
• News releases: www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsreleases.htm
• Regional newsrooms: www.epa.gov/newsroom/tfregions
Laws, regulations, guidance, and dockets: www.epa.gov/lawsregs
• Major environmental laws: www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html
• EPA's Federal Register Web site: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr
Where you live: www.epa.gov/epahome/wherevoulive.htm
• Search your community: www.epa.gov/epahome/commsearch.htm
• EPA Regional offices: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/regions.htm
Information sources: www.epa.gov/epahome/resource.htm
• Hotlines and clearinghouses: www.epa.gov/epahome/hotline.htm
• Publications: www.epa.gov/epahome/publications.htm
Education resources: www.epa.gov/epahome/students.htm
• Teaching Center: www.epa.gov/teachers
• Office of Environmental Education: www.epa.gov/enviroed
About EPA: www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
• EPA organizational structure: www.epa.gov/epahome/organization.htm
EPA programs: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/abcpgram.htm
• Programs with a geographic focus: www.epa.gov/epahome/places.htm
Partnerships: www.epa.gov/partners
• Central data exchange: www.epa.gov/cdx
• Business Guide to Climate Change Partnerships:
www.epa.gov/partners/Biz guide to epa climate partnerships.pdf
EPA for business and nonprofits: www.epa.gov/epahome/business.htm
• Small business gateway: www.epa.gov/smallbusiness
• Grants, fellowships, and environmental financing: www.epa.gov/epahome/grants.htm
Budget and performance: www.epa.gov/performance/
Careers: www.epa.gov/careers
• EZ Hire: www.epa.gov/ezhire
• Student opportunities: www.epa.gov/careers/stuopp.html
EPA en Espahol: www.epa.gov/espanol
EPA ^^ '• ^iltJi&: www.epa.gov/chinese
EPA "£3^: HHttK: www.epa.gov/chinese/simple/
EPA tiing Viet: www.epa.gov/vietnamese
EPA S"^~°1: www.epa.gov/korean
Environmental Kids Club: www.epa.gov/kids
Appendix B - Public Access - Page 2
-------
EPA's FY 2009
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix C:
Acronyms and Abbreviations
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.
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations - Page 1
-------
ACS Annual Commitment System
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AFO Animal Feeding Operation
AOC Area of Concern
APG Annual Performance Goal
AQCD Air Quality Criteria Document
AQI Air Quality Index
AQS Air Quality System
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
BMP Best Management Practice
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CARE Community Action for a Renewed Environment
CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CCMPs Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDX Central Data Exchange
GEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CRT Cathode Ray Tube
CWA Clean Water Act
CY Calendar Year
DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
DfE Design for the Environment
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
DST Decision Support Tool
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EGOS Environmental Council of the States
EDSP Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EHPV Extended High Production Volume
EIA Energy Information Agency
EMP Environmental Management Practice
EMS-HAP Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPEAT Electronics Products Environmental Assessment Tool
ET Evapotranspiration
ETS Emissions Tracking System
ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
FTE Full Time Equivalent
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations - Page 2
-------
FY
Fiscal Year
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GAO Government Accountability Office
GAP General Assistance Program
CIS Geographical Information System
GM Genetically Modified
GMRA Government Management Reform Act
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
GSN Green Suppliers Network
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2E Hospitals for Healthy Environment
HABs Harmful Algal Blooms
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HPV High Production Volume
HPVIS High Production Volume Information System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
lAQTfS Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IPIA Improper Payments Information Act
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISSC Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
LoB Line of Business
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MCO Mission Critical Occupation
MD&A Management's Discussion and Analysis
MMBTU Million Metric British Thermal Unit
MMTCE Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEP National Estuary Program
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Non Road Cl Non Road Compression Ignition
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPEP National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
NPL National Priorities List
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSR New Source Review
NTI National Toxics Inventory
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations - Page 3
-------
ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OFM Office of Financial Management
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPAA Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability
ORD Office of Research and Development
P2RX Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
P3 People, Prosperity and the Planet
PAR Performance and Accountability Report
PARS Performance Appraisal and Recognition System
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Pb Lead
PBDEs Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCFV Partnership for Clean Fuels
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PM Particulate Matter
PM Performance Measure
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Pre-Manufacture Notice
PMO Program Management Office
PPM Parts Per Million
PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
R&D Research and Development
RA Remedial Action
RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action
RED Registration Eligibility Decision
RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team
RfC Reference Concentrations
RFS Renewable Fuels Standard
RSEI Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
RTP Research Triangle Park
SAB Science Advisory Board
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEMARNAT Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SES Senior Executive Service
SIDS Screening Information Data Sets
SIMS Shellfish Information Management System
SIP State Implementation Plans
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations - Page 4
-------
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOC Significant Operational Compliance
SOL Statute of Limitations
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures
SRF State Revolving Fund
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TASWER Tribal Association of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for Communities
TPEA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TRI-ME Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSE Technology for a Sustainable Environment
TWG Targeted Watershed Grants
DIG Underground Injection Control
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
URE Unit Risk Estimate
USTs Underground Storage Tanks
UV Ultraviolet
VCCEP Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WHAT If Watershed Health Assessment Tools Investigating Fisheries
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
WPDG Wetland Program Development Grants
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations - Page 5
-------
WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year 2009
Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your comments on how we can make this
report a more informative document for our readers. We are particularly interested in your
comments on the usefulness of the information and the manner in which it is presented. Please
send your comments to:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
This report is available on OCFO's homepage at:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par/index.htm
EPA-190-B-09-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
November 16, 2009
------- |