Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

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. EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures will make final determination on matters in this report.

Launched in 2003, the SmartWay Transport Partnership is a public/private collaboration between the EPA and the freight industry to improve fuel efficiency, increase environmental performance, and encourage supply chain sustainability.

Attached is the semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2011, 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 of 1978, as amended, to identify reports containing significant recommendations described in previous semiannual reports to Congress on which corrective actions have not been completed. This report is a change from our previous reporting in that it now includes a section of significant recommendations with corrective actions that have future planned completion dates.

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 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 determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The landscape of chemical risk assessment is rapidly changing as a result of phenomenal advances in molecular systems biology, reports from the National Research Council, improved understanding of gene-environment interactions, and volumes of new toxicity data from the United States and Europe. In response, EPA initiated the "Advancing the Next Generation of Risk Assessment" (NexGen) effort, which aims to create a faster and more cost effective system for chemical risk assessment by incorporating new chemical testing data and advances in molecular and systems biology technologies

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 determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) is a comprehensive initiative to reduce pollution from diesel engines throughout the country, including vehicles on highways, city streets, construction sites, and ports. The NCDC comprises both regulatory programs to address new engines and voluntary programs to address the millions of diesel engines already in use. On the regulatory side, EPA is successfully implementing emissions standards for engines in the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Engine Rule and the Tier 4 Nonroad Rule and developing new emission requirements for locomotives and marine diesel engines, including large commercial marine engines. On the voluntary side, EPA is addressing engines that are already in use by promoting a variety of innovative emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing, replacing and repowering engines; reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels. The voluntary programs are accomplished in partnership with state and local governments, environmental groups and industry. The emissions standards for new engines will reduce both highway and nonroad engine emissions by roughly 90%. However, these emission reductions occur over a long period of time as new engines are phased into the fleet. Retrofitting diesel engines currently in use will allow significant and immediate emission reductions from diesel engines that would not otherwise be addressed. The purpose of this technical analysis is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of retrofitting existing heavy-duty diesel engines to reduce particulate matter (PM). (The cost effectiveness of the regulatory measures EPA has implemented is addressed the rulemakings.) Analysts in EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) evaluated the costs and emissions benefits of retrofitting school buses, freight trucks, and bulldozers with diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) and catalyzed diesel particulate filters (CDPFs), two of the most common PM emissions reduction technologies for diesel engines.

The EPA conducted this review to assess the U.S. Environmental Protects's enforcement in protecting federally regulated wetlands, streams, and other surface waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to identifying and responding to the challenges that a changing climate poses to human health and the environment. Scientific evidence demonstrates that the climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. These changes can pose significant challenges to the EPA's ability to fulfill its mission. The EPA must adapt to climate change if it is to continue fulfilling its statutory, regulatory and programmatic requirements. The Agency is therefore anticipating and planning for future changes in climate to ensure it continues to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the environment even as the climate changes. In February 2013, the EPA released its draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan to the public for review and comment. The plan relies on peer-reviewed scientific information and expert judgment to identify vulnerabilities to EPA's mission and goals from climate change. The plan also presents 10 priority actions that EPA will take to ensure that its programs, policies, rules, and operations will remain effective under future climatic conditions. The priority placed on mainstreaming climate adaptation within EPA complements efforts to encourage and mainstream adaptation planning across the entire federal government. This Implementation Plan provides an overview of the opportunities available to the Office of Water within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond to the challenges that a changing climate poses for the successful operation of national programs to protect the quality of the national water resources and drinking water. This Plan is organized using the framework adopted by the EPA for each of its major national offices and regional offices. Key elements of the Plan address: Vulnerability of water resources, including clean water and drinking water programs, to climate change; Priority actions for water program response to climate change; Office of Water contribution to meeting EPA strategic measures on climate change; Legal and enforcement issues; Training and outreach for climate change adaptation; Partnerships with Tribes; Populations and places vulnerable to a changing climate; and Program evaluation and cross-Agency pilot projects.

