EPA Budget in Detail - FY 2012

For Official Use Only
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2012

Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations
EPA-190-R-11-003
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains at least 50% recycled fiber
EPAs Mission The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the environment. This budget request reflects the tough choices needed for our nations short- and long-term fiscal health. The President directed EPA and other federal agencies to reduce funding levels out of an understanding that the same sacrifices are being made by American families every day. While this budget includes significant cuts, it is designed to ensure that EPA can effectively carry out its core mission to protect public health and our environment, including reductions of air and water pollution, ensuring the safety of chemicals, providing for the strong enforcement of environmental standards, as well as the cleanup of contaminated sites that Americans expect. It also reflects EPAs overarching commitment to science and our focus on the concerns of underserved communities and at-risk populations. Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification The FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification requests $8.973 billion in discretionary budget authority. This represents a reduction of approximately $1.3 billion from FY 2010 enacted levels of $10.3 billion, EPAs highest funding level since its creation. As it does every year, EPA has worked to find efficiencies within our programs while protecting the most vulnerable in our communities, maintaining hard-won momentum in improving compliance, revitalizing key ecosystems and following the science that will help the Agency sustain progress and foster innovation. For FY 2012, funding is maintained for EPAs core priorities, such as enforcement of the environment and public health protections. While this budget includes significant cuts, such as a combined $947 million reduction to EPAs Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds (SRFs), as with any smart budget, EPA plans to make targeted investments to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency in protecting our health and environment. The FY 2012 Budget maintains funding to update the Clean Air Acts standards and our efforts to assist in transitioning America to a clean energy economy. It continues the critical work necessary for protecting and restoring Americas waters. This budget seeks to sustain progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies through strategic investments and new approaches. It reflects a commitment to close loopholes for big polluters, better ensuring that our federal laws are enforced effectively and leverages new technologies to improve data processes, reducing the burden on states, tribes, affected industry and the Agency. It also focuses on community-level engagement to reach a broader range of citizens. Finally, it continues to reflect our core values of science and transparency in addressing Americas complex environmental protection challenges. Although these difficult choices may unfortunately slow the pace of progress toward performance measures established in our FY 20112015 Strategic Plan, the FY 2012 budget
maintains the fundamental mission of the Agency: to protect the health of the American people and our environment. Below are the FY 2012 funding points of focus: Improving Air Quality and Supporting Action on Greenhouse Gas Pollution EPA will continue to protect American families health by enforcing the Clean Air Acts updated air pollution standards that rein in big polluters by cutting back on mercury, carbon dioxide, arsenic and other life-threatening pollution in the air we breathe. EPA will take measured, common-sense steps to address greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and improve air quality. Taking these reasonable steps to update standards now will allow the Agency to better protect peoples health, drive technology innovation for a stronger economy, and protect the environment cost-effectively. In fact, creating more sustainable materials and products is an opportunity for American innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs. EPA is requesting $5.1 million in additional resources for Air Toxics and $6.2 million in upgrades to the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). Additional resources for air toxics will be used to improve EPAs air toxic monitoring capabilities and to improve dissemination of information between and among the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. Additional resources for the NVFEL will begin to address the anticipated more than four-fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine certificates EPA issues and the much more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated technologies. EPAs FY 2012 budget requests $46 million for efforts aimed to reduce GHG pollution and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This includes the $25 million described below for state grants focused on developing the technical capacity for addressing GHG pollution in their Clean Air Act permitting activities and an additional $5 million for related EPA efforts. $6 million in additional funding is included for the development and implementation of new emission standards that will reduce GHG pollution from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPAs assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this amount includes $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data.
ii
Protecting Americas Water Many of Americas waterbodies are imperiled from a variety of stressors, and EPA will work to confront the challenges from multiple angles local and national, traditional and innovative. In FY 2012, EPA will concentrate on a few targeted waterbodies. As part of the Administrations long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with States and communities to enhance technical, managerial and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand green infrastructure options and their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for the SRFs gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states, the annual funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. This request brings the four year total for SRFs to nearly $17 billion (FY 2009 FY 2012). EPA is increasing resources to address upstream pollution resources in the Mississippi River Basin. The Mississippi River Basin Program is funded at $6.0 million and will focus on nonpoint source program enhancements to spur water-quality improvement. This is supported by $600,000 for enforcement activities in the Basin. Resources for the Chesapeake Bay Program are increased by $17.4 million to $67.4 million to support our work under the President's Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay, for implementing a strategy to restore Bay water quality. While funding has gone down from 2010 levels, EPA will also continue to lead the implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, providing $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Continuing efforts in these and other clean water and drinking water projects reflects a commitment to leverage Federal agency partnerships to strengthen disadvantaged communities by reconnecting them with their waters and achieving communitybased goals.
iii
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships The mission of EPA is achieved through strong collaboration with states and tribes and reflects the Agencys overarching commitment to address the legitimate concerns of underserved communities and at-risk populations. This budget includes $1.2 billion for State and Tribal categorical grants, an increase of $85 million, to support States and Tribes to implement their environmental programs. Our partners are working diligently to implement updated standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) and need additional support during this time of constrained state budgets. The $306 million in State grant funding for air programs is above historical levels and necessary to meet the additional responsibilities associated with achieving air quality standards that better protect peoples health and the environment. Increases for air grants include $25 million for development and deployment of technical capacity needed to address GHG pollution in permitting under the CAA and $54 million to support increased state workload for implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An additional $21 million is requested for Water Pollution Control (Sec 106) grants. This increase addresses issues that continue to degrade water quality issues nationwide by supporting states as they focus on the continued development of water quality standards, identification of impaired waters, development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for use in permit actions, and targeted enforcement to address the most serious instances of noncompliance. An additional $4 million is requested for Public Water Systems Supervision (PWSS) grants to support management of state and drinking water system data. This will improve transparency and efficiency as it will replace the outdated Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version (SDWIS/State) and improve reporting and dissemination of drinking water system compliance information. $20 million is requested for the Tribal Multimedia Implementation grant program in order to help tribes move beyond building the capacity to plan, develop, and establish environmental protection programs under the GAP program to implementation. This is intended to advance negotiated environmental plans and activities on a cooperative basis between tribes and EPA, ensuring that tribal environmental priorities are adequately addressed. Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance The FY 2012 Presidents Budget includes approximately $621 million for EPAs enforcement and compliance assurance program. EPA enforcement programs face complex challenges that demand both traditional and innovative strategies to improve our effectiveness and efficiency in protecting the health of American families. Through the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative, EPA will begin to harness the tools of modern technology to address some of these challenges and make EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program more efficient and effective. EPA will start using 21st century electronic iv
reporting (e-reporting), monitoring tools, and market-based approaches to ensure a level playing field for American businesses. Maximizing the use of advanced data and monitoring tools will allow EPA to focus its limited inspection and enforcement resources in those areas where they are most effective or most necessary. These include complex industrial operations that require physical inspection, cases involving potentially significant harm to human health or the environment, potential criminal violations or repeat violators. In FY 2012, EPA will begin to review existing compliance reporting requirements to identify opportunities to use objective self-monitoring, self or third party certification, public accountability, advanced monitoring techniques, and electronic reporting requirements. EPA has focused on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities exist, in terms of scale and potential risk and proposes to increase oversight/monitoring of regulated high risk facilities in order to better implement prevention approaches. In FY 2012, as part of the Regaining Ground initiative, EPA will invest an additional $5 million to increase the number of inspections at high risk facilities like oil facilities regulated under the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations. Funding will also be used to develop and implement a third party audit program for non-high risk SPCC facilities, in order to improve the efficiency of targeting resources and inspectors at these facilities in the future. Enhancing Chemical Safety Americas citizens deserve to know the products they use are safe. To sustain progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies, EPA is improving how it assesses the safety of chemicals in the environment and the marketplace. FY 2012 represents a crucial stage in EPAs approach for enhancing chemical safety. The program has attained its zero tolerance goal in preventing introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce but many pre-TSCA chemicals already in commerce remain un-assessed. In FY 2012, EPA will continue with the transformation of its approach for ensuring chemical safety. EPAs approach will be centered on increasing the pace in assessing chemicals, strengthening information management, taking immediate and lasting actions to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks, and developing proven safer alternatives. This budget request includes a $16 million investment to more fully implement the Administrators Enhancing Chemical Safety initiative by taking action to reduce chemical risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to toxic chemical information. Funding will support implementation of chemical risk reduction v
actions that consider the impact of chemicals on childrens health and on disadvantaged, low income, and indigenous populations. The additional funding will help to close knowledge and risk management gaps for thousands of chemicals already in commerce by updating regulatory controls and other actions that decrease potential impacts to human health and the environment. EPA also will continue promoting use of safer chemicals, chemical management practices and technologies to enable the transition away from existing chemicals that present unreasonable human health and environmental risks. Supporting Healthy Communities The Environmental Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, is committed to protect, sustain or restore the health of communities and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of programs, tools, approaches and resources directed to the local level. A diversity of perspectives and experiences brings a wider range of ideas and approaches and creates opportunities for innovation. Results are drawn from both regulatory mechanisms and collaborative partnerships with stakeholders. Partnerships with international, Federal, state, tribal, and local governments and non-governmental organizations have long been a common thread across EPAs programs. The FY 2012 budget includes a $19.8 million multidisciplinary initiative for Healthy Communities. It supports states and communities in promoting healthier school environments by increasing technical support, outreach and co-leading Federal interagency coordination and integration efforts. It also provides resources to address air toxics within at-risk communities and to support the important joint DOT/HUD/EPA outreach and technical assistance efforts to encourage and facilitate sustainable development within communities. EPA supports the Americas Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative to develop a community-based 21st century conservation agenda that can also spur job creation in the tourism and recreation industries. EPA will join the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Council on Environmental Quality to lead the coordinated effort to leverage support across the Federal Government to help community-driven efforts to protect and restore our outdoor legacy. The area-wide planning and community support focus of existing EPA programs and initiatives like Urban Waters and Brownfields programs align well with the goals and objectives of this new initiative. Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation In FY 2012, EPA is restructuring our scientific research program to be more integrated and cross-disciplinary, allowing our scientific work to be more transformational. EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science to more deeply examine our environmental vi
and public health challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. By looking at problems from a systems perspective, this new research approach will create synergy and produce more timely and comprehensive results beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. In FY 2012, we are requesting a science and technology budget of $826 million. This amount includes increases to research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, green chemistry, e-waste and e-design, green infrastructure, computational toxicology, air monitoring, drinking water and Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) Fellowships. Science is and must continue to be the foundation of all our work at EPA. Good science leads to shared solutions; everyone benefits from clean air and clean water. Rigorous science leads to innovative solutions to complex environmental challenges. Most of the scientific research increases will support additional Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowships to make progress on these research priorities and leverage the expertise of the academic research community. This budget also supports the study of computational toxicology and other priority research efforts with a focus on advancing the design of sustainable solutions for reducing risks associated with environmentally hazardous substances. Two million dollars is also included to conduct a long-term review of EPAs laboratory network.
vii
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables APPROPRIATION SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 Budget Authority ...................................................................................................................... 3 Full-time Equivalents (FTE) ..................................................................................................... 4
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2010 Enacted Science & Technology Oil Spill Supplemental Science & Technology Environmental Program & Management Inspector General Building and Facilities Inland Oil Spill Programs Superfund Program IG Transfer S&T Transfer Hazardous Substance Superfund Leaking Underground Storage Tanks State and Tribal Assistance Grants SUB-TOTAL, EPA Rescission of Prior Year Funds SUB-TOTAL, EPA (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS) Recovery Act - EPM Recovery Act - IG Recovery Act - LUST Recovery Act - SF Recovery Act - STAG Recovery Act Resources TOTAL, EPA $0.0 $10,299,864.0 $846,049.0 $2,000.0 $848,049.0 FY 2010 Actuals $817,677.7 $0.0 $817,677.7 FY 2011 Annualized CR $846,049.0 $0.0 $846,049.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget $825,596.0 $0.0 $825,596.0
$2,993,779.0 $44,791.0 $37,001.0 $18,379.0 $1,269,732.0 $9,975.0 $26,834.0 $1,306,541.0
$2,966,637.1 $42,238.8 $39,548.8 $16,904.4 $1,372,230.3 $9,337.9 $28,032.8 $1,409,601.0
$2,993,779.0 $44,791.0 $37,001.0 $18,379.0 $1,269,732.0 $9,975.0 $26,834.0 $1,306,541.0
$2,876,634.0 $45,997.0 $41,969.0 $23,662.0 $1,203,206.0 $10,009.0 $23,016.0 $1,236,231.0
$113,101.0
$116,882.3
$113,101.0
$112,481.0
$4,978,223.0 $10,339,864.0 ($40,000.0)
$4,392,447.4 $9,801,937.5 $0.0
$4,978,223.0 $10,337,864.0 ($40,000.0)
$3,860,430.0 $9,023,000.0 ($50,000.0)
$10,299,864.0
$9,801,937.5 $22,237.5 $6,925.6 ($4,299.0) $5,190.3 $18,528.1 $48,582.5 $9,850,520.0
$10,297,864.0
$8,973,000.0
$0.0 $10,297,864.0
$0.0 $8,973,000.0
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more detailed Recovery Act Information.
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) FY 2010 Enacted Science & Technology Oil Spill Supplemental Science & Technology Science and Tech. - Reim Environmental Program & Management Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim Inspector General Inland Oil Spill Programs Inland Oil Spill Programs - Reim Superfund Program IG Transfer S&T Transfer Hazardous Substance Superfund Superfund Reimbursables Leaking Underground Storage Tanks WCF-REIMB Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund Pesticide Registration Fund Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O Recovery Act Reimbursable: S&T Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF Well Permit BLM SUB-TOTAL, FTE CEILING 2,442.5 2,442.5 3.0 FY 2010 Actuals 2,441.7 0.0 2,441.7 0.3 FY 2011 Annualized CR 2,442.5 0.0 2,442.5 3.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget 2,471.2 0.0 2,471.2 1.5
10,925.3 0.0 296.0 102.2 0.0 3,017.5 65.8 110.0 3,193.3 75.5
10,793.6 23.0 283.3 89.8 80.2 2,919.2 52.2 98.8 3,070.2 94.1
10,925.3 0.0 296.0 102.2 0.0 3,017.5 65.8 110.0 3,193.3 75.5
10,851.9 0.0 300.0 119.0 0.0 2,899.7 65.8 106.4 3,071.9 50.7
75.3 136.1 167.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,417.0
67.0 115.7 142.1 69.0 0.6 0.9 3.8 2.6 17,277.9
75.3 136.1 167.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,417.0
64.3 126.6 145.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,202.1
FY 2010 Enacted Pesticide Registration Fund1 TOTAL, EPA 69.0 17,486.0
FY 2010 Actuals 0.0 17,277.9
FY 2011 Annualized CR 69.0 17,486.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget 69.0 17,271.1
Presentation of reimbursable FTE for this account should not be interpreted as counting against the Agency ceiling, but rather a projection of reimbursable FTE to accurately and transparently account for the size of this program and the Agency Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more detailed Recovery Act Information.
