Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

Brownfields and other contaminated lands are found throughout the United States. Often legacies of an industrial past or bygone business, they dot the landscape of large and small communities. To address brownfields and environmental issues in Indian country, many tribes establish their own environmental protection and natural resource management offices, and create brownfields programs or "Tribal Response Programs." However, tribal communities often lack funding to sustain environmental program capacity building and continue to need outside technical assistance and expertise. Additionally, many tribes seeking to address brownfields in their communities face problems that are found in many small or rural areas in the United States. Rural locations typically do not have the technical resources that many larger communities have, nor the economic drivers associated with more dense populations that might spur cleanup and reuse.

This is our report on the actions the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) took to address prior U.S. Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General audit recommendations. This report represents our final position on the subjects reported. On December 23, 2010, you provided a response to our draft report. You concurred with the findings and recommendations and provided an action plan with milestone dates for completion. Therefore, a response to the final report is not required. CSB should continue to track corrective actions not yet implemented.

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General issued this report on the subject audit. This report contains findings that describe problems we identified and corrective actions we recommend. This report represents our opinion and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers will make final determinations on matters in this report in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

EPA's management controls for ensuring inspector training and inspection quality provide limited assurance of the effectiveness of its RMProgram inspections. Proper training helps inspectors conduct quality inspections. However, 15 of the 45 RMProgram inspectors nationwide received inspector credentials without documentation indicating that they met minimum training requirements. Further, six of the 12 supervisors did not meet minimum training requirements. EPA's management controls did not detect or prevent the cases of missed or undocumented training. Weaknesses in controls included limitations in training tracking systems and a lack of procedures to ensure that supervisors met their training requirements. Also, contracts and cooperative agreements for inspection services did not include training requirements. EPA can strengthen its RMProgram inspection guidance and oversight to increase assurance that inspectors conduct effective inspections. EPA guidance did not establish minimum guidelines for the scope of inspections. Further, EPA did not have a process to monitor the quality of inspections. Generally, inspection reports did not explain the extent to which the inspectors reviewed specific elements of a covered process to determine compliance. Also, our observations of two inspections indicated that procedures to verify the facilities' RMProgram activities were limited.

Much has changed since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Program began in 1995. Years ago, brownfields were seen primarily as undesirable contaminated properties that often sat idle and contributed to blight. Today, many communi- ties recognize that while brownfields are contaminated properties, they also can be important community assets that present a tremendous opportunity for community revitalization. Most major brownfields are well-located in centers of economic activity, and many brownfields properties have excellent existing infrastructure and access to services. Cleaning up and reinvesting in brownfields increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, utilizes existing infrastructure, and takes development pressures off of undevel- oped greenfields while improving and protecting the environment. The challenge is finding ways to leverage these assets to rebuild downtowns, revitalize smaller communities, and promote economic revital- ization. The Brownfields Program does more than simply address environmental contamination-it recognizes that a community's quality of life goes hand-in-hand with economic development and sustainability, and encourages communities to develop and implement their own vision for community revitalization. An example is Lansing, Michigan, where the community leaders' revitalization vision for the city's downtown centered on cleanup and redevelopment of the abandoned 1920s-era Ottawa Street Power Plant. The huge, decrepit structure was an eyesore that dominated the waterfront along the Grand River and contributed to blight. Despite many calls to demolish the structure, Lansing wanted to preserve it. The city assembled a package of grants and financial incentives that included EPA brownfields assessment and cleanup grants, a Michigan Renaissance Zone designation, and state grants, along with brownfield tax credits, brownfield tax increment financing, federal and state Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits, and New Market Tax Credits. Each was needed to rehabilitate the property. Today, the power plant is a "signature building" that is a centerpiece for Lansing's downtown renaissance. It is home to the Accident Fund Insurance Company, one of the companies that make Lansing the insurance hub of the Midwest.

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

As of June 30, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had awarded $278 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding through interagency agreements (IAs) under the Superfund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs.