Based on our review of the WCF contract EPW08034, which ended September 2012, the EPA needs to improve its contract administration to assist in managing other similar type contracts. The EPA did not, as stated by Office of Management and Budget, Federal Acquisition Regulations and agency guidelines: Use performance standards to measure cost outcomes. Complete any of the required contractor performance evaluation reports. Maintain required contract administration documents. The EPA did not have policies in place that would require performance metrics and standards to be linked to cost outcomes and procedures to ensure contract administrators maintain sufficient documents in the official contract files. The EPA did not complete contractor performance reports because of insufficient guidance and inadequate communications during contractor performance system changes and personnel reassignments. The EPA's contractor performance systems include the National Institutes of Health's Contractor Performance System and subsequently the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, which transmits information into the Past Performance Information Retrieval System. The EPA's ineffective contract administration may have hindered the ability of EPA staff to ensure that the contractor successfully met agency needs, as well as its ability to determine whether the EPA achieved the best value for the $85 million expended on the WCF contract.

This manual was originally developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Tribal Nations, but content also pertains to U.S. Territories and Insular Areas. Exception: U.S. Territories and Insular Areas are treated as states under Part 31 (and also under Part 35, Subpart A for PPGs, unlike Tribes that are covered under Subpart B).

CCI's financial management system supports that funds drawn under the two cooperative agreements are reasonable, allocable and allowable in accordance with federal requirements and the terms and conditions for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. However, the system does not meet certain federal requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations in 40 CFR 30.21, as it was unable to provide timely financial information and reporting. As a result, there was limited assurance that the recipient claimed all eligible costs or the financial management system and Federal Financial Reports reflect the actual costs. CCI generally complied with the applicable Recovery Act requirements. We reviewed CCI's compliance with select Recovery Act requirements and determined that: The Buy American requirements under Section 1605 of the Recovery Act were not applicable. The Wage Rate requirements under Section 1606 of the Recovery Act were met. CCI's methodology for calculating its estimate of the number of jobs created or retained with Recovery Act funding did not meet Office of Management and Budget reporting guidance for Section 1512 of the Recovery Act.

The Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General is pleased to submit its Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending September 30, 2010. This report highlights key accomplishments of the Office, particularly pertaining to our efforts to work with agency management to ensure the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Department of Energy operations

The mission of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to: promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Agency) programs and operations; prevent and detect fraud, waste, or abuse in FHFA's programs and operations; review and, if appropriate, comment on pending legislation and regulations; and seek administrative sanctions, civil recoveries, and criminal prosecutions of those responsible for fraud, waste, or abuse in connection with the programs and operations of FHFA.

This is a final report by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We conducted the assignment based on a request from the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The senator requested information regarding a list of mountaintop mining permit applications. We do not make any recommendations in this report.

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 determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

For the past forty years, federal, state, tribal, and local governments have worked diligently to identify and address water pollution problems. As a result, our drinking water is safer, our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters are cleaner, and the health of our wetlands and watersheds is improved. In 2008, the EPA National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change described the emerging scientific consensus on the potential impacts of climate change on water resources. Increasingly, impacts are being observed in communities across the nation and are expected to continue, including: Increases in water pollution problems due to warmer air and water temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns; Impacts on water infrastructure and aquatic systems due to more extreme weather events; Changes to the availability of drinking water supplies; Waterbody boundary movement and displacement; Changing aquatic biology; Collective impacts on coastal areas; and Indirect impacts due to unintended consequences of human response to climate change. Despite increasing understanding of climate change, there still remain questions about the scope and timing of climate change impacts, especially at the local scale where most water-related decisions are made. These challenges require us all to come together to find the tools needed to understand and manage risks and to build resilience of both the built and natural environments. This National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change builds on the momentum gained while implementing the 2008 Strategy. It provides a road map for where we need to go over the long term and articulates a set of mid-term building blocks, i.e., strategic actions that need to be taken to be a "climate ready" national water program. This 2012 Strategy emphasizes working collaboratively, developing tools, managing risk, and incorporating adaptation into core programs. Many programs and activities already underway become even more important in light of climate change -including strengthening preparedness for extreme weather events, protecting healthy watersheds and wetlands, managing stormwater with green infrastructure, and improving the sustainability of water infrastructure through energy and water efficiency.