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY ................................................................................... 8 Budget Authority ...................................................................................................................... 8 Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE) ................................................................................ 10 Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality ............................................. 12 Protecting America's Waters ..................................................................................................... 22 Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development .................................. 34 Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution .................................................. 47 Enforcing Environmental Laws ................................................................................................ 55
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2011 Annualized CR $1,130,427.9 $486,173.5 $286,884.9 $8,611.6 $339,655.5 $5,234.2 $3,868.2
FY 2010 Enacted Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities State and Tribal Assistance Grants Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund $1,130,427.9 $486,173.5 $286,884.9 $8,611.6 $339,655.5 $5,234.2 $3,868.2
FY 2010 Actuals $1,161,100.7 $487,910.3 $273,033.9 $9,322.0 $382,346.0 $4,447.5 $4,041.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $1,130,919.3 $500,817.9 $280,583.9 $10,179.9 $328,943.9 $6,290.5 $4,103.3
Protecting America's Waters Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities State and Tribal Assistance Grants Inspector General
$5,645,339.6 $1,202,988.5 $156,653.3 $5,924.4 $4,249,791.5 $29,981.8
$4,989,963.6 $1,191,126.7 $151,713.0 $6,286.7 $3,603,724.5 $37,112.7
$5,645,339.6 $1,202,988.5 $156,653.3 $5,924.4 $4,249,791.5 $29,981.8
$4,342,645.5 $1,034,492.8 $150,049.4 $6,849.6 $3,123,517.3 $27,736.3
Cleaning Up Our Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities State and Tribal Assistance Grants Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$2,075,066.9 $358,305.3 $206,733.3 $7,695.3 $327,692.9 $112,155.8
$2,232,328.3 $374,308.1 $203,209.3 $7,964.8 $363,451.3 $111,742.3
$2,073,066.9 $358,305.3 $204,733.3 $7,695.3 $327,692.9 $112,155.8
$2,017,061.5 $358,810.2 $188,420.7 $8,255.4 $346,330.2 $111,586.0
FY 2010 Enacted Inland Oil Spill Programs Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund $16,022.6 $4,811.3 $1,041,650.5
FY 2010 Actuals $14,509.1 $4,491.9 $1,152,651.5
FY 2011 Annualized CR $16,022.6 $4,811.3 $1,041,650.5
FY 2012 Pres Budget $20,540.6 $5,906.8 $977,211.7
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities State and Tribal Assistance Grants Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund
$681,126.8 $446,916.7 $179,545.2 $10,007.5 $34,708.6 $2,659.6 $7,289.2
$671,424.4 $446,415.0 $171,878.5 $11,095.6 $34,675.7 $1,812.8 $5,546.8
$681,126.8 $446,916.7 $179,545.2 $10,007.5 $34,708.6 $2,659.6 $7,289.2
$702,542.3 $457,466.5 $188,244.1 $11,446.4 $34,755.5 $3,320.2 $7,309.5
Enforcing Environmental Laws Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities State and Tribal Assistance Grants Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund
$807,902.7 $499,394.9 $18,232.2 $4,762.3 $26,374.6 $945.2 $2,356.4 $2,104.0 $253,733.0
$795,703.1 $489,114.6 $17,843.0 $4,879.7 $26,778.0 $841.0 $2,395.3 $1,299.5 $252,552.0
$807,902.7 $499,394.9 $18,232.2 $4,762.3 $26,374.6 $945.2 $2,356.4 $2,104.0 $253,733.0
$829,831.4 $525,046.6 $18,297.9 $5,237.7 $26,883.0 $895.0 $3,121.4 $2,743.2 $247,606.6
Sub-Total Rescission of Prior Year Funds Total
$10,339,864.0 ($40,000.0) $10,299,864.0
$9,850,520.0 $0.0 $9,850,520.0
$10,337,864.0 ($40,000.0) $10,297,864.0
$9,023,000.0 ($50,000.0) $8,973,000.0
Recovery Act funds are included in the goal totals above. See Appendix for more details on Recovery Act funds.
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE) FY 2011 Annualized CR 2,735.4 1,879.5 769.0 34.6 18.4 0.0 3.0 30.9 0.0
FY 2010 Enacted Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim Science and Tech. - Reim WCF-REIMB Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O 2,735.4 1,879.5 769.0 34.6 18.4 0.0 3.0 30.9 0.0
FY 2010 Actuals 2,714.2 1,874.2 767.5 25.6 18.5 1.5 0.3 26.5 0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget 2,809.2 1,937.9 780.0 41.0 18.7 0.0 1.5 30.0 0.0
Protecting America's Waters Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Inspector General Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim WCF-REIMB UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
3,501.9 2,793.0 484.3 198.1 0.0 26.4 0.0
3,471.3 2,761.6 466.4 213.9 5.0 21.7 2.6
3,501.9 2,793.0 484.3 198.1 0.0 26.4 0.0
3,433.9 2,734.9 494.0 180.9 0.0 24.1 0.0
Cleaning Up Our Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
4,483.9 1,707.0 555.0 69.9 84.9 31.8 1,932.6
4,517.2 1,725.4 545.5 62.6 74.7 25.9 1,885.7
4,483.9 1,707.0 555.0 69.9 84.9 31.8 1,932.6
4,338.3 1,661.3 533.5 59.8 100.9 38.5 1,869.6
10
FY 2010 Enacted Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim Inland Oil Spill Programs - Reim Superfund Reimbursables WCF-REIMB Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O Recovery Act Reimbursable: S&T Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF 0.0 0.0 75.5 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
FY 2010 Actuals 4.1 80.2 85.0 22.8 0.6 0.9 3.8
FY 2011 Annualized CR 0.0 0.0 75.5 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget 0.0 0.0 50.7 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Inspector General Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund Hazardous Substance Superfund Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim Pesticide Registration Fund WCF-REIMB
2,692.5 1,908.2 543.0 17.6 167.8 21.9 0.0 0.0 34.1
2,741.0 1,883.5 576.4 10.4 142.1 18.3 10.8 69.0 30.4
2,692.5 1,908.2 543.0 17.6 167.8 21.9 0.0 0.0 34.1
2,706.4 1,912.6 572.6 21.7 145.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 32.3
Enforcing Environmental Laws Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Inspector General Hazardous Substance Superfund Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim Superfund Reimbursables WCF-REIMB
4,003.2 2,637.6 91.1 5.4 17.3 13.9 1,220.3 0.0 0.0 17.6
3,834.3 2,548.9 85.8 4.4 15.1 7.5 1,147.7 1.5 9.1 14.2
4,003.2 2,637.6 91.1 5.4 17.3 13.9 1,220.3 0.0 0.0 17.6
3,914.3 2,605.1 91.1 4.5 18.1 17.9 1,161.3 0.0 0.0 16.2
Total
17,417.0
17,277.9
17,417.0
17,202.1
11
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate change, and protect and improve air quality. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: Reduce the threats posed by climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking actions that help communities and ecosystems become more resilient to the effects of climate change. Achieve and maintain health-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air pollutants and indoor air contaminants. Restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts should unwanted releases occur.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY Budget Authority Full-time Equivalents (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Address Climate Change Improve Air Quality Restore the Ozone Layer Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2011 Annualized CR
FY 2012 Pres Budget
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
$1,130,427.9 $196,886.4 $872,147.1 $18,662.6 $42,731.8 2,735.4
$1,161,100.7 $192,779.5 $906,658.7 $19,244.7 $42,417.8 2,714.2
$1,130,427.9 $196,886.4 $872,147.1 $18,662.6 $42,731.8 2,735.4
$1,130,919.3 $252,854.4 $820,451.3 $18,159.7 $39,453.9 2,809.2
$491.4 $55,968.0 ($51,695.8) ($502.9) ($3,277.9) 73.8
12
Goal 1 Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate change, and protect and improve air quality. Introduction EPA has dedicated itself to protecting and improving the quality of the Nations air to promote public health and protect the environment. Air pollution concerns are diverse and significant, and include: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, outdoor and indoor air quality, radon, stratospheric ozone depletion, and radiation protection. Since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly. Despite this progress, about 127 million Americans (about 40% of the US population) lived in counties with air that did not meet health-based standards for at least one pollutant in 2009. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of certain air pollutants has been associated with increased risk of cancer, premature mortality, and damage to the immune, neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. Short-term exposure to elevated levels of certain air pollutants can exacerbate asthma and lead to other adverse health effects; additional impacts associated with increased air pollution levels include missed work and school days. Because people spend much of their lives indoors, the quality of indoor air also is a major concern. Twenty percent of the population spends the day indoors in elementary and secondary schools, where problems with leaky roofs and with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems can lead to increased presence of molds and other environmental allergens which can trigger a host of health problems, including asthma and allergies. Exposure to indoor radon is related to an estimated 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year. The issues of highest importance facing the air program over the next few years will be ozone and particulate air pollution, interstate transport of air pollutants, emissions from transportation sources, toxic air pollutants, indoor air pollutants (including radon), and GHGs. EPA uses a variety of approaches to reduce pollutants in indoor and outdoor air. The Agency works with other federal agencies; state, Tribal, and local governments; and international partners and stakeholders; and employs strategies that include: traditional regulatory tools; innovative, market-based techniques; public- and private-sector partnerships; community-based approaches; voluntary programs that promote environmental stewardship; and programs that encourage costeffective technologies and practices. EPAs air toxic control programs are critical to EPAs continued progress in reducing public health risks and improving the quality of the environment. EPA has been unable to meet many of the statutory deadlines for air toxics standards established in the Clean Air Act due to numerous unfavorable court decisions, inherent management challenges, complexity of risk modeling frameworks, and budget constraints over the past decade as resources have shifted to
13
managing criteria pollutants that pose higher overall health risks. Lawsuits over missed deadlines have in many cases set the Agencys agenda, rather than health and environmental outcomes. Working with litigants and informed by analysis of air quality health risk data, EPA is working to prioritize key air toxics regulations for completion in 2011 and 2012 that can be completed expeditiously and that will address significant risks to the public health. The supply and diversity of biofuels in America is growing every year, and a new generation of automobile technologies, including several new plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles, is literally hitting the road this year. Because EPA is responsible for establishing the test procedures needed to estimate the fuel economy of new vehicles, and for verifying car manufacturers data on fuel economy, the Agency is investing in additional testing and certification capacity to ensure that new vehicles, engines, and fuels are in compliance with new vehicle and fuel standards. In particular, compared to conventional vehicles, advanced technology vehicles like Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (EV) require additional testing. Current electric vehicle dynamometer testing can occupy test cells for several shifts, since the current test procedures require the vehicles run through their entire battery charge. Improved, shortened EV test procedures are under development by EPA. PHEV testing may actually consume more time than EV testing, due primarily to the requirement that PHEVs be tested in both electric/electric assist mode and in hybrid mode. Without testing PHEVs in both modes, EPA cannot accurately determine PHEV fuel economy and emissions compliance. The new standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions in particular will require EPA to more frequently verify car manufacturers data for a greater variety of vehicle engine technologies. To prepare for this workload, the Agency will continue its support of the multi-year National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) modernization effort. Major FY 2012 Investment Areas Air Toxics In FY 2012, EPA will invest $6.1 million in several activities that support the air toxics program. $3.1 million will be targeted at improvements in monitoring capabilities on source-specific and ambient bases. These funds will also improve the dissemination of information between and amongst the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. The remaining $2.9 million of this investment will be used for enhancing tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA), National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA), BenMAP, and Air Facility System (AFS), which will also improve monitoring capabilities. EPA anticipates that this investment will substantially increase the Agencys ability to meet aggressive court ordered schedules to complete rulemaking activities, such as standards to address the refining sector where 25 rules must be acted upon in the fiscal year. This investment will also assist the Agency in its work to complete or develop an additional 150 rules in FY 2013 that are under legal or statutory deadlines.
14
Support for State Air Quality Management EPA is investing an additional $77 million in state assistance grants to support NAAQS implementation and greenhouse gas permitting. Specific increases include $25 million to assist in permitting greenhouse gas emissions sources. These funds will develop and deploy to states the technical capacity needed to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in permitting under the Clean Air Act. An additional $52 million will support increased state workload for implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This investment includes requested funding of $15 million for additional state air monitors, as required by the revised NAAQS. The request also includes an additional $37.0 million to support state activities, including revising state implementation plans (SIPs) and developing models and emissions inventories needed for multi-state air quality management strategies. Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions In order to promote fiscal responsibility EPA is also making the tough choices, including: In the face of significant budget constraints, EPA has made the difficult budget decision to not propose new DERA grant funding in FY 2012. During this time, the program will continue to support already on-going projects funded through DERA and stimulus funds, adding to the tremendous public health benefits associated with the program that have resulted from significant reductions in air pollution, particularly in our cities and around our ports and transportation hubs. Discontinuing the Climate Leaders program as large businesses find assistance with their energy-saving and GHG reducing actions through private entities. Reducing funding for the Indoor Air programs partnership and outreach to external stakeholders and for the Radiation and Indoor Environments laboratories. Priority Goals EPA has established two Priority Goals to improve the countrys ability to measure and control Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The Priority Goals are: Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mandatory Reporting Rule By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100 percent of facility-level GHG emissions data submitted to EPA in accordance with the GHG Reporting Rule, compliant with policies protecting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Light Duty Vehicles In 2011, EPA, working with DOT, will begin implementation of regulations designed to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the US starting with model year 2012.
15
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate. FY 2012 Activities Reducing GHG Emissions and Developing Adaptation Strategies to Address Climate Change Climate change poses risks to public health, the environment, cultural resources, the economy, and quality of life. Many effects of climate change are already evident and some will persist into the future regardless of future levels of GHG emissions. Climate change impacts include higher temperatures and may lead to more stagnant air masses which are expected to make it more challenging to achieve air quality standards for smog in many regions of the country, adversely affecting public health if areas cannot attain or maintain clean air. Another example is that a rise in sea level or increased precipitation intensity may increase flooding, which could affect water quality if large volumes of water transport contaminants and overload storm and wastewater systems. In order to protect public health and the environment, EPA and air and water quality managers at the state, tribal, and local levels must recognize and consider the challenge a changing climate poses to their mission. Responding to the threat of climate change is one of the Agency's top priorities. EPAs strategies to address climate change support the President's GHG emissions reduction goals. We will work with partners and stakeholders to provide tools and information related to GHG emissions and impacts, and will reduce GHG emissions domestically and internationally through cost-effective, voluntary programs while pursuing additional regulatory actions as needed. In FY 2012, the Agency will begin some new areas of activity, expand some existing strategies, and discontinue others. These efforts include: Implementing new standards to reduce emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 through 2016, extending that program to model year 2017 and beyond, and creating a similar program to reduce GHGs from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-2018. Establishing permitting requirements for facilities including utilities and refineries that emit large amounts of GHGs to encourage design and construction of more efficient and advanced processes that will contribute to a clean energy economy. Promulgating New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases for the electric utility generation and refinery sectors. Implementing voluntary programs that reduce GHGs through the greater use of energy efficient technologies and products. Implementing a national system for reporting GHG emissions; implementing permitting requirements for new and modified facilities that emit substantial amounts of GHGs. Working with Congress on options for cost-effective legislation to promote a clean energy future and address GHG emissions.
