Bøger af U S Environmental Protection Agency

Currently, the most common form of drinking water treatment for surface water sources involves the chemical/physical removal of particulate matter by coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration processes, along with disinfection to inactivate any remaining pathogenic microorganisms. Filtration remains the cornerstone of drinking water treatment, conventionally in the form of granular media depth filters. Although granular media filters can produce high quality water, they represent a probabilistic rather than an absolute barrier; consequently, pathogens can still pass through the filters and pose a health risk. The disinfection process provides an additional measure of public health protection by inactivating these microorganisms. However, some microorganisms, such as Cryptosporidium, are resistant to common primary disinfection practices such as chlorination and chloramination. Furthermore, drinking water regulations have established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for disinfection byproducts (DBPs) that may create incentive for drinking water utilities to minimize the application of some disinfectants. As a result of the concern over chlorine-resistant microorganisms and DBP formation, the drinking water industry is increasingly utilizing alternative treatment technologies in an effort to balance the often-competing objectives of disinfection and DBP control. One such alternative technology that has gained broad acceptance is membrane filtration. Although the use of membrane processes has increased rapidly in recent years, the application of membranes for water treatment extends back several decades. Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes have been used for the desalination of water since the 1960s, with more widespread use of nanofiltration (NF) for softening and the removal of total organic carbon (TOC) dating to the late 1980s. However, the commercialization of backwashable hollow-fiber microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membrane processes for the removal of particulate matter (i.e., turbidity and microorganisms) in the early 1990s has had the most profound impact on the use, acceptance, and regulation of all types of membrane processes for drinking water treatment. The purpose of this guidance manual is to provide technical information on the use of membrane filtration and application of the technology for compliance with the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which would require certain systems to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium.

Reducing emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important public health challenges facing the country. Despite EPA's stringent diesel engine and fuel standards taking effect over the next decade, the 20 million engines already in use will continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)-both of which will contribute to serious public health problems for years to come. Fortunately, a variety of cost-effective technologies can dramatically reduce harmful emissions, save fuel, and help our nation meet its clean air and sustainability goals. To meet these challenges, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). NCDC consists of both regulatory programs to address new engines and innovative nonregulatory programs to address the millions of diesel engines already in use. EPA standards apply to new diesel engines, and because these engines can last a long time, solutions are needed to reduce harmful emissions from the existing fleet. These innovative approaches promote a variety of emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing, replacing, and repowering engines; reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels. Through a dynamic network of Regional Collaboratives, whose development EPA initiated, environmental groups, industry, and government were inspired and motivated-despite their sometimes conflicting perspectives-to unite behind a common goal. NCDC mobilized diverse and unusual partners with historic differences to work together, creating broad support based on the urgency of the public health problem and bringing new technologies into use years earlier than would otherwise have occurred.

The Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) is intended to be used as a screening tool as part of an integrated watershed management process such as that described in EPA's watershed planning handbook (EPA 2008).1 The objective of WMOST is to serve as a public-domain, efficient, and user-friendly tool for local water resources managers and planners to screen a wide- range of potential water resources management options across their watershed or jurisdiction for cost- effectiveness as well as environmental and economic sustainability (Zoltay et al 2010). Examples of options that could be evaluated with the tool include projects related to stormwater, water supply, wastewater and water-related resources such as Low-Impact Development (LID) and land conservation. The tool is intended to aid in evaluating the environmental and economic costs, benefits, trade-offs and co-benefits of various management options. In addition, the tool is intended to facilitate the evaluation of low impact development (LID) and green infrastructure as alternative or complementary management options in projects proposed for State Revolving Funds (SRF). WMOST is a screening model that is spatially lumped with a daily or monthly time step. The model considers water flows but does not yet consider water quality. The optimization of management options is solved using linear programming. The target user group for WMOST consists of local water resources managers, including municipal water works superintendents and their consultants. This document includes a user guide and presentation of two case studies as examples of how to apply WMOST. Theoretical documentation is provided in a separate report (EPA/600/R-13/151).

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.