We sought to determine the degree to which Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) memoranda of agreement (MOAs) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States comply with federal requirements, and whether MOAs impede EPA's ability to exercise consistent management controls and oversight of State enforcement activities. Past reviews by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) and others identified widespread enforcement problems. Although there are many causes for this common pattern of noncompliance, the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) identified poor quality MOAs between EPA and States as one impediment to consistent enforcement. OECA requested that the EPA OIG evaluate the issue. This evaluation is part of a series of OIG reviews of EPA oversight of State enforcement programs.

Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) are a diverse group of organic chemicals with vapor pressures between 10-14 and 10-4 atm. Many SVOCs are ubiquitous in the indoor environment. Over a hundred SVOCs are among the chemicals detected in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention biomonitoring program. Examples of common indoor SVOCs include polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated flame retardants, perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), phthalates, and pesticides. The presence of SVOCs in the indoor environment and the potential effect of these chemicals on human exposure and health have been the topics of active research in recent years. Because SVOCs tend to bind to interior surfaces and particulate matter, indoor exposure to these chemicals can take place via multiple routes including inhalation of air and suspended particulate matter, dermal contact with contaminated surfaces and dust, and incidental ingestion of dust. Thus, understanding the presence and distribution of SVOCs in buildings is critical to exposure estimation.

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.

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 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 the findings from our sampling at the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site and corrective actions the OIG recommends. EPA Region 3 concurred with and provided comments on the recommendations of the draft report. 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 Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating long-term monitoring at Superfund sites deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This evaluation is to determine whether EPA has valid and reliable data on the conditions of these sites. PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc., Superfund Site, in Abbeville, Louisiana, is one of eight sites being reviewed. At PAB, we collected ground water samples and conducted a site inspection. We compared our results to past results reported by EPA Region 6.

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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies on sound science to safeguard human health and the environment. As the scientific research arm of the Agency, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts research on ways to prevent pollution, protect human health, and reduce risk. Twelve ORD national research programs provide the science to support EPA's goals in its strategic plan. We conducted this evaluation to determine whether one of ORD's research programs, the Land Research Program (LRP), has appropriate performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of its research products.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) sought to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented oversight practices for securing access to key EPA locations in Las Vegas, Nevada. We looked at these security issues during our review of EPA's consolidated financial statements for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2008.

Modifying greenspaces to enhance habitat value has been proposed as a means towards protecting or restoring biodiversity in urban landscapes. In this report, we provide a framework for developing low- cost, low-impact enhancements that can be incorporated during the restoration of greenspaces to enhance their wildlife habitat value. We focus on breeding bird habitat value of urban greenspaces in the Woonasquatucket watershed, a southern New England coastal plain watershed located near Providence, Rhode Island. The report is in two parts: the first is a description of a framework for enhancing bird habitat value of urban greenspaces, and the second describes an empirical study examining bird use of existing greenspaces in the Woonasquatucket watershed.

The purpose of our unannounced site visit was to determine whether the City of Ottawa, Illinois, complied with selected requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), P.L. 111-5, pertaining to the wastewater treatment plant project jointly funded by the Recovery Act and the Illinois Water Pollution Control Loan Program.

This publications provides responses to questions received by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the manner in which the EPA intends to implement and assure compliance with the diesel fuel sulfur regulations at 40 CFR Part 80. This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Regulatory Enforcement. Regulated parties may use this document to aid in achieving compliance with the diesel fuel sulfur regulations. However, this document does not in any way alter the requirements of these regulations. While the answers provided in this document represent the Agency's interpretation and general plans for implementation of the regulations at this time, some of the responses may change as additional information becomes available or as the Agency further considers certain issues.