16
Developing a comprehensive report to Congress on black carbon that will provide a foundation for evaluating future approaches to black carbon mitigation. Identifying and assessing substitute chemical and ozone-depleting substances and processes for their global warming potential. Educating the public about climate change and actions people can take to reduce GHG emissions. Improving Air Quality Clean Air Addressing outdoor air pollution and the interstate transport of air pollution are top priorities for the Agency. Elevated levels of air pollution are linked to thousands of asthma cases and heart attacks, and almost 2 million lost school or work days. EPA recently strengthened the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, is in the process of reviewing the particulate matter and carbon monoxide standards, and is reconsidering the 2008 ozone standard. Over the next few years, EPA will work with states and Tribes to designate areas where the air does not meet these standards, and develop and implement plans to meet the NAAQS. In FY 2011, EPA plans to finalize the Transport Rule, which is expected to be implemented in FY 2012. This rule will reduce power plant emissions that drift across the borders of 31 eastern states and the District of Columbia. The new transport rule, along with local and state air pollution controls, is designed to help areas in the eastern United States meet existing health standards for ozone and particulate matter. As EPA addresses these pollutants, the Agency also is working to improve the overall air quality management system and address the air quality challenges expected over the next 10 to 20 years. This includes working with partners and stakeholders to develop comprehensive air quality strategies that address multiple pollutants and consider the interplay between air quality and factors such as land use, energy, and transportation. Mobile sources (including light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles; on-road vehicles and off-road engines; as well as ships, aircraft and trains) contribute a substantial percentage of the nations pollution burden. EPA addresses emissions from motor vehicles, engines, and fuels through an integrated strategy that combines regulatory approaches that take advantage of technological advances and cleaner and higher-quality fuels with voluntary programs that reduce vehicle, engine, and equipment activity and emissions. Future regulatory activity includes proposing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards in FY 2012 in response to the May 2010 Presidential Directive and new on-board diagnostic requirements for non-road diesel engines. In the fuels area, EPA is working with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and others to implement regulations to increase the amount of renewable fuel blended into gasoline. Air Toxics As part of the investment in air toxics, EPA will work with affected communities to address risks and track progress, with additional emphasis on communities that may be disproportionately impacted by toxic air emissions. The Agency will continue to work with state and local air pollution control agencies and community groups to assess and address air toxics emissions in
17
areas of greatest concern, including where the most vulnerable members of our population live, work, and go to school. EPA is implementing a sector-based strategy to develop rules that will achieve the greatest reductions in risks from air toxics, provide regulatory certainty for sources, and meet the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act. The sector-based strategy and the investment in FY 2012 will assist EPA in addressing 25 rules in the refining sector that are under legal deadlines and various Risk Technology Reviews (RTR) that are under legal deadlines. This strategy includes: Prioritize rules for large stationary sources of air toxics, providing the greatest opportunity for cost-effective emissions reductions; including petroleum refining; iron and steel; chemical manufacturing; utilities; non-utility boilers; oil and gas; and Portland cement. Emissions from every one of these seven key categories occur in areas where there is the potential to disproportionately affect minority communities. Reduce air toxic emissions from chemical plants and refineries. While many chemical and refining emission points are well understood, some sources, such as leaks from process piping, startups and shutdown, malfunctions, flaring, and wastewater are more difficult to characterize, and may not be sufficiently controlled. Provide better information to communities through monitoring, including facility fence line and remote monitoring, and national assessments. Involve other related organizations and stakeholders in planning and implementation. Improve data collection both through efforts directed by OAR and through enhanced data collection during enforcement activities. Indoor Air The Indoor Air Program characterizes the risks of indoor air pollutants to human health including radon, environmental triggers of asthma, and tobacco smoke; develops techniques for reducing those risks; and educates the public about indoor air quality (IAQ) actions they can take to reduce their risks from IAQ problems. Often the people most exposed to indoor air pollutants are those most susceptible to the effectsthe young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. In FY 2012, funding will be reduced for partnership and outreach support with external stakeholders and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE), and the Tools for Schools program will be eliminated. Despite these reductions, EPA will continue to educate and encourage individuals, local communities, school officials, industry, the health-care community, Tribal programs, and others to take action to reduce health risks in indoor environments such as homes, schools, and workplaces. Outreach includes national public awareness and media campaigns, as well as community-based outreach and education. EPA also uses technologytransfer to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of buildings including schools, homes, and workplaces to promote healthier indoor air. The focus of all these efforts is to support communities and state and local agencies efforts to address indoor air quality health risks. The Radon Program promotes action to reduce the public's risk to indoor radon (second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer). In FY 2012, EPA will reduce regional support for Radon Program outreach, education, guidance, and technical assistance. Despite these reductions, this
18
non-regulatory program will continue to encourage and facilitate national, regional, state, and Tribal programs and activities that support initiatives targeted to radon testing and mitigation, as well as to radon resistant new construction. Funding is maintained for the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, which provides categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs that assess and mitigate radon risks. In FY 2011, EPA launched a new radon initiative with other federal agencies to significantly increase attention to radon testing, mitigation and public education opportunities within each agencys sphere of responsibility. Implementation of these strategies will be pursued in FY 2012. Stratospheric Ozone Domestic and Montreal Protocol EPAs stratospheric ozone protection program implements the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Act) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), continuing the control and reduction of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the U.S. and lowering health risks to the American public. As ODS and many of their substitutes are also potent GHGs, appropriate control and reduction of these substances also provides significant benefits for climate protection. The Act provides for a phase out of production and consumption of ODS and requires controls on their use, including banning certain emissive uses, requiring labeling to inform consumer choices, and requiring sound servicing practices for the use of ODS in various products (e.g., air conditioning and refrigeration). The Act also prohibits venting ODS or their substitutes, including other Fluorinated gases (F-gases) such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is committed to ensuring that our domestic program is at least as stringent as international obligations and to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically. In FY 2012, EPA will focus its work to ensure that ODS production and import caps under the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act continue to be met. Radiation In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies, states, Tribes, stakeholders, and international radiation protection organizations to develop and use voluntary and regulatory programs, public information, and training to reduce public exposure to radiation. Responding to advances in uranium production processes and mining operations, the Agency is updating its radiation protection standards for the uranium fuel cycle, which were developed over 30 years ago, to ensure that they continue to be protective of public health and the environment. In FY 2012, EPAs Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), a component of the Agencys emergency response structure, will continue to ensure that it maintains and improves the level of readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
19
Research In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing a more integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. This approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. EPA is realigning and integrating the work of twelve of its base research programs into four new research programs (further described in the Highlighted programs section of the appendix): Air, Climate, and Energy Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Sustainable and Healthy Communities Chemical Safety and Sustainability The new Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) program (Figure 1) integrates existing EPA research programs on environmental and human health impacts related to air pollution, mercury, climate change, and biofuels. Protecting human health and the environment from the effects of air pollution and climate change, while sustainably meeting the demands of a growing population and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation and the world. As we explore emerging technologies to reduce emissions, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding human health and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants. This multifaceted environment reflects the interplay of air quality, the changing climate, and emerging energy options. By integrating air, climate and energy research EPA will conduct research to understand the complexity of these interactions and provide models and tools necessary for communities and for policy makers at all levels of government to make the best decisions. The ACE research program is working with partners from across EPA, as well as applicable external stakeholders, to identify the critical science questions that will be addressed under three major research themes. Theme 1: Develop and evaluate multi-pollutant, regional, and sector-based approaches and advance more cost-effective and innovative strategies to reduce air emissions that adversely affect atmospheric integrity. Theme 2: Assess the impacts of atmospheric pollution, accounting for interactions between climate change, air quality, and water quality. Theme 3: Provide environmental modeling, monitoring, metrics, and information needed by communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
20
Figure 1: This illustrates the EPA Research budget under the FY 2012 Budget Request, which includes 4 new integrated programs and continues 2 programs. The new integrated Air, Climate and Energy Research program will address EPA Strategic Plan Goal 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Ensuring Air Quality. This budget structure will maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of EPAs new integrated, transdisciplinary approach to research, which will catalyze innovative, sustainable solutions to the problems being addressed by our research partners.
In FY 2012, the ACE research program will study the generation, fate, transport, and chemical transformation of air emissions to identify individual and population health risks. The program will incorporate air, climate, and biofuel research to ensure the development of sustainable solutions and attainment of statutory goals in a complex multipollutant environment. The ACE program will conduct research to better understand and assess the effects of global change on air quality, water quality, aquatic ecosystems, land use (e.g. for biofuel feedstocks), human health and social well being and will conduct systems-based sustainability analyses that include environmental, social and economic dimensions. Research will also determine how the use of new and existing biofuels will affect critical ecosystem services and human health. The goal of this work is to explore how modified behaviors and technology designs could decrease the potential impacts of biofuels. EPA will continue to leverage the success of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program, which supports innovative and cutting-edge research from scientists in academia through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPAs overall research efforts.
21
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Protecting America's Waters Protect and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: Reduce human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters, including protecting source waters. Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a watershed basis, and protect urban, coastal, and ocean waters.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY Budget Authority Full-time Equivalents (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2011 Annualized CR $5,645,339.6 $1,837,338.4 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($1,302,694.1) ($467,376.3)
FY 2010 Enacted Protecting America's Waters Protect Human Health Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems Total Authorized Workyears $5,645,339.6 $1,837,338.4
FY 2010 Actuals $4,989,963.6 $1,614,421.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $4,342,645.5 $1,369,962.1
$3,808,001.2 3,501.9
$3,375,542.5 3,471.3
$3,808,001.2 3,501.9
$2,972,683.4 3,433.9
($835,317.8) -68.0
22
Goal 2 Protecting Americas Waters Protect and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities. Introduction While much progress has been made, Americas waters remain imperiled. From nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking water contaminants, water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges that demand both traditional and innovative strategies. EPA will work hand-in-hand with states and tribes to develop nutrient limits and intensify our work to restore and protect the quality of the nations streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans, and aquifers. We will also use our authority to protect and restore threatened natural treasures such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico; to address our neglected urban rivers; to ensure safe drinking water; and, to reduce pollution from nonpoint and industrial dischargers. EPA will continue to work on measures to address postconstruction runoff, water-quality impairments from surface mining, and drinking water contamination. Recent national surveys1 have found that our waters are stressed by nutrient pollution, excess sedimentation, and degradation of shoreline vegetation, which affect upwards of 50 percent of our lakes and streams. The rate at which new waters are listed for water quality impairments exceeds the pace at which restored waters are removed from the list. For many years, nonpoint source pollution, principally nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments, has been recognized as the largest remaining impediment to improving water quality. However, pollution discharged from industrial, municipal, agricultural, and stormwater point sources continue to cause a decline in the quality of our waters. Other significant contributors include loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, and hydrologic alteration. To continue making progress, the Agency needs effective partnerships with the states, tribes and communities. We will continue the increased focus on communities, particularly those disadvantaged communities facing disproportionate impacts or having been historically underserved. As part of the Administrations long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with States and Communities to enhance technical, managerial and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) gradually adjust, taking into account
1
U.S. EPA, 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nations Streams. EPA 841-B-06-002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey. See also EPA, 2010. National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nations Lakes. EPA 841-R-09-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/lakessurvey/pdf/nla_chapter0.pdf.
23
repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states, the annual funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. Major FY 2012 Investment Areas Water Quality The Section 106 grant program supports prevention and control measures that improve water quality. In FY 2012, EPA is requesting a total additional investment of $21 million in Section 106 funding of which $18.3 million will strengthen state and interstate programs to address Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), nutrient and wet weather issues. Approximately $2.7 million of the additional funding will be directed to eligible tribes to meet funding needs for tribal water quality programs. Drinking Water In FY 2012, an additional $5.2 million is being requested to replace obsolete and expensive to maintain drinking water information system technology, support state data management, develop the capability to post drinking water compliance monitoring data on a secured internet portal, facilitate compliance monitoring data collection and transfer, and improve data quality. EPA, in concert with states, is working to collect and display all compliance monitoring data as part of the Drinking Water Strategy. This increase will also be used to replace SDWIS-State, reducing state need to keep individual compliance databases. Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions Reducing funds for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, while continuing federal support for safe drinking water, will result in fewer new projects. Reducing funds for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, while continuing federal support clean water infrastructure, will result in fewer projects. Reducing funds for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, while maintaining a significant investment in activities such as sediment cleanup and habitat restoration. Reducing funds for state Nonpoint Source grants will result in 100 to 150 fewer projects as compared to 716 projects funded in FY 2010.
24
Priority Goals EPA has established two Priority Goals to improve water quality. The Priority Goals are: Improve Water Quality: Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010 and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPAs final Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Improve Water Quality: Drinking Water Standards Over the next two years, EPA will initiate review/revision of at least 4 drinking water standards to strengthen public health protection. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate. FY 2012 Activities EPA has identified core water program activities within its safe and clean water programs in FY 2012 to highlight three of the Administrators priority areas: Urban Waters, the Drinking Water Strategy, and Climate Change. The National Water Program will continue to place emphasis on watershed stewardship, watershed-based approaches, water efficiencies, and best practices through Environmental Management Systems. EPA will specifically focus on green infrastructure, nutrients, and trading among point sources and non-point sources for water quality upgrades. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue advancing the water quality monitoring initiative and a water quality standards strategy under the Clean Water Act, as well as important rules and activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Related efforts to improve monitoring and surveillance will help advance water security nationwide. In FY 2012, the Agency will begin some new areas of activity, expand some existing strategies, and discontinue others. Drinking Water To help achieve the Administrators priority to protect Americas waters, in FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the new Drinking Water Strategy, a new approach to expanding public health protection for drinking water. The Agency will focus on regulating groups of drinking water contaminants, improving water treatment technology, utilizing the authority of multiple statutes where appropriate, and, expanding its communication with states, tribes and communities to increase confidence in the quality of drinking water. During FY 2012, EPA, the states, and community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the FY 2012 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the population served by
25
community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. States carry out a variety of activities, such as conducting onsite sanitary surveys of water systems and working with small systems to improve their capabilities. EPA will work to improve implementation by providing guidance, training, and technical assistance; ensuring proper certification of water system operators; promoting consumer awareness of drinking water safety; and maintaining the rate of system sanitary surveys and onsite reviews to promote compliance with drinking water standards. To help ensure that water is safe to drink and because aging drinking water infrastructure can impact water quality, EPA requests $990 million to continue EPAs commitment for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This request will fund new infrastructure improvement projects for public drinking water systems. EPA will, in concert with the states, focus this affordable, flexible financial assistance to support utility compliance with safe drinking water standards. EPA will also work with utilities to promote technical, financial, and managerial capacity as a critical means to meet infrastructure needs, and further enhance program performance and efficiency. Homeland Security EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nations critical water infrastructure from terrorist threats. In FY 2012, EPA will continue efforts towards protecting the nations water infrastructure. In FY 2012, the Agency will provide technical support to the existing Water Security Initiative (WSI) pilots, assist in conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons learned from the pilots to the water sector, and develop and execute an approach to promote national voluntary adoption of effective and sustainable drinking water contamination warning systems. The FY 2012 request includes $7.3 million for WSI pilot support and evaluation activities, as well as dissemination of information and transfer of knowledge. Additionally, the FY 2012 request includes $1.3 million for Water Laboratory Alliance for threat reduction efforts. Clean Water In FY 2012, EPA will continue to collaborate with states and tribes to make progress toward EPAs clean water goals. EPAs FY 2012 request includes a total of $444 million in categorical grants for clean water programs. EPA will implement core clean water programs and promising innovations on a watershed basis to accelerate water quality improvements. Building on 30 years of clean water successes, EPA, in conjunction with states and tribes, will implement the Clean Water Act by focusing on TMDLs and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits built upon scientifically sound water quality standards, technology-based pollutant discharge limits, effective water monitoring, strong programs for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution, stringent discharge permit programs, and revolving fund capitalization grants to our partners to build, revive, and green our aging infrastructure.
26
WQ-8a # of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)
50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Annual Target End-of-Year Results
The Agencys FY 2012 request continues the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to strengthen the nationwide monitoring network and complete statistically-valid surveys of the nations waters. The results of these efforts are scientifically-defensible water quality data and information essential for cleaning up and protecting the nations waters. Progress in improving coastal and ocean waters documented in the National Coastal Condition Report, will focus on assessing coastal conditions, reducing vessel discharges, implementing coastal nonpoint source pollution programs, managing dredged material and supporting international marine pollution control. EPA will continue to provide annual capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to enable EPA partners to improve wastewater treatment, non-point sources of pollution, and estuary revitalization. Realizing the long-term benefits derived from the CWSRF, EPA is continuing our CWSRF commitment by requesting $1.55 billion in FY 2012. By integrating sustainable community efforts and urban water quality efforts, EPA plans to assist communities, particularly underserved communities, in restoring their urban waters. EPA will help communities become active participants in restoration and protection by helping to increase their awareness and stewardship of local urban waters. Safe and clean urban waters can enhance economic, educational, recreational, and social opportunities. By linking water quality improvement activities to these community priorities and partnering with federal, state, local, and non-governmental partners, EPA will help to sustain local commitment over the longer time frame that is required for water quality improvement. In FY 2012, EPA will provide grants to reconnect communities with their local urban waters and engage them in local restoration efforts. Focus areas may include: promoting green infrastructure to reduce contaminated, urban runoff; promoting volunteer monitoring; and tailoring outreach to communities. As urban waters impact large populations in both urban and upstream areas, this grants program will offer visibility to innovative approaches for water quality improvement that can be adapted in surrounding communities, thus promoting replication of successful practices. EPA will continue to address climate change impacts to water resource programs as well as to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from water activities by building capacity to consider climate change as core missions under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
27
Act are implemented. Climate change will exacerbate water quality stressors such as stormwater and nutrient pollution and could add new stressors such as those related to the expanding renewable energy development. WaterSense, Climate Ready Estuaries, Climate Ready Water Utilities and Green Infrastructure are examples of programs that will help stakeholders adapt to climate change in FY 2012, and programs targeted at vulnerable populations will be increasingly important. Efforts to incorporate climate change considerations into key programs will help protect water quality as well as the nations investment in drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. Geographic Water Programs The Administration has launched numerous cross-agency collaborations to promote coordination among agencies toward achieving Presidential priorities, which include a suite of large aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts. Three prominent examples of this kind of cross-agency collaboration for EPA are cooperative restoration efforts in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. These three large water bodies have been exposed to substantial pollution over many years and a coordinated federal response is critical for maintaining progress on environmental priorities. Coastal estuaries and wetlands are also vulnerable. Working with stakeholders, EPA has established special programs to protect and restore each of these unique resources. EPAs ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that address specific at-risk regional areas and larger categories of threatened systems, such as urban waters, estuaries, and wetlands. Locally generated pollution, combined with pollution carried by rivers and streams and through air deposition, can accumulate in these ecosystems and degrade them over time. EPA and Federal partners will continue to coordinate with States, Tribes, municipalities, and industry to restore the integrity of imperiled waters of the United States. Great Lakes: EPA is providing $350 million in funding for ecosystem restoration efforts for the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world. This EPA-led interagency effort to restore the Great Lakes focuses on priority environmental issues such as contaminated sediments and toxics, nonpoint source pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species. To restore and protect this national treasure, the Obama Administration developed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Led by EPA, the GLRI invests in the regions environmental and public health through a coordinated interagency process. Principal agencies involved in the GLRI are USDA, NOAA, HHS, DHS, HUD, DOS, DOD-Army, DOI, and DOT. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to lead the implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, implementing both federal projects and projects with states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Progress will continue in each of the GLRIs five focus areas through implementation of on-the-ground actions. The GLRI provides the level of investment and the interagency coordination required to successfully address these five issues across the region. The initiative will specifically target work to restore beneficial uses in Areas of Concern, including Great Lakes Legacy Act projects, nearshore work, and habitat restoration, prioritizing delistings of Areas of Concern.