EPA did not comply with the IPERA because the fiscal year (FY) 2012 Agency Financial Report (AFR) did not include all required elements of a corrective action plan. EPA did not include, among other things, planned and actual completion dates for corrective actions and improper payment reduction targets. EPA also misstated improper payments for state revolving funds (SRFs), grants, and contracts and commodities payment streams in the FY 2012 AFR.

Report explores the evolving landscape of state environmental, financial and technical programs designed to promote brownfields cleanup and reuse. This report provides a concise, user-friendly synopsis of the programs and tools that are available through state programs. The information contained in this report was gathered from state response program contacts and state response program websites. State programs continue to be at the forefront of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, as both the public and private markets recognize the responsibilities and opportunities of state response programs in ensuring protective and sustainable cleanups. The increasing number of properties entering state programs emphasizes the states' essential role in brownfields cleanup. In the coming years-in times of heightened budgetary concerns and tight budgets-state programs will look to ensure that resources are committed for long-term monitoring and other property needs, continue to create incentives to assist in the cleanup and reuse of brownfield properties, and develop sustainability initiatives to incorporate sustainability into cleanup and end use decisions. States will continue to put many different approaches in place to meet these goals and address the diverse challenges of brownfields reuse. This report attempts to summarize those programs and approaches.

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is providing this science report on our cumulative risk assessment of perchlorate and the other sodium (Na+)/iodide (I-) symporter stressors. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final position of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA managers will make final determinations on matters in this report. This report contains no recommendations and no further action is required.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted this subject audit. This report contains findings that describe problems we identified and corrective actions we recommend. This report represents our opinion and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers will make final determinations on matters in this report in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. Region 6 did not agree with the conclusions and recommendations in the draft report and requested that the matter be elevated in accordance with EPA's Audit Management Process.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance Inspection Manual has been developed to support personnel that conduct NPDES inspections of wastewater treatment plants, storm water industrial and construction sites, pretreatment facilities, biosolids handling and treatment facilities, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), municipal wastewater collection systems (combined and separate from storm water) as well as pollution prevention and multimedia concerns. These procedures are fundamental to the NPDES compliance program and provide inspectors with a method for conducting inspections. The manual presents standard procedures for inspections. Three objectives should be met during a routine compliance inspection. According to this section, the inspection should be performed in a manner designed to: Determine compliance status with regulations, permit conditions, and other program requirements, Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees, Verify the adequacy of sampling and monitoring conducted by the permittee. Other purposes of compliance inspections include: Gathering evidence to support enforcement actions, Obtaining information that supports the permitting process, Assessing compliance with orders or consent decrees.

The purpose of the examination was determined whether The Montana Physical Sciences Foundations complied with assistance agreement requirements and applicable Federal laws and regulations.

This National Program Manager Guidance applies to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional enforcement programs, and states and federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) implementing EPA-approved inspection and enforcement programs.1 OECA coordinates with the regions, states and local agencies and consults with tribal governments as it designs, develops, implements and oversees national compliance and enforcement programs. Regional offices also work with states and local agencies and consult with tribes to implement and review these programs.2 OECA's National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance provides clear direction for fiscal year (FY) 2014. It identifies the national compliance and enforcement priorities for FY 2014, discusses national direction for all compliance assurance programs, identifies activities to be carried out by authorized programs, and describes how the EPA should work with states and tribes to ensure compliance with environmental laws. Once implemented, the priorities and activities described in the NPM Guidance serve to protect the Nation's environment and public health and provide a level playing field for responsible businesses. Most of the work in the NPM Guidance is accomplished under the agency's Goal 5 - "Enforcing Environmental Laws" in the FY 2011- 2015 EPA Strategic Plan.

This is our report on the subject examination conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures will make final etermination on matters in this report.