Diesel engines play a vital role in key industry sectors such as goods movement, public transportation, construction, and agriculture. A unique combination of efficiency, power, reliability, and durability make diesel the technology of choice for these sectors. However, the durability of the technology does not lend itself to rapid fleet turnover and investment in new equipment that meets more stringent environmental standards. Because of this, the full air quality benefits of the very stringent new engine emission standards in the US2007 Diesel Rule ("Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements.") and the Nonroad Diesel Rule ("Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule.") will likely take decades to achieve. Further, the regulatory authority of EPA and states to address the existing fleet of over 11 million diesel engines is rather limited. In response, EPA began the Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program in 2000 to discuss broad initiatives to modernize and upgrade (i.e., retrofit) current engines with modern emission control equipment or to accelerate the replacement of these engines with newer ones. Given the diversity of applications and engines, as well as significant technical and funding issues, the Clean Diesel Retrofit Work Group was formed in 2004 under the auspices of the EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) to advise EPA on how best to expand the initiative.This report is the culmination of the work of the Clean Diesel and Retrofit Work Group since April 2004. It provides consensus-based recommendations as well as other recommendations. Some recommendations are sector-specific; others apply more broadly. It is our hope that this report will substantially further our Nation's efforts to achieve healthy air for its citizens.

High priority violations (HPVs) are significant violations of a federally-enforceable regulation by major and synthetic minor1 Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy states that HPVs should be addressed (formal enforcement action taken) or resolved (compliance achieved) within 270 days. According to EPA data, about 30 percent of State-led HPVs and about 46 percent of EPA-led HPVs were unaddressed after 270 days.2 If HPVs are not addressed in a timely manner, continued emissions from facilities may result in significant environmental and public health impacts, deterrence efforts being undermined, and unfair economic benefits being created. We undertook this review to determine why some EPA regions and States are not addressing HPVs under the CAA in a timely manner as set out in Agency policy, and what improvements are planned.

Although EPA has been releasing unneeded space since 2007, it continues to have under-utilized space. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) owns or leases facilities for EPA use. At 13 of the 16 facilities reviewed, we estimated that EPA had 433,336 square feet of under-utilized space as of February 2012. EPA is limited in what type of space it can release back to GSA before a lease expires. Space can only be released if it is marketable; configuration issues and the cost to relocate employees can pose problems. If all under-utilized space in our sample was marketable, we estimate EPA could save up to $21.6 million annually by releasing under-utilized space. Also, EPA does not have a policy for determining when it should be housing contractors on-site in its facilities. Contractors occupied an estimated 197,000 square feet in the sampled facilities. We estimated that EPA spent up to $9.9 million annually in housing contractors on-site at the sampled facilities. EPA lacks accurate, current, and complete information on the number of personnel and usable square feet (USF) in its Strategic Lease and Asset Tracking Enterprise (SLATE) system for its GSA-owned/leased offices. As of April 2012, SLATE had incorrect personnel information for 13 of the 16 facilities sampled (81 percent), and 5 of 16 facilities sampled (31 percent) had incorrect information on USF. SLATE recorded a net 548 more personnel than what EPA facility managers had provided for the sampled facilities and a net 235,918 less USF than the sampled facilities had. Additionally, the entire USF of 325,128 for the Region 5 Ralph H. Metcalfe building was not reported in SLATE. This occurred because updates to SLATE are sporadic and inconsistent. Inaccurate data in SLATE hamper EPA's ability to make informed decisions about managing its facilities.

This is our report on the subject review 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 will make the final determinations on matters in this report in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held its First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change in 2009. Sponsored by the EPA Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, the workshop was attended by experts and stakeholders from the federal, research, utility, engineering, academic, and NGO sectors. The workshop included several plenary sessions, as well as two concurrent tracks: Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology and Water Resource Management; Adaptive Management and Engineering: Information and Tools. It is very important to gain a better understanding of what EPA can do to help utilities make decisions and where EPA can make investments in science and research. It is also important for EPA to understand what the utilities are already doing, and how to engage in research that is complementary, not redundant. The focus of this workshop is on precipitation-related impacts. Although sea-level rise is an important concern for coastal utilities, this topic will be only touched upon here and will be left for a more complete discussion at a future workshop. Also, this workshop is focused on adaptation. While the interaction between water utilities and energy is critical (water utilities use 3 to 4 percent of total U.S. energy), this workshop will not address mitigation efforts.