28
The initiative identifies $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem, a $125 million decrease from FY 2010, the first year of the initiative. The initiative will implement the most important projects for Great Lakes Restoration and achieve visible results. FY 2012 activities will emphasize implementation and include grants to implement the Initiative by funding states, tribes and other partners. EPA expects substantial progress within each of the Initiatives focus areas by focusing on the following actions within them: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern: EPA is working closely with non-Federal partners to address beneficial use impairments in areas of concern including Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-ups of contaminated sediments. Invasive Species: GLRI has supported priority Asian Carp work including; the installation of structures by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at the electric barrier site to reduce the risk of bypass by Asian carp; and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Illinois Department of Natural Resource efforts to detect and remove Asian Carp from the system. As needed, GLRI will invest in additional efforts to keep Asian Carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes while continuing to address Invasive Species priorities such as the development of Ballast Water Treatment technologies; assistance to states and communities in preventing the introduction of invasive species and controlling existing populations; establishing early detection and rapid response capabilities; and the implementation of Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans by the FWS partnership. Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source: Targeted watershed plan implementation will be undertaken by EPA, U.S. Department of Agricultures Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), FWS, USGS, state programs, and tribal governments. Additionally, GLRI funds have been marked for NRCS to work directly with agricultural producers in specific, high priority watersheds to install conservation practices on their operations to reduce soil erosion and non-point source nutrient loading to waters of the Great Lakes Basin. Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration: GLRI funding has been targeted for FWS efforts to fund projects related to species and habitat management such as restoring wetlands, improving the hydrology of Great Lakes tributaries, reforesting habitats, reducing impacts of invasive species, and creating and/or improving corridors between habitats. Additionally, NRCS supports habitat restoration and protection efforts of agricultural lands through the programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships: EPAs National Coastal Condition Assessment will provide a framework and organization for a Comprehensive Great Lakes Coastal Assessment that will establish baseline conditions of environmental quality and variability of the near-shore waters, bottom substrate, and biota. All agencies will participate in the Great Lakes Accountability System where partner agencies will report quality controlled information regularly on GLRI progress in meeting the objectives and targets of this Action Plan.
29
EPA expects to reach a target of 23.9 using a 40.0 scale for improving the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and protect aquatic systems. Also by FY 2012, EPA expects to have removed 26 beneficial use impairments from AOCs within the basin. Chesapeake Bay: Increased funding for the Chesapeake Bay will support Bay watershed States as they implement their plans to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in an unprecedented effort to restore this economically important ecosystem. President Obamas 2009 Executive Order (EO) tasked a team of federal agencies to draft a way forward for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake watershed. This teamthe Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bayis chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior representatives from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation. The FLC developed the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which was released in May 2010. Work that has taken place under the EO can be categorized according to the Goal Areas and Supporting Strategies identified in the EO Strategy, specifically around its four Goal Areas of work: Restore Water Quality: Examples of efforts in this area include: EPA issuance of a TMDL for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to meet water quality standards; USDA development of suites of conservation practices to improve water quality and targeting of technical and financial assistance in high-priority watersheds; EPA/DOI/NOAA research and partnerships to address toxic pollutant contamination in the Bay. Restore Habitat: Examples of efforts in this area include: the partnership among USFWS, NOAA, USGS, NRCS, FHWA, and NPS to restore and enhance wetlands and to conduct supporting research; the partnership among USDA, USFS, and USFWS to restore riparian forest buffers; work by USFWS, NOAA, and NRCS to restore historical fish migratory routes; and work by Federal agencies in general, including USFWS, USGS, NOAA, EPA, USACE, NRCS, and USFS, to strengthen science support for habitat restoration. Sustain Fish and Wildlife: Examples of efforts in this area include: work by NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to restore native oyster habitat and populations; NOAAs work to rebuild the blue crab population target; work by USFWS, USFS, and NOAA to restore brook trout, black duck, and other species; NRCSs work to support the establishment and protection of terrestrial habitat on private lands; the partnership among NOAA, USACE, USFWS, USGS, states and local organizations to strengthen science support to sustain fish and wildlife. Conserve Land and Increase Public Access: Examples of efforts in this area include: collaboration among DOI, USDA, NOAA, DOT, DOD, states and local agencies on the launch of a Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative; work by NPS, USFWS, USDA, NOAA, USGS, DOT, and HUD on coordinated conservation actions, watershed-wide GIS-
30
based land conservation targeting system, and developing integrated transportation, land use, housing and water infrastructure plans for smart growth. The $67.4 million Chesapeake Bay program FY 2012 budget request will allow EPA to continue to implement the Presidents Executive Order (E.O.) on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, to implement the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), to facilitate coordination of goals and activities of federal, state and local partners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, to support the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions in implementing the TMDL, to assist program partners in their protection and restoration efforts, to increase the accountability and transparency of the program, to continue responding to oversight reports, and to address other priority initiatives as they arise. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the nations largest and most complex TMDL, will necessitate significant scientific, technical, and programmatic support to states and local jurisdictions in developing and implementing the most appropriate programs for meeting their responsibilities under the TMDL allocations. EPA has engaged multiple programs and offices to provide the regulatory, legal, enforcement, and technical support necessary to meet these challenges. EPA is committed to its ambitious long-term goals of 100 percent attainment of dissolved oxygen standards in waters of the Chesapeake Bay and 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Along with its federal and state partners, EPA has stated its intention to establish two-year milestones for all actions needed to restore water quality, habitats, and fish and shellfish. Other Geographic Programs: In FY 2012 EPA will continue cooperation with federal, state and Tribal governments and other stakeholders toward achieving the national goal of no net loss of wetlands under the Clean Water Action Section 404 regulatory program. The FY 2012 budget request for NEPs and coastal watersheds is $27.1 million to help accomplish a target of 100,000 acres protected or restored within National Estuary Program study areas. After the recent catastrophe from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Obama signed Executive Order 13554 which established the Gulf Coat Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, chaired by EPA Administrator Jackson. The Task Force will serve as the Federal lead in Gulf Coast restoration, building off of the tremendous early efforts of the Working Group, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and others, while working to assist the Deepwater Horizon NRD Trustee Council. The Trustee Council will focus on restoring, rehabilitating, or replacing the natural resources damaged by the oil spill, while the Task Force and its Federal agency partners will focus their individual efforts on the broader suite of impacts afflicting the Gulf Coast region. The Task Force will provide a broad vision and strategy to guide federal cooperative efforts to address the degradation of this region and to reverse longstanding problems that have contributed to its decline. The Executive Order tasked the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force with developing a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy within one year. The Strategy will
31
identify major policy areas where coordinated Federal-state action is necessary and will also consider existing restoration planning efforts in the region to identify planning gaps and restoration needs, both on a state-by-state basis and on a broad regional scale, setting milestones and performance indicators by which to measure progress of the long-term restoration effort. This strategy, combined with the NRD restoration plan, will likely serve to inform Federal investments in ecosystem restoration in the Gulf region over the next decade. EPA will provide assistance to other federal, state, and local partners to ensure that the water, wetlands, and beaches will be restored, and the surrounding communities will be revitalized. As a complement to the Agencys actions in the immediate Gulf coast, EPAs Mississippi River Basin program will address excessive nutrient loadings that contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Working with the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, Gulf of Mexico Alliance and other states within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, and other federal agencies, EPA will help target efforts within 2-3 critical watersheds to implement effective strategies that can yield significant progress in addressing nonpoint source nutrient pollution. Research In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. This approach will allow EPA to consider a broader set of issues and objectives while bridging traditional scientific disciplines. EPA is realigning and integrating the work of twelve of its base research programs into four new research programs (as discussed further in the Goal 1 overview and appendix): Air, Climate, and Energy Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Sustainable and Healthy Communities Chemical Safety and Sustainability EPA will use these integrated research programs to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY 2012, the Agency proposes to realign elements of the Water Quality and Drinking Water research programs into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research (SSWR) Program. Increased demands, land use practices, population growth, aging infrastructure, and climate variability, pose challenges to our nation's water resources. Such competing interests require the development of innovative new solutions for water resource managers and other decision makers. To address these challenges, EPA research will enable the following in FY 2012: Protection and restoration of watersheds to provide water quality necessary for sustained ecosystem health. Treatment technologies and management strategies needed to ensure water is safe to drink.
32
Water infrastructure capable of the sustained delivery of safe water, providing for the removal and treatment of wastewater consistent with its sustainable and safe re-use, and management of stormwater in a manner that values it as a resource and a component of sustainable water resources. The new SSWR research program will address and adapt to future water resources management needs to ensure that natural and engineered water systems have the capacity and resiliency to meet current and future water needs to support the range of growing water-use and ecological requirements. Through the SSWR program, the research program is investing an additional $6.1 million to address potential water supply endangerments associated with hydraulic fracturing (HF). Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agencys efforts to ensure the protection of our aquifers. The Agency proposes to conduct additional case studies on a greater number of geographic and geologic situations to reflect the range of conditions under which HF operates, and on HF practices that will help more fully characterize the factors that may lead to risks to public health. In addition, the Agency will develop models to assess risk to water resources based on geologic, geographic, hydrologic, toxicological and biogeochemical factors and thus support identification of situations that could be more susceptible to infiltration from hydraulic fracturing fluids. Within the SSWR program, green infrastructure research will continue to assess, develop, and compile scientifically rigorous tools and models that will be used by EPAs Office of Water, states, and municipalities. EPA will continue to leverage the success of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program, which supports innovative and cutting-edge research from scientists in academia through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPAs overall research efforts.
33
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: Support sustainable, resilient, and livable communities by working with local, state, tribal, and federal partners to promote smart growth, emergency preparedness and recovery planning, brownfield redevelopment, and the equitable distribution of environmental benefits. Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products. Prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants and clean up and restore polluted sites. Support federally-recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian country.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY Budget Authority Full-time Equivalents (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2011 Annualized CR $2,073,066.9 $520,238.6 $273,342.2 $1,198,659.5 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($58,005.4) ($17,773.7) ($8,438.9) ($65,035.4)
FY 2010 Enacted Cleaning Up Our Communities Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities Preserve Land Restore Land Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $2,232,328.3 $556,970.1 $273,545.2 $1,316,495.2
FY 2012 Pres Budget $2,017,061.5 $504,464.9 $264,903.3 $1,133,624.1
$2,075,066.9 $522,238.6 $273,342.2 $1,198,659.5
$80,826.6 4,483.9
$85,317.7 4,517.2
$80,826.6 4,483.9
$114,069.2 4,338.3
$33,242.6 -145.6
34
Goal 3 Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas. Introduction Land is one of Americas most valuable resources and EPA strives to clean up communities to create a safer environment for all Americans. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes on the land can migrate to the air, groundwater and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies, causing acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems in urban, rural, and suburban areas. EPA will continue efforts to prevent and reduce the risks posed by releases of harmful substances to land; to clean up communities; to strengthen state and Tribal partnerships; and to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental justice. The Agency also will work to advance sustainable development and to protect disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and Tribal communities through outreach and protection efforts for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work collaboratively with state and Tribal partners to prevent and reduce exposure to contaminants. Improved compliance at high risk oil and chemical facilities through rulemaking and increased inspections will help prevent exposure by encouraging compliance with environmental regulations. This is another focus of the FY 2012 investments. In order to address exposures to releases that have already occurred and/or will occur in the future, EPA will continue implement the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI) program. The purpose of ICI is to coordinate the relevant tools available in each of the clean-up programs in order to accelerate the pace of cleanups in the most effective and efficient manner to appropriately service communities. These efforts will be supported by sound scientific data, research, and cost-effective tools that alert EPA to emerging issues and inform Agency decisions on managing materials and addressing contaminated properties. Improving a communitys ability to make decisions that affect its environment is at the heart of EPAs community-centered work. Challenging and complex environmental problems, such as contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns, persist at many contaminated properties. The burden of a single blighted and contaminated site, or multiple blighted and contaminated sites concentrated within an area, can weigh down an entire community. Oftentimes, there is no obvious reuse for a contaminated property and communities struggle with what will happen at the site. This dilemma results in long-term environmental and economic community distress. As multiple sites are often connected through infrastructure and geographic location, approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of the entire area can be more effective than focusing on individual sites in isolation of the surrounding area. Many communities across the country regularly face risks posed by intentional and accidental releases of harmful substances into the environment. EPA and its state partners issue, update, or
35
maintain RCRA permits for approximately 2,500 hazardous waste facilities. In addition, there are over 1,627 sites total on NPL nationwide. Contaminants at these hazardous waste sites are often complex chemical mixtures affecting multiple environmental media. In other words, operations at a site may have contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil, at times also impacting indoor and outdoor air quality. The precise impact of many contaminant mixtures on human health remains uncertain; however, substances commonly found at Superfund sites have been linked to a variety of human health problems, such as birth defects, infertility, cancer, and changes in neurobehavioral functions. In FY 2012, EPA will continue its work to cleanup, redevelop, and revitalize contaminated sites. There is a critical need for the Agency to increase its capacity to prevent and respond to accidental releases of harmful substances, including oil spills, by developing clear authorities, training personnel, and providing proper equipment. Recent spills and releases at oil and chemical facilities have resulted in human injuries and deaths, severe environmental damage, and great financial loss. The BP Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill disaster resulted in 11 deaths, millions of gallons of spilled oil, and untold environmental damage. Likewise, accidents reported to EPA by the current universe of Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities have resulted in over 40 worker deaths, nearly 1,500 worker injuries, more than 300,000 people sheltered in place, and more than $1 billion in on-site and off-site damages. EPA will increase its capacity for compliance monitoring and inspections at these facilities in FY 2012. Major FY 2012 Investment Areas Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in High Risk Oil and Chemical Facilities The Oil Spill program helps protect U.S. waters by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding to, and monitoring oil spills. EPA also works with state and local partners through the State and Local Prevention and Preparedness Program to help protect the public and the environment from catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical facilities. EPA currently conducts over 550 inspections at chemical facilities per year (approximately 5 percent of the universe of RMP facilities in non-delegated states) and 1,100 SPCC inspections and 250 FRP inspections and drills at oil facilities per year (0.2 percent of the universe of 640,000 SPCC facilities, 6 percent at FRP facilities). In FY 2012, the Agency will expand its current prevention activities at high risk oil and chemical facilities by investing $1 million and 5 FTE to increase oversight of high risk chemical facilities; $5.1 million and 16 FTE to increase inspections of high risk oil facilities; and $1.4 million and 1 FTE to improve compliance and develop a new database as part of leveraging technology to enhance EPAs compliance efforts under the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative. Support for Tribes As the largest single source of EPA funding to tribes, the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) provides grants to build capacity to administer environmental programs that may be authorized by EPA in Indian country. These grants provide technical assistance in the development of programs to address environmental issues on Indian lands. An $8.5 million increase to funding for GAP grants will build tribal capacity and assists tribes in leveraging other
36