EPA enforcement data show that the amount of monetary results EPA regions achieve from concluded enforcement cases varies from year to year and from region to region. While the number of enforcement cases concluded for FYs 2006 through 2011 remained relatively constant, the overall monetary results varied. The variations are linked to when and where in the nation a few large cases are concluded. These few large cases can result in unusually large monetary results in any given year. National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) set by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance drove the majority of these large cases. In FY 2010, Region 7 concluded two enforcement cases with large monetary results. Both cases were pursued under EPA's NEIs. The two cases accounted for 24 percent of all of EPA's monetary enforcement results for FY 2010 and 98 percent of Region 7's monetary results for FY 2010. Region 7's results typically fell in the middle of the 10 regions. We found that from FYs 2006 through 2011, Region 7's enforcement results, regulated facilities, and staff allocated to enforcement were proportional with each other. Large cases took several years to close and relied on coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice, companies, and courts, which meant that EPA did not have full control over the year in which a case was settled.

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

EPA is not recovering all its costs of administering the lead-based paint program. Our analysis, based on the Agency's rough cost estimates, showed unrecovered costs of $16.4 million for fiscal years (FY) 2010 through 2014 combined. Although collections exceeded costs by $8.9 million in FY 2010, for FYs 2011 through 2014 costs exceeded collections by $25.3 million, thus the net difference of $16.4 million. In a 2009 final rule, EPA established a fee schedule under the authority of TSCA to recover the program costs incurred over a 5-year certification cycle.

Attached is the semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2010, prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This Compendium fulfills the requirement of the Inspector General Act, as amended, to identify reports containing significant recommendations described in previous Semiannual Reports to Congress on which corrective actions have not been completed.

As food processors, you are regulated by a variety of federal laws administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that impact human activities and the environment. Noncompliance with these regulations can damage human health and the environment, and result in significant financial liabilities for clean up costs or fines. Environmental compliance may be difficult for some food processors that do not have the time, staff, or other resources necessary to determine their responsibilities. Also, environmental regulations and laws can be complicated, and information on environmental compliance may be difficult to locate. Adding to these complexities, you must be aware of and meet stringent food safety requirements. To assist you, EPA, with special assistance from the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), the American Meat Institute (AMI), the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) and the Food Industry Environmental Council (FIEC), has developed this guide to address these issues. This guide is intended to provide you, the owner/operator, with a good first step in understanding EPA's environmental requirements affecting your specific operations. The guide explains the basis of EPA's major statutes and provides a general overview of a food processor's major EPA requirements.

The discussion in this document is intended to provide information on advancements in the field of biological assessments and on use of biological assessments to support state water quality management programs. The statutory provisions and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions or regulations. The document does not substitute for the Clean Water Act (CWA) or EPA or state regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, or the regulatory community. This document does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public.

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures.

This is the third in a series of vehicle and engine compliance reports issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). These reports offer a convenient reference to the data that OTAQ collects in implementing emissions regulations for vehicles, engines, and other motorized equipment. The environmental programs OTAQ implements apply to virtually every vehicle, engine and gallon of transportation fuel sold in the United States. It is our job to make sure that these regulated mobile sources comply with emissions and fuel economy requirements. OTAQ's role in ensuring comprehensive compliance is essential to realizing national air quality and public health goals.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed outlays reported for projects included under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Interagency Agreement (IA) DW 75-95754001 by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). The general objective of this audit was to determine whether ANTHC complied in all material respects with federal requirements applicable to EPA funding provided by the IA.

Attached is our report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) fiscal 2011 and 2010 consolidated financial statements. We are reporting eight significant deficiencies. We also identified an instance of noncompliance with laws and regulations related to an Antideficiency Act violation in the Oil Spill Response Account. 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 2011.

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends.

The U.S. EPA and other organizations have projected that a large portion of the United States' aging water conveyance infrastructure will reach the end of its service life in the next several decades. EPA has identified asset management as a critical factor in efficiently addressing this projected surge in water conveyance infrastructure renewal. An important tool in the asset manager's toolbox is cost-effective structural inspection, since it provides data to help support optimized capital, operations, and maintenance planning. However, there are many gaps in structural inspection capability and affordability, and many options for addressing those gaps.