Decisions about how and where we build our communities have significant impacts on the natural environment and on human health. Cities, regions, states, and the private sector need information about the environmental effects of their land use and transportation decisions to mitigate growth-related environmental impacts and to improve community quality of life and human health. This report: Discusses the status of and trends in land use, development, and transportation and their environmental implications; Articulates the current understanding of the relationship between the built environment and the quality of air, water, land resources, habitat, and human health; Provides evidence that certain kinds of land use and transportation strategies can reduce the environmental and human health impacts of development. Recognition is increasing that land use and transportation decisions can either support or interfere with environmental protection and quality of life. Policymakers have realized that decisions about how and where we build our communities have significant impacts on the natural environment. Cities, regions, states, and the private sector are planning and implementing smart growth strategies and other measures to mitigate growth-related environmental impacts and to improve community quality of life and human health. This edition of "Our Built and Natural Environments" updates the original 2001 publication with the most current information available as of October 2012. It is written for everyone interested in how land use practices, transportation infrastructure, and building siting and design directly and indirectly affect environmental quality. This report provides information that can help state and local governments decide how to accommodate expected population growth within their borders in the most environmentally responsible manner. Different parts of the country face different challenges and opportunities based on the availability of fresh water, the mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources, and their vulnerability to natural disasters, among other issues.

From goods movement to building construction to public transportation, diesel engines are the modern-day workhorse of the American economy. Diesel engines are extremely efficient, and they power nearly every major piece of machinery and equipment on farms, on construction sites, in ports, and on highways. However, not all diesel engines are as clean as those manufactured after 2006 and later, when EPA's stringent heavy-duty highway and non-road engine standards began coming into effect. EPA estimates that approximately 11 million older diesel engines remain in use, and will continue to emit significant amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) until they wear out and are replaced. To reduce the public's exposure to pollution from these older, dirtier engines, Congress in 2005 authorized funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a grant program designed to selectively retrofit or replace the older diesel engines most likely to impact human health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers all Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funding under the umbrella of the National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC), which promotes clean air strategies by working with manufacturers, fleet operators, air quality professionals, environmental and community organizations, and state and local officials to reduce diesel emissions.

EPA and the states have more than fifteen years of experience implementing the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) to organize the federal-state relationship in terms of setting priorities, deploying resources, and measuring progress. The EPA-state partnership to protect human health and the environment has matured and improved substantially during that period.

Air pollution from diesel emissions is a public health concern that reaches every part of the country. There are two main pollutants of concern in diesel exhaust that affect human health: nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). NOx is one of the main ingredients in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigger respiratory problems. Ozone can aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases, leading to more visits to the emergency room and increased hospitalizations. Ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs. This may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and to irreversible reductions in lung function if the inflammation occurs repeatedly over a long time period. PM has been associated with an increased risk of premature mortality, hospital admissions for heart and lung disease, and increased respiratory symptoms. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard. In addition, PM, NOx, and ozone adversely affect the environment in various ways including visibility impairment, crop damage, and acid rain. The construction sector is a significant contributor to these emissions, creating 32 percent of all mobile source NOx emissions and 37 percent of PM emissions. While stringent new emissions standards are scheduled to significantly reduce emissions from new nonroad equipment starting in 2008, much of the equipment in the current nonroad diesel fleet will continue to operate for many years to come. Therefore, reducing emissions from the existing legacy construction equipment fleet is an important component of EPA's emissions control strategy. The construction sector is highly diverse and is made up predominately of smaller companies. Approximately 92 percent of construction companies have 20 or fewer employees. They tend to be low-margin businesses, with much of their business value accumulated in their capital equipment. Consequently, construction companies resist modifications that they believe will restrict their equipment's operability or increase maintenance. Small companies may not have the ability to spend significant resources to reduce emissions from their equipment. The purpose of this research project was to study and identify low cost ways to reduce emissions from nonroad construction equipment. The report documents the costs and benefits of a number of these strategies - actions that may be taken by small companies (and medium or larger ones as well) in the construction sector to reduce their emissions.

Attached is the semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2009, 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 action has not been completed.

Communities across the country are integrating smart growth, environmental justice, and equitable development approaches to design and build healthy, sustainable, and inclusive neighborhoods. Overburdened communities are using smart growth strategies to address longstanding environmental and health challenges and create new opportunities where they live. Regional and local planners are engaging low-income, minority, and tribal residents in decision-making and producing more enduring development that is better for people and the environment. Community groups, government agencies, and private and nonprofit partners are cleaning up and investing in existing neighborhoods, providing affordable housing and transportation options, and improving access to critical services and amenities. This informational publication aims to build on past successes and offer other low-income, minority, tribal, and overburdened communities approaches to shape development that responds to their needs and reflects their values. It identifies strategies that bring together smart growth, environmental justice, and equitable development principles and that community-based organizations, local and regional decision-makers, developers, and others can use to build healthy, sustainable, and inclusive communities. These are places that provide clean air, water, and land; affordable and healthy homes; safe, reliable, and economical transportation options; and convenient access to jobs, schools, parks, shopping, and other daily necessities.