EPA and federal funding to contribute towards a higher overall level of environmental and human health protection. Many tribes have expressed the need to start implementing high priority environmental programs, but GAP funding may only be used for capacity building. Increasing GAP grant funding will allow tribes to continue to develop stronger, more sustainable environmental programs, while allowing more tribes to take advantage of the new multi-media tribal implementation program. The $20 million investment in a new multi-media tribal implementation grant program will support tribes in addressing individual tribes most serious environmental needs through the implementation of environmental programs and projects, an ongoing top priority for both tribes and the Agency. Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions In order to promote fiscal responsibility EPA is also making the tough choices, including: Reducing FTE and funding for waste minimization activities as the program is redirected to sustainable materials management and existing efforts aimed at promoting the reduction, reuse and recycling of municipal solid waste and industrial materials are discontinued or scaled back. Reducing resources devoted to Regional response activities under the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program, continuing to focus on encouraging PRPs to conduct removal actions and looking for ways to find efficiencies and lessen the impact of the reduction. Reducing Federal Facilities and Restoration Program work at non-NPL sites cleaned up by other federal agencies and focusing efforts on meeting statutory oversight responsibilities at federal NPL sites. Reducing Superfund remedial construction funding which may have the effect of postponing new remedial construction starts, slowing down the pace of ongoing construction projects, and delaying certain site assessment and characterization projects. EPA is exploring program efficiencies that may be achieved to limit the impact of this reduction. Decreasing funding for the Agency's homeland security response and preparedness program while maintaining the current level of preparedness. Priority Goal EPA has established a Priority Goal to highlight progress made under the Brownfields AreaWide Planning Pilot Program. The Priority Goal is: By 2012 EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess and address a single
37
large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale. EPA will provide technical assistance, coordinate its enforcement, water and air quality programs, and work with other Federal agencies, states, tribes and local governments to implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each communitys area-wide plan. EPA awarded Brownfields Area-Wide Planning assistance to 23 pilot communities in FY 2011. Consistent with EPAs Priority Goal commitment, throughout FY 2012 the 23 pilot communities will continue to use the grant and/or direct contract assistance they received from EPA to initiate development of a brownfields area-wide plan and determine the next steps and resources needed to implement the plan. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its priority goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate. FY 2012 Activities Work under this Goal supports 4 objectives: 1) Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities, 2) Preserve Land; 3) Restore Land; and 4) Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country. It is also supported by science and research to enhance and strengthen these objectives. Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities In FY 2012, EPA will continue to use several approaches to promote sustainable, healthier communities and protect vulnerable populations and disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. The Agency especially is concerned about threats to sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases. Brownfields: EPAs Brownfields program supports states, local communities, and Tribes in their efforts to assess and clean up potentially contaminated and lightly contaminated sites within their jurisdiction. This support includes emphasis and participation in Administration-wide initiatives such as the Americas Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative (promoting urban parks and greenways) and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (supporting area-wide planning for sustainable redevelopment). EPA will provide technical assistance for Brownfields redevelopment in cities in transition which are areas struggling with high unemployment as a result of structural changes to their economies. In addition, the Brownfields program works closely with EPAs Smart Growth program to address critical issues for Brownfields redevelopment, including land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards, accountability to uniform systems of information for land use controls, and other factors that influence the economic viability of Brownfields redevelopment. The best practices, tools, and lessons learned from the smart growth program will directly inform and assist EPAs efforts to increase areawide planning for assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
38
Smart Growth: The Agencys Smart Growth Program works across and within EPA and other federal agencies to help communities grow in ways that strengthen their economies, protect the environment, and preserve their heritage. This program focuses on streamlining, concentrating, and leveraging state and federal assistance in places with the greatest need. By concentrating and leveraging federal and state resources in areas with specific needs, EPA hopes to create an inviting atmosphere for economic development on which urban, suburban, and rural communities can capitalize. In FY 2012, EPA will continue its strong support for the Federal DOT, HUD, and EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, promote smart growth, and provide green building technical assistance to states and local communities. EPA will also continue to develop additional tools to best assist communities, particularly those that are disadvantaged or have been adversely impacted by contamination and environmental degradation, in implementing sustainable community strategies and approaches. Environmental Justice: EPA is committed to ensuring environmental justice regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Recognizing that minority and/or low-income communities frequently may be exposed disproportionately to environmental harm and risks, the Agency works to protect these communities from adverse health and environmental effects and to ensure they are given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in environmental decisions, including clean-ups. In FY 2012, EPAs Environmental Justice (EJ) program will intensify its efforts to incorporate environmental justice considerations in the rulemaking process. An ongoing challenge for EPA has been to develop rules that implement existing statutory authority while working to reduce disproportionate exposure and impacts from multiple sources. In FY 2012, the EJ program will work to apply effective methods suitable for decision-making involving disproportionate environmental health impacts on minority, low-income, and Tribal populations. EPA is also working on technical guidance to support the integration of EJ considerations in analysis that support EPAs actions. Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE): In FY 2012, EPA will continue its successful and innovative Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program to assist distressed communities in addressing critical human health and environmental risks. Since its launch in 2005, the CARE program has awarded 91 grants to communities across 39 states to address key environmental priorities and achieved results in predominantly environmental justice communities. Since CARE is a multi-media program, projects often address more than one medium. To date, Fifty percent of the grants have addressed air pollution; 50 percent chemical safety; 30 percent cleanup of contaminated lands; 30 percent water issues; and 25 percent climate change. With the FY 2012 funding, the CARE program will reach approximately 10 new communities. EPA will provide technical support for underserved and other communities, help them use collaborative processes to select and implement local actions, and award federal funding for projects to reduce exposure to pollutants and local environmental problems. Under this program, EPA will create and in several Regions pilot a Partners Program to provide technical support and access to EPA programs
39
while outside organizations provide funding to the community. The Partners Program will provide the opportunity to leverage EPAs investment and allow CARE to reach more communities than EPA could with increased grant funding alone. U.S.-Mexico Border: The U.S.-Mexico Border region hosts a growing population of more than 14.6 million people, posing unique drinking water and wastewater infrastructure shortages. In addition, 432 thousand of the over 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias2 which are unincorporated communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water. The Border 2012 framework agreement is intended to protect the environment and public health along the U.S.Mexico Border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The key areas of focus for EPAs Border 2012 Program continue to include: 1) increasing access to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure; 2) building greenhouse gas (GHG) information capacity and expanding voluntary energy efficiency reduction programs to achieve GHG reduction; 3) developing institutional capacity to manage municipal solid waste; 4) piloting projects that reduce exposure to pesticides; 5) conducting bi-national emergency preparedness training and exercises at sister cities; and 6) continuing to test and update the emergency notification mechanism between Mexico and the United States. In addition, in FY 2012, EPA also will focus its efforts towards the development of the next generation of the Border program. Preserve and Restore Land EPA leads the countrys activities to prevent and reduce the risks posed by releases of harmful substances and to preserve and restore land with effective waste management and cleanup methods. In FY 2012, the Agency is requesting $1.4 billion to continue to apply the most effective approach to preserve and restore land by developing and implementing prevention programs, improving response capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness of response and cleanup actions. This approach will help ensure that human health and the environment are protected and that land is returned to beneficial use. In FY 2012, EPA also will continue to use a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land: reducing waste at its source, recycling waste, managing waste effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. The Agency especially is concerned about threats to sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases, and prioritizes cleanups accordingly.3 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provide legal authority for EPAs work to protect the land. The Agency and its partners use Superfund authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, allowing land to be returned to
2 3
http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php Additional information on these programs can be found at: www.epa.gov/superfund, http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/er_cleanup.htm, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/, http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/, http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ and http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization.
40
productive use. Under RCRA, EPA works in partnership with states and tribes to address risks associated with leaking underground storage tanks and to manage solid and hazardous waste. In FY 2012, EPA will work to preserve and restore the nations land by ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products, reducing waste generation, increasing recycling and by strengthening its cleanup programs and oversight of oil and chemical facilities. These efforts are integrated with the Agencys efforts to promote sustainable and livable communities. EPAs land program activities for FY 2012 include seven broad efforts: 1) Integrated Cleanup Initiative; 2) Land Cleanup and Revitalization; 3) RCRA Waste Management and Corrective Action; 4) Recycling and Waste Minimization; 5) Underground Storage Tanks management; 6) Oil Spills and Chemical Safety, and 7) Homeland Security. Integrated Cleanup Initiative: In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), a multi-year effort to better use the most appropriate assessment and cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs, including enforcement, EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to examine all aspects of the cleanup programs, identifying key process improvements and enhanced efficiencies. In addition, in order to better measure the performance and progress made in advancing cleanups and addressing potentially contaminated sites, EPA developed two new performance measures under ICI that will support comprehensive management of the cleanup life cycle: Site Assessments (to track all of the sites for which EPA performs an assessment of environmental condition) and Remedial Action Project Completions (to track the progress in completing phases of constructing the remedy at Superfund sites). When added to the existing suite of performance measures, EPAs measures now address three critical points in the cleanup processstarting, advancing, and completing site cleanup. EPA also will implement its Community Engagement Initiative designed to enhance involvement with local communities and stakeholders so that they may meaningfully participate in decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and management of hazardous substances and waste. The goals of this initiative are to ensure transparent and accessible decision-making processes, deliver information that communities can use to participate meaningfully, and help EPA produce outcomes that are more responsive to community perspectives and that ensure timely cleanup decisions. Land Cleanup and Revitalization: In addition to promoting sustainable and livable communities, EPAs cleanup programs (e.g., Superfund Remedial, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Cooperative Agreements) and their partners are taking proactive steps to facilitate the cleanup and revitalization of contaminated properties. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to
41
help communities clean up and revitalize these once productive properties by removing contamination, helping limit urban sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling economic development, taking advantage of existing infrastructure, and maintaining or improving quality of life. In addition, EPA will continue to support the RE-Powering Americas Land initiative4 in partnership with the Department of Energy. These projects advance cleaner and more cost effective energy technologies, and reduce the environmental impacts of energy systems. RCRA Waste Management and Corrective Action: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work in partnership with the states to coordinate RCRA program goals and direction. EPA will continue to assist states in permit development, permit renewals, or other approved controls at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA will work to meet its annual target of implementing initial approved or updated controls at 100 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities. In addition to meeting these goals, the program is responsible for the continued maintenance of the regulatory controls at approximately 2,500 facilities in the permitting baseline.5 EPAs RCRA Corrective Action program will focus on site investigation, identification of interim remedies to eliminate exposures to human health or the environment, and selection of safe, effective long-term remedies. Sites will see the results of this funding in FY 2012 and beyond, as the number of sites achieving the Agencys environmental indicators including control of human exposures and migration of contaminated groundwater increase over time. Recycling and Waste Minimization: In FY 2012, EPA will complete this programs redirection to sustainable materials management. This redirection is a significant step that will allow EPA to consider the human health and environmental impacts associated with the full lifecycle of materialsfrom the amount and toxicity of raw materials extraction, through transportation, processing, manufacturing, and use, as well as re-use, recycling and disposal. The EPAct and Underground Storage Tanks: The EPAct6 contains numerous provisions that significantly affect federal and state underground storage tank (UST) programs and requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release and prevention programs. In FY 2012, EPA will provide assistance to states to help them meet their EPAct responsibilities, which include: 1) mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage tanks and enforcement of violations discovered during the inspections; 2)
Additional information on this initiative can be found on http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/. The permitting baseline universe currently has 2,446 facilities with approximately 10,000 process unit groups. For more information, refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
5 6
42
operator training; 3) prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities7; and 4) secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers. Additionally, there are an unknown number of petroleum Brownfields sites that are predominately old gas stations that blight the environmental and economic health of surrounding neighborhoods. In FY 2012, EPAs UST and Brownfields program will continue to jointly focus attention and resources on the cleanup and reuse of petroleum-contaminated sites. Oil Spills and Chemical Safety: The Oil Spill program helps protect U.S. waters by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding to, and monitoring oil spills. EPA conducts oil spill prevention, preparedness, and enforcement activities associated with the 640,000 non-transportation-related oil storage facilities that EPA regulates through its Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) program. EPA currently conducts approximately 1,100 inspections per year at SPCC-regulated facilities (representing 0.2 percent of the total universe of 640,000) and 250 FRP inspections and drills at 6 percent of the FRP facilities. In FY 2012, as part of the Oil Spill investments, the Agency will broaden and expand its prevention and preparedness activities. In addition to its prevention responsibilities, EPA serves as the lead responder for cleanup of all inland zone spills, including transportation-related spills from pipelines, trucks, and other transportation systems and provides technical assistance and support to the U.S. Coast Guard for coastal and maritime oil spills. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to review and revise, as appropriate, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, including Subpart J which regulates the use of dispersants and other chemicals as a tool in oil spill response. EPA also works with state and local partners to help protect the public and the environment from catastrophic releases of hazardous substances at chemical handling facilities through the State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA regulations require that facilities handling more than a threshold quantity of certain extremely hazardous substances must implement a risk management program and submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to EPA among others entities. Facilities are required to update their RMP at least once every five years and sooner if changes are made at the facility. EPA currently conducts over 550 inspections or unannounced exercises per year (approximately 5 percent of the universe of 13,100 RMP facilities in non-delegated states), including over 140 at high risk facilities. In FY 2012, through the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas investment, the Agency will expand its current activities. Homeland Security: EPAs Homeland Security work is an important component of the Agencys prevention, protection, and response activities. EPA will continue to provide Homeland Security emergency preparedness and response capability. In FY 2012, the Agency requests $38.7 million to:
7
Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, August 2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm#Final.
43
maintain its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful chemical, biological, and radiological substances; operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN); maximize the effectiveness of its involvement in national security events through pre-deployments of assets such as emergency response personnel and field detection equipment; maintain the Emergency Management Portal (EMP); and manage, collect, and validate new information for new and existing weapons of mass destruction agents as decontamination techniques are developed or as other information emerges from the scientific community. Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country In FY 2012, EPA will assist Federally-recognized tribes in assessing environmental conditions in Indian country, and will help build their capacity to implement environmental programs though the $8.5 million investment in funding for the Tribal GAP program. EPA will also strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship in Indian country through continued collaboration with Agency program offices as well as through EPA's Tribal Science Council. Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with federally-recognized tribes on a government-to-government basis, in recognition of the federal government's trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes. Under federal environmental statutes, the Agency is responsible for protecting human health and the environment in Indian country. In FY 2012, EPAs Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) will continue to lead an Agency-wide effort to work with tribes, Alaska Native Villages, and inter-tribal consortia to fulfill this responsibility. EPAs strategy for achieving this objective has three major components: Establish an Environmental Presence in Indian Country: The Agency will continue to provide funding through the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) so each federallyrecognized tribe can establish an environmental presence. Provide Access to Environmental Information: EPA will provide the information tribes need to meet EPA and Tribal environmental priorities, as well as characterize the environmental and public health improvements that result from joint actions. Implementation of Environmental Goals: The Agency will provide opportunities for the implementation of Tribal environmental programs by tribes, or directly by EPA, as necessary through 1) media-specific programs, 2) tribes themselves, or 3) directly by EPA if necessary. Additionally, in FY 2012, EPA is investing in the multi-media Tribal implementation grant program which allows the Agency to build upon the successful capacity-building work of the GAP program through full program implementation.
44
Research In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. EPA is realigning and integrating the work of its base research programs into four new research programs (further described in the Goal 1 overview and appendix). The new Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program will focus on the integration, translation and coordinated communication of research on sustainability, land use, protection and restoration, human health, ecological risk assessment modeling, and ecosystem services. The SHC research program will provide innovative and creative management approaches and decision support tools for communities, regions, states and tribes to protect and ensure a sustainable balance between human health and the environment. Communities are increasingly challenged to improve and protect the health and well-being of their residents and the ecosystem services upon which they depend, in the face of increasing resource demands and changing demographics, economic, social, and climate patterns. Research will be conducted in broad areas, which will support the many aspects of community health described above: I. Research to Address Specific Community Needs and Improve Our Understanding of Community Sustainability: As specific research questions are formulated in the areas of human health, ecosystems and ecosystem services, land and waste management, innovative technologies and life cycle analysis, EPA will begin conducting pilot projects that explore and address problems in an integrated manner by focusing specifically on 1) an urban community, 2) multiple communities in the Gulf of Mexico region, and3) certain high-priority problems facing communities across the nation. II. Decision Analysis and Support for Conducting Integrated Assessments: While communities often have creative and well-trained government staff, NGOs, and citizen groups, they usually do not have the capacity to rapidly develop and/or customize advanced decision tools and supporting data sets that will enable effective, real-time community investment decisions. This research will focus on developing practical decision support tools and analytic methods that enable communities to effectively use information developed by the SHC research program and other programs to support community decision making related to environmental sustainability. III. Superfund: The SHC research program will focus on innovative remediation options for contaminated sediments and the development of new alternatives to dredging. In addition, the program will develop solutions to contaminated ground water by evaluating subsurface and above-ground alternatives to pump-and-treat, particularly for recalcitrant contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and other contaminants that do not dissolve easily in water, and will evaluate chemical oxidation and permeable reactive barriers,
45
including those using nanoscale materials. The SHC research program will continue to provide technical support and technology transfer to support ground water modeling needs in communities. IV. Oil Spill Research: In FY 2012, the SHC program will focus on two areas related to oil spill research: 1) EPA will develop protocols to revise or test oil spill control agents or products for listing on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by EPAs Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and 2) the Agency will conduct studies on the effectiveness of bioremediation for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum-based oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends, and the performance of dispersants for deep water applications. EPA also conducts research supporting Goal 3 through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which leverages innovative and cutting-edge research from scientists in academia through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPAs overall research efforts. The Agency is enhancing its investment in areas critical to support the Administrations science priorities, including strengthening the future scientific workforce through investment in fellowships to students in pursuit of careers and advanced degrees in environmental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In FY 2012, EPA will provide $14 million for STAR Fellowships, including support for an estimated 243 continuing fellows and 105 new STAR fellows.
46
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: Reduce the risk of chemicals that enter our products, our environment, and our bodies. Conserve and protect natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY Budget Authority Full-time Equivalents (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2011 Annualized CR $681,126.8 $618,182.3 $62,944.5 2,692.5 FY 2012 Pres Budget $702,542.3 $642,721.6 $59,820.7 2,706.4 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $21,415.5 $24,539.3 ($3,123.8) 13.9
FY 2010 Enacted Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Ensure Chemical Safety Promote Pollution Prevention Total Authorized Workyears $681,126.8 $618,182.3 $62,944.5 2,692.5
FY 2010 Actuals $671,424.4 $609,729.0 $61,695.4 2,741.0
47
Goal 4 Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source Introduction Chemicals have become ubiquitous in our everyday lives and products, because they are used in the production of everything from our homes and cars to the cell phones we carry and the food we eat. Chemicals are often released into the environment as a result of their manufacture, processing, use, and disposal. Research shows that children are getting steady infusions of industrial chemicals before they even are given solid food8,9,10. Other vulnerable groups, including low-income, minority, and indigenous populations, may also be disproportionately impacted by and thus particularly at risk from chemical exposure11,12,13. While TSCA authorizes review of new chemicals before they enter the market and provides authority for EPA to mandate industry to conduct testing, there remain gaps in the available use and exposure data and state of knowledge on many widely used chemicals in commerce. EPA programs work to ensure chemical safety, including pesticides, and to manage the chemicals already in the environment that may have adverse affects. EPA is also promoting sustainable, lower risk processes and working with communities to improve overall environmental quality. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to make substantial progress in transitioning from an approach dominated by voluntary data submissions by industry, to a more aggressive action-oriented approach to ensure chemical safety through four areas of focus: 1) using all available authorities under TSCA to take immediate and lasting action to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop proven safer alternatives; 2) using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure data, and increasing transparency and public access to information on TSCA chemicals; 3) using data from all available sources to conduct detailed chemical risk assessments on priority chemicals to inform the need for and support development and implementation of risk management actions; and 4) prevent introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce. EPAs Pesticide Licensing program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe when used in accordance with the label. As directed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), EPA is
8
The Disproportionate Impact of Environmental Health Threats on Children of Color (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/79a3f13c301688828525770c0063b277!OpenD ocument) 9 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 10 Guide to Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA Actions: Implementing Executive Order 13045 and EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/ADPguide.htm/$File/EPA_ADP_Guide_508.pdf) 11 Holistic Risk-based Environmental Decision Making: a Native Perspective (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241171) 12 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations 13 Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-07-2010.pdf)
48
responsible for registering pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. EPA also reviews potential impacts on the environment, with particular attention to endangered species. In 1990, the Pollution Prevention Act established preventing pollution before it is generated as national environmental policy. EPA is enhancing cross-cutting efforts to advance sustainable practices, safer chemicals and sustainable lower risk processes and practices, and safer products. The combined effect of community level actions, geographically targeted investments, attention to chemicals, and concern for ecosystems, implemented through the lens of science, transparency and law, will bring real improvements and protections. Achieving an environmentally sustainable future demands that EPA make smarter, faster decisions guided by sound science on environmental problems facing the country today. It is also crucial to anticipate tomorrows problems and identify approaches to better inform environmentally sustainable behavior. The EPA Science Advisory Board has recognized14 that the improved understanding of todays environmental problems requires an integrative, transdisciplinary approach that considers multi-media, integrated, and non-traditional approaches to achieve more effective and efficient solutions. EPAs research request reflects the necessity to increase synergies among programs using systems thinking and catalytic innovation in order to meet the problems of the 21st century. Major FY 2012 Investment Areas Enhancing Chemical Safety EPA will invest an additional $16 million and 5.5 FTE to continue implementing its enhanced chemical management strategy to make long-overdue progress in ensuring the safety of existing chemicals: 1) obtaining, managing and making public chemical information; 2) screening and assessing chemical risks; and 3) managing chemical risks. In FY 2012, EPAs approach will be centered on immediate and lasting actions to identify and mitigate unreasonable chemical risks and develop proven safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. The FY 2012 investment will provide for action needed to 1) increase the Agencys pace in obtaining and making public TSCA chemical health and safety and other information; 2) conduct detailed chemical risk assessments on priority chemicals and accelerating progress in characterizing the hazards posed by HPV chemicals 3) undertake appropriate risk management actions on chemicals identified as posing significant human health or environmental risks. Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions Funding reductions reflect expected program efficiencies and reprioritization of targeted activities. Specifically, EPA will reduce support for non-regulatory activities including pollinator protection, urban pest management and the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. Funding reductions may also delay development and implementation of some risk assessment policies.
14
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/E989ECFC125966428525775B0047BE1A/$File/EPA-SAB-10-010-unsigned.pdf
49
FY 2012 Activities Toxics Programs FY 2012 represents a crucial stage in EPAs approach for ensuring chemical safety. The program has attained its zero tolerance goal in preventing introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce but many existing (pre-TSCA) chemicals already in commerce remain unassessed. The Existing Chemicals can be split into three major component activities: 1) strengthening chemical information collection, management, and transparency ($14.7M); 2) Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks ($15.6M); and 3) Reducing Chemical Risks ($26.4M). Also in FY 2012, EPA will continue to prevent the entry of new chemicals into the US market which pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. The major activity of the New Chemicals program ($14.3M) is PMN review and management, which addresses the potential risks from approximately 1,100 chemicals, products of biotechnology and new chemical nanoscale materials received annually prior to their entry into the US marketplace. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to implement the Chemicals Risk Management program to further eliminate risks from high-risk legacy chemicals, such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury. The Lead program will continue efforts to further reduce childhood blood lead incidence, and will continue implementing the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule though increased outreach efforts and targeted activities to support renovator certifications. EPA will allocate $35.3 million to undertaking existing chemical risk management actions in FY 2012.
Pesticides Programs
50
A key component of chemical safety and to protecting the health of people, communities, and ecosystems, is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the pesticides on which our society and economy depend. EPA will continue to manage a comprehensive pesticide risk reduction program through science-based registration and reevaluation processes, a worker safety program, and support for integrated pest management. The pesticide review processes will continue to increasingly focus on improving pesticide registrations compliance with the Endangered Species Act and achieve broader Agency objectives for water quality protection. EPA will continue to place emphasis on the protection of potentially sensitive groups, such as children, by reducing exposures from pesticides used in and around homes, schools, and other public areas. In addition, the Agency worker protection, certification, and training regulations will encourage safe application practices. Together, these programs minimize exposure to pesticides, maintain a safe and affordable food supply, address public health issues, and minimize property damage that can occur from insects and pests. As part of the Agencys review of non-regulatory efforts, the Strategic Agriculture Initiative program will shift its emphasis to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, providing a more focused effort in IPM to address a wide range of agricultural risk issues in food safety as well as minimizing exposure from pesticide drift. Chemical and biological pesticides help meet national and global demands for food. They provide effective pest control for homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, and drinking water treatment facilities and control animal vectors of disease. Many regulatory actions involve reduced risk pesticides which, once registered, will result in increased societal benefits. In addition to collecting a total of $82 million in anticipated fee-funded activities in FY 2012, $32 million which can be obligated EPA is funding $128.7 million in Pesticides Licensing programs. Pollution Prevention EPA will continue to promote innovation through environmental stewardship strategies that promote economic revitalization. EPA will draw on innovative and cross media strategies to focus analysis and coordination across the Agency, with States, and with other Federal agencies. In FY 2012, EPAs Pollution Prevention (P2) programs will target technical assistance, information and supporting assessments to encourage the use of greener chemicals, technologies, processes, and products through programs with proven records of success such as: Green Suppliers Network, Regional Grants, Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare, Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. In addition, EPAs P2 programs will continue to support the new Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) partnership among federal agencies, local governments and manufacturers to promote energy efficiency, job creation and environmental improvement. Through these efforts, EPA will encourage government and business to adopt source reduction practices that can help to prevent pollution and avoid potential adverse health and environmental impacts. P2 grants to states and tribes provide support for technical assistance, education, and outreach to assist businesses. Work under these programs also supports the energy reduction
51
goals under E.O. 13514. In FY 2012, the total funding for P2 programs is $20.7 million and 72.7 FTE. International Affairs Environmental pollution and contamination often extend well beyond a countrys individual borders. In the face of shared environmental challenges, such as global climate change and improving childrens environmental health outcomes, cooperation with global partners can catalyze even greater progress toward protecting our domestic environment. By partnering with and assisting other nations to improve their environmental governance, EPA also helps protect the U.S. from pollution originating outside our borders from reaching our citizens. These collaborative efforts are the key to sustaining and enhancing progress, both domestically and internationally. EPAs international priorities include: building strong environmental institutions and legal structures; improving access to clean water; improving urban air quality; limiting global GHG emissions and other climate-forcing pollutants, reducing exposure to toxic chemicals, and reducing hazardous waste and improve waste management. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for actions that have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, and develop appropriate plans to mitigate or eliminate those impacts. EPAs unique role in this process is reviewing and commenting on all Federal EISs and making the comments available to the public. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with other Federal agencies to streamline and to improve their NEPA processes. Work also will focus on a number of key areas such as review and comment on mining on-shore and off-shore liquid natural gas facilities, coal bed methane development and other energy-related projects, nuclear power/hydropower plant licensing/re-licensing, highway and airport expansion, military base realignment/redevelopment (including the expansion in Guam), flood control and port development, and management of national forests and public lands. EPA also will conduct work pursuant to the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan. Research In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. This approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. EPA is realigning and integrating the work of its base research programs into four new research programs (further described in the Goal 1 overview and appendix). The new Chemical Safety and Sustainability (CSS) Program will develop enhanced chemical screening and testing approaches for improving context-relevant chemical assessment and management. New computational, physico-chemical, and biological and exposure science tools
52
promise to transform the way risks of chemical products are evaluated. Development and validation will proceed on broadly applicable, predictive, high-throughput tools to be combined with existing test methods, integrating toxicity and exposure pathways in the context of the life cycle of the chemical. In FY 2012 EPA will begin a multi-year transition from the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to validate and more efficiently use computational toxicology methods and high throughput screens that will allow the Agency to more quickly and cost-effectively assess potential chemical toxicity. As reflected in Figure V, testing 300 chemicals with computational toxicology methods costs on average about $20,000 per chemical compared to more traditional approaches that can cost more than $6 million per chemical. In FY 2012, EPA will begin to evaluate endocrine-relevant ToxCast assays.
Figure V: EPA research is developing computational toxicology tools that are faster, more efficient, and have the capacity to test thousands of chemicals at a fraction of the cost for traditional animal-based testing (e.g., $2 billion versus $6 million for 300 chemicals). This innovative research is critical to catalyzing sustainable solutions that inform decisions on chemical safety.
CSS will also contribute to the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program by providing decision makers in individual localities and communities with research and support on contaminants of highest priority and concern to them. Better and more integrated approaches to chemical testing and assessment also will lead to better air toxics and drinking water-related regional and local decision making. Under this newly consolidated research program, EPA will continue to support the scientific foundation for addressing the risks of exposure to chemicals in humans and wildlife. Resources requested total $95.7 million and 292.7 FTE. In FY 2012, the Agencys Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program will continue to develop assessments including Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) of criteria air pollutants, Integrated Risk Information Systems (IRIS) Assessments of high priority chemicals, and Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV). The program will release draft ISAs for ozone and lead for Clean Air Science Advisory Committee review and public comment. The
53
program will strive to post numerous completed human health assessments (e.g. dioxin, methanol, cumulative phthalate assessment, benzo-a-pyrene, Libby asbestos cancer assessment, and PCB noncancer assessment) in IRIS. EPA also conducts research supporting Goal 4 through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which leverages innovative and cutting-edge research from scientists in academia through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPAs overall research efforts. The Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) will continue to enhance the nations preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for homeland security incidents and other hazards.
54
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Enforcing Environmental Laws Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: Pursue vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards in communities. Assure strong, consistent, and effective enforcement of federal environmental laws nationwide.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY Budget Authority Full-time Equivalents (Dollars in Thousands) FY 2011 Annualized CR $807,902.7 $807,902.7 4,003.2 FY 2012 Pres Budget $829,831.4 $829,831.4 3,914.3 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $21,928.7 $21,928.7 -88.9
FY 2010 Enacted Enforcing Environmental Laws Enforce Environmental Laws Total Authorized Workyears $807,902.7 $807,902.7 4,003.2
FY 2010 Actuals $795,703.1 $795,703.1 3,834.3
55
Goal 5 Enforcing Environmental Laws Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws. Introduction EPA's civil and criminal enforcement programs perform the core function of assuring compliance with our nation's environmental laws. A strong and effective enforcement program is essential to maintain respect for the rule of law and to realize the promise of our federal statutes to protect our environment and the public health of our citizens. On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued a Presidential Memoranda Regulatory Compliance which reaffirms the importance of effective enforcement and compliance in regulations. In part, it states Sound regulatory enforcement promotes the welfare of Americans in many ways, by increasing public safety, improving working conditions, and protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. Consistent regulatory enforcement also levels the playing field among regulated entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do not have an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors. In FY 2012, EPA will maintain the strength of its core enforcement program and begin a new focus on harnessing the tools of 21st century technology to make our enforcement program more efficient and more effective for the future. We will also continue to address special challenges such as the litigation resulting from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Our current approach, rooted largely in the traditional inspection and enforcement model, has produced substantial public health and environmental benefits. However, use of modern technology and methods can reduce the costs of monitoring and ensuring compliance both to EPA and businesses, and enable us to do a more effective job. Today, we rely almost exclusively on time-consuming and expensive pollution tests that make it hard to quickly find and investigate the worst air, waste and water pollution, and for communities to know about pollution that affects them. It is increasingly difficult to ensure compliance using outdated tools and old approaches, as the universe of regulated pollution sources is outstripping the resources available to state and federal inspectors to find and correct non-compliance. EPA and its state partners simply cannot conduct enough inspections to ensure that the health and environmental benefits of laws passed by Congress are realized and catastrophes are avoided. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Enbridge pipeline oil spill in Marshall, Michigan have generated a greater awareness of the growing need for the country to catch up when it comes to finding and correcting non-compliance to prevent damage and economic hardships. Yet the oil spill crises are just one piece of the puzzle. Today, states are adding more waters to the Clean Water Acts list of impaired waters, while at the same time indicating that resource constraints are pushing them to seriously consider returning control of environmental
56
protection programs to EPA. These and other issues argue for new approaches to ensuring compliance to enable the Agency to become more effective and efficient. A recent snapshot (see graph on following page) shows us that nationally reported compliance data while it does not paint a complete picture strongly indicates that violations are likely widespread. For example, non-compliance with the Clean Water Acts National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits in many places averages 60 percent leading to concerns about health impacts in those places.