This document provides guidance on how to conduct the offsite consequence analyses for Risk Management Programs required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations requiring facilities with large quantities of very hazardous chemicals to prepare and implement programs to prevent the accidental release of those chemicals and to mitigate the consequences of any releases that do occur. This guidance document provides a simple methodology for conducting offsite consequence analyses. It provides generic reference tables of distances, applicable to most of the regulated toxic substances, and chemical-specific tables for ammonia, chlorine, and sulfur dioxide. This guidance also provides reference tables of distances for consequences of fires and explosions of flammable substances. In some cases, the rule allows users of this document to adopt generic assumptions rather than the site-specific data required if another model is employed.

Gas production in the United States has grown significantly in recent years. From 1992 to 2010,3 the number of producing gas wells increased by 76 percent. Onshore gross withdrawals of gas increased by about 43 percent. About 11,000 new wells were drilled annually from 1992 to 2010, on average. According to a 2011 EPA fact sheet,4 the United States had nearly 1.1 million producing oil and gas wells in 2009. Growth in gas production has been particularly significant in areas covered by EPA Regions 3, 6, and 8. For example, in Region 8, the number of gas wells increased by 416 percent and gross withdrawals increased by 163 percent between 1992 and 2010.

This "Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water Quality" was prepared as part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ongoing efforts to better understand the environmental occurrence and potential effects related to contaminants of emerging concern. The report makes no policy or regulatory recommendations; it does identify information gaps that may help define research needs for USEPA and its federal, state and local partners to better understand these issues. Over the past 60 years the structure of American agriculture has significantly changed. Across all agricultural sectors, farm operations have expanded - farms have gotten larger and fewer in number. The shift from the "family farm" is perhaps most pronounced in the production of livestock and poultry. Food animal production has evolved from largely grazing animals and on-farm feed production to fewer and larger operations and increasingly more to concentrated facilities, often with animals raised in confinement. This has been done, in part, to meet the demands for meat and animal products from a growing human population in the U.S. and abroad. The increase in concentration of livestock and poultry also leads to increased concentration of animal manure that must be managed. Historically, manure was used as fertilizer on the farm to provide nutrients for plant growth on the cropland, pasture or rangeland that, in turn, partly provided the feed for the animals raised on the farm. Manure can also improve soil quality, when managed appropriately as a fertilizer, where the producer considers the right rate, timing, source, and method of application (NRC 1993). However, while livestock manure can be a resource, it can also degrade environmental quality, particularly surface and ground water if not managed appropriately. The geographic concentration of livestock and poultry can lead to concentrations of manure that may exceed the needs of the plants and the farmland where it was produced. Recognizing the potential for human and ecological health effects associated with the other contaminants in manure, this report focuses on the growing scientific information related to contaminants of emerging concern - particularly pathogens, antimicrobials, and hormones in manure - and reviews the potential and documented human health and ecological effects associated with these manure contaminants. Many other groups and initiatives are focusing on nutrient water quality issues, including the relative contributions of animal manure. This report briefly discusses the magnitude of manure generation (which is often highly localized) for perspective on the relationship to these emerging contaminants and their prevalence in the environment, for major livestock types - beef and dairy cattle, swine, poultry and aquaculture. This report is focused on manure and does not address other waste management issues related to livestock and poultry operations (e.g., disposal of dead animals, spoiled feed). The purpose of this report is to summarize publicly available literature for those involved with watershed protection and management and the linked efforts for source water protection and planning for drinking water systems. As noted in the report, there are very different levels of information available on many of these topics associated with manure. Hence, the report can also help to identify information gaps and guide research needs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other partners to better understand these issues.

Based on the results of our survey, 85 percent of the EPA survey respondents reported that they have used IRIS as their primary source for cancer values and 81 percent have used IRIS as their primary source for non-cancer values. More than half (51 percent) of the survey respondents who reported using IRIS as the primary source for cancer values indicated a reason they did so was because it was required for the activity they were conducting. Similarly, more than half (52 percent) of the survey respondents who reported using IRIS as the primary source for non-cancer values indicated a reason they did so was because it was required for the activity they were conducting. About one-third (34 percent) of the survey respondents reported that they have used an alternate source for toxicity values when an IRIS value was available. The primary reason selected for using an alternate source was that the alternate source was more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information. We found no EPA policy mandating the use of any toxicity database including IRIS. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has issued a directive that recommends using EPA's IRIS as the first tier source of human health toxicity values. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents to this survey reported that they have used IRIS for Superfund program activities. Sixty-five percent of respondents also indicated that there are standard operating procedures regarding how to choose a source of toxicity values. Sixteen percent of respondents identified the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response directive as this standard operating procedure. All survey responses were self-reported by the EPA respondents and were not verified by the Office of Inspector General.