57
Non-Compliance Information Across Sectors15
100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
*Statistically Valid
**Air Toxics
**New Source **Mining and **RCRA ***CWA Review Mineral (RSR)/Prevention of Processing Significant Deterioration (PSD)
15
*Non-compliance rates based on data gathered during inspections/evaluations at a statistically valid sample of the regulated universe and defined as having a minimum of one violation with any given requirement examined during the inspection/evaluation. **Non-compliance rates are based on violations detected at facilities in these sectors during inspections and evaluations; not statistically valid sample, but based on completed evaluations for 61% of the Air Toxic targeted universe (LDAR, Flares, LDAR Misc., Petroleum Refining, Oil and Gas, Misc. Metal Parts and Fabric coating), 40% of the targeted universe for NSR/PSD (Acid Manufacturing, Cement Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing), and 14% of the targeted universe for Mining and Mineral Processing (Phosphoric Acid, Other Mineral Processing, Mines). ***Non-compliance rates are based on a combination of facility self-reported Discharge Monitoring Reports. (DMRs) and violations detected at facilities during inspections.
58
Major FY 2012 Investment Areas In FY 2012, the Agencys Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas investment will allow EPA to begin to move toward implementing a more efficient and effective enforcement program that uses 21st century e-reporting and monitoring tools, in combination with market-based approaches. Investments in new technology offer the opportunity to save the federal government, states, and American business valuable resources as overall compliance costs are reduced. EPA will also invest in more advanced monitoring tools, allowing EPA and its state partners to more easily identify, investigate and address the worst violations that affect our communities. The Agency requests $14.2 million and 4.0 FTE under Goal 5 for this investment. EPA will begin to review compliance reporting requirements in existing rules to identify opportunities for conversion to a national electronic reporting format; and examine new rules to incorporate electronic reporting elements during rule development. Eliminating existing paper based reporting systems will be an overarching goal of this initiative. As part of the process of developing new rules, EPA will identify opportunities to require objective, self-monitoring and/or self-certification. EPA will upgrade key data systems to allow for third-party certification, public accountability, advanced monitoring and electronic reporting requirements to improve compliance. EPA will begin enhancing its data systems to help the Agency and its regulatory partners better determine the compliance status of facilities, focus our resources to efficiently address the most serious non-compliance, and substantially reduce the costs of collecting, sharing, and analyzing compliance information. With this investment, EPA will use a market based approach to develop open platform e-file data exchange standards, modeled after that used by the IRS to collect tax data, which would unleash the expertise of the private sector marketplace to replace the largely paper-based reporting systems that have evolved over the past thirty years. Further, in those programs where EPA has already built electronic reporting tools, the private sector may enhance these tools to better support industry needs, enabling EPA to largely eliminate the need to continue to fund the operation and maintenance of these tools. With the requested resources, EPA also will begin to invest in modern monitoring technology such as portable emission detectors, thermal imaging cameras, flow meters, and remote (fenceline) monitoring equipment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance monitoring program. Our investment includes an increase for monitoring equipment, as well as funding to train staff on the use of remote sensing techniques. Providing modern monitoring technology for EPA inspectors will enable field staff to perform more efficient and effective compliance verification. Modern monitoring equipment will increase EPAs ability to detect violations across all programs and focus our efforts on the most significant problems. EPAs response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill will continue in FY 2012 as the Agency provides support for the U.S. Department of Justices civil action and criminal investigations against BP, Anadarko, Transocean, and other responsible parties. The Department of Justice
59
filed its civil complaint on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard, and other federal plaintiffs in December 2010, and EPA will be actively providing litigation support, discovery management, and response to court orders throughout FY 2012. Currently, EPA resources are being used to support Department of Justices on-going civil investigations. Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions Eliminating funding for homeland security enforcement efforts because EPA will not need to maintain separate capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for terrorism-related investigations. This reduction reflects the increased capacity of other agencies to handle the environmental forensics work associated with security incidents. Reducing funding for Enforcement Training, relying more on web-based tools to more efficiently deliver compliance assistance and training, reducing staff intensive activities. Reducing funding for Superfund Enforcement that could have been used for PRP searches and settlement activity. Reducing funding to the Department of Justice for CERCLA case support. Reducing funding for Criminal Enforcement that could have been used for investigative support for criminal cases. Priority Goal EPA has established a Priority Goal to focus and highlight progress made through enforcement actions to clean up the nations polluted waters. The Priority Goal is: Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality. Improve Water Quality: Federal Clean Water Enforcement Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that dont meet water quality standards, and post results and analysis on the web. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate. FY 2012 Activities While making the reforms described above to improve our core business practices for monitoring and reporting, the Agency remains committed to implementing a strong enforcement and compliance program focused on identifying and reducing non-compliance problems and deterring future violations. In order to meet these goals, the program employs an integrated, common-sense approach to problem-solving and decision-making. An appropriate mix of data
60
collection and analysis, compliance monitoring, assistance and incentives, civil and criminal enforcement efforts and innovative problem-solving approaches addresses significant environmental issues and achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes. As discussed above, enhancing these efforts through a new approach that relies on 21st century reporting and monitoring tools will be the focus of our efforts in FY 2012 and will be used to advance implementation of the Administrators priorities as well as our core program work. Including the new FY 2012 investment, $375.7 million and 2,132.7 FTE will support compliance monitoring and civil and criminal enforcement activities. Focus Areas: Protecting Air Quality: EPA will focus on the largest sources of air pollution, including coal-fired power plants and the cement, acid and glass sectors, to improve air quality. Enforcement to cut toxic air pollution in communities improves the health of communities, particularly those overburdened by pollution. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires increased use of renewable fuels. EPAs Civil Enforcement program will help the regulated community understand their statutory obligations under the EISA; inspect renewable fuel production facilities; monitor compliance with renewable fuel requirements; monitor and enforce the credit trading program; and, undertake administrative and judicial enforcement actions, as appropriate. Protecting Americas Waters: EPA, working with permitting authorities, is revamping compliance and enforcement approaches to make progress on the most important water pollution problems. This work includes getting raw sewage out of water, cutting pollution from animal waste and reducing pollution from stormwater runoff. These efforts will help to clean up great waters like the Chesapeake Bay and will focus on revitalizing urban communities by protecting and restoring urban waters. Enforcement will also support the goal of assuring clean drinking water for all communities, including small systems and in Indian country. Cleaning Up Our Communities: EPA protects communities by ensuring that responsible parties conduct cleanups, saving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. Ensuring that these parties clean up the sites ultimately reduces direct human exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants, provides for long-term human health protection, and ultimately makes contaminated properties available for reuse. EPAs Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action enforcement program supports the goal set by the Agency and its state partners of attaining remedy construction at 95 percent of 3,747 RCRA facilities by the year 2020. In 2010, EPA issued the National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action to promote and communicate nationally consistent enforcement and compliance assurance principles, practices, and tools to help achieve this goal. In FY 2012, EPA will continue targeted enforcement under the Strategy and will work with its state partners to assess the contribution of enforcement in achieving the 2020 goal.
61
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution: Strengthening chemical safety enforcement and reducing exposure to pesticides will improve the health of Americans. Enforcement reduces direct human exposures to toxic chemicals and pesticides and supports long-term human health protection. Compliance Monitoring EPAs Compliance Monitoring program reviews and evaluates the activities of the regulated community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions and settlement agreements, as well as to determine whether conditions presenting imminent and substantial endangerment exist. In FY 2012, EPAs compliance monitoring activities will be both environmental media- and sector-based. EPAs media-based inspections complement those performed by states and tribes, and are a key part of our strategy for meeting the long-term and annual goals established for the air, water, pesticides, toxic substances and hazardous waste programs. Compliance monitoring includes EPAs management and use of data systems to run its compliance and enforcement programs under the various statutes and programs that EPA enforces. In FY 2012, the Agency will begin the process of enhancing its data systems to support electronic reporting, providing more comprehensive, accessible data to the public and improving integration of environmental information with health data and other pertinent data sources from other federal agencies and private entities. The Agency will continue its multi-year project to modernize its national enforcement and compliance data system, the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which supports both compliance monitoring and civil enforcement. Civil Enforcement The Civil Enforcement programs overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nations environmental laws and regulations in order to protect human health and the environment. The program collaborates with the Department of Justice, states, local agencies and Tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations. The program seeks to protect public health and the environment and ensure a level playing field by strengthening our partnership with our co-implementers in the states, encouraging regulated entities to rapidly correct their own violations, ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance and pursuing enforcement to deter future violations. The Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws. In FY 2010, EPA achieved commitments to invest more than $12 billion in future pollution controls and pollution reduction commitments totaling approximately 1.5 billion pounds. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to target implementation of the National Compliance and Enforcement Initiatives established for FY 2011-2013. These national initiatives address problems that remain complex and challenging, including Clean Water Act wet weather
62
discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, RCRA violations at mineral processing facilities, and multi-media problems resulting from energy extraction activities. Information on initiatives, regulatory requirements, enforcement alerts and EPA results will be made available to the public and the regulated community through web-based sites. The Civil Enforcement program also will support the Environmental Justice program and the Administrators priority to address pollution impacting vulnerable populations. The Civil Enforcement program will focus actions on facilities that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in communities that may be disproportionately exposed to risks and harms from the environment, including minority and/or low-income areas. In addition, the Civil Enforcement program will help to implement the Presidents directive to develop and implement a compliance and enforcement strategy for the Chesapeake Bay, providing strong oversight to ensure existing regulations are complied with consistently and in a timely manner. Criminal Enforcement Criminal Enforcement underlies our commitment to pursuing the most serious pollution violations. EPAs Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute environmental violations that seriously threaten public health and the environment and involve intentional, deliberate or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The Criminal Enforcement program deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the regulated community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong deterrence message to potential violators, enhances aggregate compliance with laws and regulations and protects our communities. The program has completed its three-year hiring strategy, raising the number of special agents to 200, and will use this capacity to address complex environmental cases in FY 2012. In FY 2012, the Criminal Enforcement program will expand its identification and investigation of cases with significant environmental, human health and deterrence impact while balancing its overall case load across all pollution statutes. EPAs Criminal Enforcement program will focus on cases across all media that involve serious harm or injury; hazardous or toxic releases; ongoing, repetitive, or multiple releases; serious documented exposure to pollutants; and violators with significant repeat or chronic noncompliance or prior criminal conviction. Superfund Enforcement EPAs Superfund Enforcement program protects communities by ensuring that responsible parties conduct cleanups, preserving Federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. Superfund Enforcement ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an enforcement first approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying for cleanups in both the remedial and removal programs. The Superfund Enforcement program includes nationally significant or precedential civil, judicial and administrative site remediation cases. The program also provides legal and technical enforcement support on Superfund Enforcement actions and emerging issues. The Superfund Enforcement program also develops waste cleanup enforcement policies and provides guidance
63
and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liability, with specific attention to the reuse and revitalization of contaminated properties, including Brownfields properties. Enforcement authorities play a unique role under the Superfund program. The authorities are used to ensure that responsible parties conduct a majority of the cleanup actions and reimburse the federal government for cleanups financed by Federal resources. In tandem with this approach, various reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, promote economic development and make sites available for appropriate reuse.16 Ensuring that these parties cleanup sites ultimately reduces direct human exposures to hazardous pollutants and contaminants, provides for long-term human health protections and makes contaminated properties available for reuse. The Department of Justice supports EPAs Superfund Enforcement program through negotiations and judicial actions to compel Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) cleanup and litigation to recover Trust Fund monies. In FY 2010, the Superfund Enforcement program secured private party commitments that exceeded $1.6 billion. Of this amount, PRPs have committed to future response work with an estimated value of approximately $1.4 billion; PRPs have agreed to reimburse the Agency for $150 million in past costs; and PRPs have been billed by the EPA for approximately $82 million in oversight costs. EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial assurance instruments are in place and adhered to at Superfund sites and at facilities subject to RCRA Corrective Action to ensure the long-term protectiveness of cleanup actions. In FY 2012, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and removal agreements at contaminated properties to address contamination impacting local communities. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover the associated cleanup costs from the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). If future work remains at a site, recovered funds could be placed in a site-specific special account pursuant to the agreement. Special accounts are sub-accounts within EPAs Superfund Trust Fund. The Agency will continue its efforts to establish special accounts and to use and track those funds efficiently to facilitate and advance cleanups. As of the end of FY 2010, 1,023 site-specific special accounts were established and over $3.7 billion were deposited into special accounts (including earned interest). EPA has obligated and dispersed approximately $1.85 billion from special accounts to finance site response actions and has developed multi-year plans to use the remaining funds as expeditiously as possible. These funds will be used to conduct many different CERCLA response actions, including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the extent of contamination and appropriate remedy required, construction of the remedy, enforcement activities, and post-construction monitoring. During FY 2012, the Agency will continue to refine the cost documentation process to gain further efficiencies; provide DOJ case support for Superfund sites; and calculate indirect cost and annual allocation rates to be applied to direct costs incurred by EPA for site cleanup. The Agency also will continue to maintain the accounting and billing of Superfund oversight costs attributable to responsible parties as stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements.
16
For more information regarding EPAs enforcement program and its various components, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
64
Partnering with States, Tribes and Communities EPA shares accountability for environmental and human health protection with states and tribes. Most states have been delegated the legal responsibility for implementing environmental programs. We work together to target the most important pollution violations and ensure that companies that meet their obligations and are responsible neighbors are not put at a competitive disadvantage. EPA also has a responsibility to oversee state and Tribal implementation of federal laws to ensure that the same level of protection for the environment and the public applies across the country. Enforcement promotes environmental justice by equitably targeting pollution problems that affect low income, minority, and/or tribal communities. Ensuring compliance with environmental laws is particularly important in communities that are exposed to greater environmental health risks. EPA fosters community involvement by making information about compliance and government action available to the public. Increased transparency is also an effective tool for improving compliance. By making information on violations both available and understandable, EPA empowers citizens to demand better compliance.