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the environment. As America's steward for the environment since 1970, the EPA has endeavored to ensure that the public has air that is safe to breathe, water that is clean and safe to drink, food that is free from dangerous pesticide residues, and communities that are protected from toxic chemicals.

The independent public accounting (IPA) firm KPMG LLP conducted this audit on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG). This is the IPA's report on the subject audit conducted on behalf of the OIG. This report contains findings that describe the problems the IPA identified and corrective actions the IPA recommends. The Senior Agency Information Security Officer is the primary official responsible for the agency program that KPMG reviewed during this audit. This report represents the opinion of the IPA and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. The agency concurred with all the report's recommendations and provided high-level planned corrective actions with milestone dates, which KPMG found acceptable.

Data communications for a Water Quality Surveillance and Response System (SRS) is the means of transmitting data between remote monitoring sites and a drinking water utility's control center. Within an SRS, the Enhanced Security Monitoring (ESM), Online Water Quality Monitoring (OWQM), and Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) components typically include data generated by SRS equipment located at remote utility locations that is transmitted to the utility control center. When alert conditions are detected, utility personnel are notified via a user interface screen, email, or text message to initiate a response and, in some cases, utility personnel will transmit data to equipment at the remote sites as part of their investigation of SRS alerts (e.g., initiate collection of a water quality sample or position a video camera to observe an intruder). This publication describes the process of developing evaluation criteria, describes commonly available communications technologies, provides an overview of SRS component requirements for communications systems, describes the process of selecting a communications system, includes design and implementation guidance, and describes innovation in communications systems.

Technology is available to reduce diesel vehicle and engine emissions in a cost-effective way. The ability to use diesel emission reductions for state implementation plan (SIP) and conformity purposes gives states and localities additional incentive to implement diesel retrofit projects. Diesel retrofit technologies reduce pollution from the existing diesel engine fleet by up to 90% for particulate matter (PM), up to 75% for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and up to 90% for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Many diesel retrofit projects are being successfully implemented around the country. Clean diesel projects already initiated are expected to result in approximately 20,000 tons of particulate matter reduced over the life of the projects, with estimated public health benefits of about $5 billion.

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.

This is our report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) emergency order to the Range Resources Gas Drilling Company conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). 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.

Nanomaterials encompass a wide range of substances based on the understanding and control of matter at the scale of nanometers-the equivalent of one-billionth of a meter. Nanomaterials are nanoscale materials or materials that contain nanoscale structures internally or on their surfaces. Nanomaterials are currently used in a wide variety of applications, including consumer products, health care, transportation, energy, and agriculture. While some nanomaterials can occur naturally, this report focuses on intentionally manufactured nanomaterials. Figure 1 illustrates the relative size of nanomaterials.

As part of our oversight of assistance agreement awards made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the costs claimed under Cooperative Agreement No. 2A-00T13801 awarded to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The OIG conducted the examination to determine whether the costs claimed under the cooperative agreement were reasonable, allowable and allocable in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 40 CFR Part 31, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments; 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87); and the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement.

In planning and performing our audit, we considered EPA's internal control over the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 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. 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. 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 deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal controls that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal controls, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely basis. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses, or noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted a matter involving the internal controls and their operations that we considered to be a material weakness.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as of September 30, 2012, and September 30, 2011, 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 management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based upon our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards; the standards applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other federal agencies. Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. The U.S. Treasury collects and accounts for excise taxes that are deposited into the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. The U.S. Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not needed for current disbursements and transferring funds to EPA as authorized in legislation. Since the U.S. Treasury, and not EPA, is responsible for these activities, our audit work did not cover these activities.

Since 2009, the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have issued various memorandums and directives requesting agencies to identify ways to avoid costs and achieve efficiencies and savings. In August 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) issued an electronic memorandum titled "Management Reform Agenda" to request input from program offices and regions to identify efficiency projects. EPA program offices and regions identified 72 projects.