65
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Science and Technology Resource Summary Table .......................................................................................................... 68 Program Projects in S&T ........................................................................................................... 68 Program Area: Clean Air and Climate ..................................................................................... 72 Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs................................................................................. 73 Climate Protection Program .................................................................................................... 77 Federal Support for Air Quality Management ........................................................................ 81 Federal Support for Air Toxics Program ................................................................................ 84 Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification .......................................................... 86 Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation................................................................................ 96 Indoor Air: Radon Program ................................................................................................... 97 Reduce Risks from Indoor Air ................................................................................................ 99 Radiation: Protection ........................................................................................................... 101 Radiation: Response Preparedness ...................................................................................... 103 Program Area: Enforcement ................................................................................................... 105 Forensics Support.................................................................................................................. 106 Program Area: Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 108 Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection ........................................................ 109 Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery .............................................. 114 Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure ................................. 122 Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security ................................................................. 124 IT / Data Management .......................................................................................................... 125 Program Area: Operations and Administration .................................................................... 128 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 129 Program Area: Pesticides Licensing ....................................................................................... 133 Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk ........................................................ 134 Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk ..................................................... 137 Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability ........................................................ 141 Program Area: Research: Air, Climate and Energy ............................................................. 144 Research: Air, Climate and Energy ...................................................................................... 145 Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources ...................................... 154
66
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources ................................................................ 155 Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability ........................................... 162 Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability ..................................................................... 163 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 177 Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities ............................................................ 183 Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities ................................................................ 184 Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection ................................................................ 192 Drinking Water Programs ..................................................................................................... 193 Program Area: Clean Air ......................................................................................................... 197 Research: Clean Air .............................................................................................................. 198 Research: Global Change ...................................................................................................... 202 Program Area: Clean Water.................................................................................................... 205 Research: Drinking Water..................................................................................................... 206 Research: Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 210 Program Area: Human Health and Ecosystems .................................................................... 213 Research: Computational Toxicology................................................................................... 214 Research: Endocrine Disruptor ............................................................................................. 217 Research: Fellowships .......................................................................................................... 220 Research: Human Health and Ecosystems ............................................................................ 223 Program Area: Land Protection.............................................................................................. 228 Research: Land Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 229 Program Area: Research: Sustainability ................................................................................ 232 Research: Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 233 Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention .................................................................... 237 Research: Pesticides and Toxics ........................................................................................... 238
67
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Science & Technology Budget Authority Total Workyears $848,049.0 2,442.5 FY 2010 Actuals $817,677.7 2,441.7 FY 2011 Annualized CR $846,049.0 2,442.5 FY 2012 Pres Budget $825,596.0 2,471.2 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($22,453.0) 28.7
Bill Language: Science and Technology For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include research and development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs and travel expenses; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; and other operating expenses in support of research and development,$825,596,000, to remain available until September 30,2013. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. Program Projects in S&T (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
Program Project
Clean Air and Climate Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Climate Protection Program Federal Support for Air Quality Management Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
$9,963.0 $19,797.0 $11,443.0 $2,398.0 $91,782.0 $135,383.0
$9,329.3 $20,126.8 $12,480.6 $2,381.7 $87,648.2 $131,966.6
$9,963.0 $19,797.0 $11,443.0 $2,398.0 $91,782.0 $135,383.0
$9,797.0 $16,345.0 $7,650.0 $0.0 $100,578.0 $134,370.0
($166.0) ($3,452.0) ($3,793.0) ($2,398.0) $8,796.0 ($1,013.0)
Indoor Air and Radiation Indoor Air: Radon Program $453.0 $485.6 $453.0 $210.0 ($243.0)
68
Program Project
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Radiation: Protection Radiation: Response Preparedness Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
FY 2010 Enacted
$762.0 $2,095.0 $4,176.0 $7,486.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$808.0 $1,962.1 $4,242.7 $7,498.4
$762.0 $2,095.0 $4,176.0 $7,486.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$370.0 $2,096.0 $4,082.0 $6,758.0

($392.0) $1.0 ($94.0) ($728.0)
Enforcement Forensics Support Homeland Security Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Water Sentinel Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Laboratory Preparedness and Response Safe Building Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Subtotal, Homeland Security $24,857.0 $499.0 $1,996.0 $20,448.7 $438.3 $1,225.2 $24,857.0 $499.0 $1,996.0 $17,382.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($7,475.0) ($499.0) ($1,996.0) $18,576.0 $13,953.7 $18,576.0 $8,632.0 ($9,944.0) $15,351.0 $15,245.3 $15,351.0 $15,326.0 ($25.0)
$4,450.0
$7,001.2
$4,450.0
$2,747.0
($1,703.0)
$23,026.0
$20,954.9
$23,026.0
$11,379.0
($11,647.0)
$14,305.0
$15,585.7
$14,305.0
$12,696.0
($1,609.0)
$41,657.0 $593.0 $65,276.0
$37,697.9 $593.0 $59,245.8
$41,657.0 $593.0 $65,276.0
$30,078.0 $579.0 $42,036.0
($11,579.0) ($14.0) ($23,240.0)
IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security $33,947.0 $19,177.0 $10,260.0 $34,102.2 $21,934.3 $9,218.0 $33,947.0 $19,177.0 $10,260.0 $35,661.0 $20,195.0 $10,714.0 $1,714.0 $1,018.0 $454.0 $4,385.0 $4,054.0 $4,385.0 $4,108.0 ($277.0)
69
Program Project
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY 2010 Enacted
$9,534.0 $72,918.0 $72,918.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$7,587.2 $72,841.7 $72,841.7
$9,534.0 $72,918.0 $72,918.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$9,951.0 $76,521.0 $76,521.0

$417.0 $3,603.0 $3,603.0
Pesticides Licensing Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing $3,750.0 $2,279.0 $537.0 $6,566.0 $4,146.4 $2,285.9 $505.1 $6,937.4 $3,750.0 $2,279.0 $537.0 $6,566.0 $3,839.0 $2,448.0 $544.0 $6,831.0 $89.0 $169.0 $7.0 $265.0
Research: Air, Climate and Energy Research: Air, Climate and Energy Global Change Clean Air Research: Air, Climate and Energy (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy $20,822.0 $81,605.0 $9,022.0 $111,449.0 $111,449.0 $19,646.9 $74,670.2 $8,441.0 $102,758.1 $102,758.1 $20,822.0 $81,605.0 $9,022.0 $111,449.0 $111,449.0 $20,805.0 $83,102.0 $4,093.0 $108,000.0 $108,000.0 ($17.0) $1,497.0 ($4,929.0) ($3,449.0) ($3,449.0)
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Drinking Water Water Quality Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources $49,103.0 $61,918.0 $50,346.0 $58,586.9 $49,103.0 $61,918.0 $52,495.0 $66,229.0 $3,392.0 $4,311.0
$52.0 $111,073.0 $111,073.0
$0.0 $108,932.9 $108,932.9
$52.0 $111,073.0 $111,073.0
$52.0 $118,776.0 $118,776.0
$0.0 $7,703.0 $7,703.0
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
70
Program Project
Human Health Ecosystems Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subtotal, Research: Sustainable Communities
FY 2010 Enacted
$54,180.0 $71,698.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$54,324.6 $68,805.1
$53,180.0 $70,698.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$45,392.0 $60,905.0

($8,788.0) ($10,793.0)
$62,217.0 $188,095.0 $188,095.0
$59,873.0 $183,002.7 $183,002.7
$62,217.0 $186,095.0 $186,095.0
$64,729.0 $171,026.0 $171,026.0
$2,512.0 ($17,069.0) ($17,069.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Human Health Risk Assessment Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Endocrine Disruptors Computational Toxicology Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability $11,350.0 $20,044.0 $12,471.9 $13,929.9 $11,350.0 $20,044.0 $16,883.0 $21,209.0 $5,533.0 $1,165.0 $42,899.0 $41,516.4 $42,899.0 $42,400.0 ($499.0)
$46,437.0 $77,831.0 $120,730.0
$48,819.3 $75,221.1 $116,737.5
$46,437.0 $77,831.0 $120,730.0
$57,565.0 $95,657.0 $138,057.0
$11,128.0 $17,826.0 $17,327.0
Water: Human Health Protection Drinking Water Programs Congressional Priorities Congressionally Mandated Projects Subtotal, Congressionally Mandated Projects TOTAL, EPA $5,700.0 $5,700.0 $848,049.0 $4,568.0 $4,568.0 $817,677.7 $5,700.0 $5,700.0 $846,049.0 $0.0 $0.0 $825,596.0 ($5,700.0) ($5,700.0) ($22,453.0) $3,637.0 $3,889.3 $3,637.0 $3,787.0 $150.0
71
Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
72
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management $20,791.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$20,664.3
$20,791.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$20,842.0

$51.0
Science & Technology

Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$9,963.0
$30,754.0 88.6
$9,329.3
$29,993.6 83.4
$9,963.0
$30,754.0 88.6
$9,797.0
$30,639.0 86.7
($166.0)
($115.0) -1.9
Program Project Description: This program develops, implements, assesses, and provides regulatory and modeling support for federally-administered, multi-state programs that address major regional and national air issues from the power sector and other large stationary sources. Trading programs help implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and reduce acid deposition, toxics deposition, and regional haze. Pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and, as a co-benefit of SO2 emission reductions, mercury. Current operating programs include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) seasonal and annual programs for interstate control of ozone and fine particle (PM2.5) pollution, as well as Acid Rains SO2 and NOx emission reduction programs authorized under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments (described in the Clean Air Allowance Trading Program description under Environmental Programs and Management). In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Courts State of North Carolina vs. the Environmental Protection Agency decision in December 2008, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, promulgated by EPA in May 2005, will remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the Courts July 11, 2008] opinion so as to at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.1 The Court remanded CAIR to EPA for further rulemaking consistent with the opinion and, concurrently, told EPA and the affected states to proceed with full and timely implementation of the original rule provisions to cut SO2 and NOx emissions. CAIR was designed to control the contribution of transported SO2 and NOx to ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the Eastern U.S. Transported SO2 and NOx emissions are significant contributors to nonattainment in many states and, pursuant to the good neighbor provision of the CAA, upwind states must share responsibility for achieving air quality goals. All the 28 affected states and the District of Columbia elected to achieve the mandated reductions primarily by controlling power plant emissions through an EPA-administered
1
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 05-1244, page 3 (decided December 23, 2008).
73
interstate cap-and-trade program. Under CAIR, Phase 1, annual SO2 and NOx emissions are capped and there is an additional seasonal NOx cap for states with sources that contribute significantly to transported ozone pollution. Both the CAIR NOx and SO2 control programs began on schedule in 2009 and 2010, respectively. In 2009, when compliance with the CAIR NOx programs became mandatory, ozone season NOx emissions fell in every state in the program. Units in the seasonal program reduced their overall NOx emissions from 689,000 tons in 2008 to 495,000 tons in 2009. A 22 percent improvement in emission rate, coupled with an 11 percent drop in heat input, accounted for this reduction. The introduction of the annual CAIR NOx program in 2009 cut year-round emissions substantially as program participants operated control devices outside the summer months. Annual NOx emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) fell 43 percent while power demand (as measured by heat input) for those sources dropped only 10 percent. For additional information on CAIR, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oar/cair. On July 6, 2010, EPA finalized its proposal for a Transport Rule to replace CAIR utilizing approaches consistent with the Courts opinion. The proposed Transport Rule satisfies three requirements: 1) Fulfills EPAs legal obligation to provide federal implementation plans or FIPs to reduce air pollution that significantly affects another state; 2) Clarifies state obligations to reduce pollution affecting other states under the CAA; and 3) Responds to the court ruling vacating the 2005 CAIR and the 2006 CAIR FIPs. EPA intends to finalize this proposed rule as soon as possible to help provide certainty for sources and states. The rule will clarify that emissions reductions needed for states to address the interstate air pollution transport problem will continue, and that greater needed reductions will occur in the future. EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a longterm atmospheric deposition monitoring network, established in 1987, that serves as the nations primary source for atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of acid deposition, rural ground-level ozone, and other forms of particulate and gaseous air pollution. Used in conjunction with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and other networks, CASTNETs long-term datasets and data products are used to determine the efficacy of national and regional emission control programs through monitoring geographic patterns and temporal trends in ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition in non-urban areas of the country. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of the Acid Rain Program and regional programs for controlling transported emissions and air pollution. Surface water chemistry is a direct indicator of the environmental effects of acid deposition and enables assessment of how water bodies and aquatic ecosystems are responding to reductions in sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Two EPA-administered programs, the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) program and the Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program, were specifically designed to assess whether the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have been
74
effective in reducing the acidity of surface waters in sensitive areas. Both programs are operated cooperatively with numerous partners in state agencies, academic institutions, and other federal agencies. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will: Begin implementation of the First Phase of the Transport Rule to assure that NOx and SO2 emissions reductions being achieved under CAIR will continue. The timing of rule implementation phases addresses the Courts concern that compliance deadlines consider downwind state NAAQS attainment deadlines. The First Phase begins in FY 2012, aligned with 2012 ozone NAAQS attainment deadlines. Provide legal support as needed for the Transport Rule and analysis of modifications so control of emissions transport across state lines is synchronized with any changes to the ozone and PM 2.5 standards. Implementation of the Second Phase of the Transport Rule is aligned with the first deadline for daily PM 2.5 NAAQS attainment. Assist states and sources in transitioning from the CAIR NOx and SO2 control programs to implementation of the Transport Rule. Provide technical assistance to states in implementing state plans and rules for NOx and SO2 control programs under the Transport Rule. Assist states in resolving issues related to source applicability, emissions monitoring, monitor certification and reporting. Modify and transition operating infrastructure from CAIR to Transport Rule implementation. Effective and efficient operation of multi-state programs for controlling interstate emissions transport depends critically upon ongoing maintenance and continuous improvement of the e-GOV infrastructure supporting the electronic emissions reporting, monitor certification, and compliance determination systems. Ensure accurate and consistent results for the program. Successful air pollution control and trading programs require accurate and consistent monitoring of emissions from affected sources. Work will continue on performance specifications and investigating monitoring alternatives and methods to improve the efficiency of monitor certification and emissions data reporting. Assist states with considering regional programs for EGUs to comply with the 110(A)(2)(d) requirements generated by the new ozone standard. EPA will work with states to create flexible approaches, such as cap-and-trade programs and emissions averaging, where they potentially could be more cost-effective than application of sourcespecific emission standards. In FY 2012, the program will continue to provide analytical support for the interagency National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP coordinates federal acid deposition research and monitoring of emissions, acidic deposition, and their effects, including assessing the costs and benefits of Title IV.
75
In FY 2012, the program will continue to manage CASTNET. The FY 2012 request level for CASTNET is $3.95M.2 In addition, the program will continue managing the TIME and LTM programs for monitoring surface water chemistry and aquatic ecosystem response in sensitive areas of the U.S. The FY 2012 request level for TIME/LTM is $0.83M. Reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx remains a crucial component of EPA's strategy for cleaner air. Particulate matter can be formed from direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or smoke), but also can be formed through chemical reactions in the air. Emissions of SO2 and NOx can be chemically transformed into sulfate and nitrates that are very tiny particles which, when inhaled, can cause serious respiratory problems and may lead to premature mortality. Sulfates and nitrates can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles from the emitting source. These same small particles also are a main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of the country, particularly damaging in national parks known for their scenic views. Nitrogen dioxide emissions also contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone, when inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause serious respiratory problems. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$182.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$16.0) This reflects an increase in contracts funding to support the finalization of the CAIR replacement rule. Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
For additional information on CASTNET, please visit http://www.epa.gov/CASTNET/.
76
Climate Protection Program Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$109,726.1
$113,044.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$111,419.0

($1,625.0)

$19,797.0
$132,841.0 226.0
$20,126.8
$129,852.9 243.8
$19,797.0
$132,841.0 226.0
$16,345.0
$127,764.0 258.4
($3,452.0)
($5,077.0) 32.4
Program Project Description: The Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program provides EPA with laboratory and realworld assessments and demonstrations of promising advanced, high-efficiency and low-GHG technologies that can better protect the environment and save energy. The CAT program has developed very advanced and unique technical expertise of diesel, alcohol and gasoline engine combustion and hydraulic hybrid vehicle propulsion. Its extensive work with advanced series hybrids and ultra clean engines has provided a deep understanding of the technology pathways and their potential to cost-effectively achieve large reductions of criteria and GHG emissions from both cars and trucks. For more information about CAT, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology. The CAT program uses its engine and powertrain experience to assist the development of future low-GHG cars and trucks. This valuable expertise helps develop and demonstrate technology options, assess technical viability, determine benefits, and evaluate costs in support of industry efforts to reduce future GHG emissions. Thorough knowledge of emerging engine, electric hybrid, hydraulic hybrid and plug-in technologies enables more informed assessments of future GHG reduction options. This knowledge increases the productivity of EPAs efforts to formulate technology-forcing GHG standards and GHG regulatory effects through considering the realworld potential of various technologies within the regulatory timeframe. The CAT program also uses its technology know-how and expertise to assist companies wishing to rapidly deploy cost-effective low greenhouse gas (GHG) technologies into the transportation sector of the economy. The CAT programs technology transfer collaboration occurs with universities, as well as automotive, trucking, and fleet industries. Through cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA), EPA demonstrates innovative technologies that can extend the range of battery vehicles and advance hybrids with clean-engine technologies in vehicles such as minivans, SUVs, pickup trucks, urban delivery trucks, school buses, shuttle buses, refuse trucks, and plug-in hybrids. These demonstrations establish the practical feasibility of low cost technologies capable of large GHG reductions, thus providing direct support to midterm GHG regulation.
77
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the CAT Program will: Demonstrate doubling battery range of all-electric commercial vehicles using hydraulic technology - In congested urban operation, most of a battery-only vehicles energy is needed for accelerations. As more than 50% of the energy supplied to the wheels is available for recovery, significantly improving the regenerative braking systems for these electric vehicles could as much as double their range (or conversely, reduce the size of the battery). Demonstration of this new application of hydraulic technology to allelectric vehicles will allow evaluation of vehicle performance and project cost reductions. Evaluate and demonstrate high fuel efficiency, packaging, noise, vibration and harshness (NVH), and cost of series hydraulic hybrid technology in minivans/pickup trucks Apply EPAs expertise and know-how to address challenges that are unique to series hydraulic hybrid technology in light-duty vehicles. Solving these difficult packaging, noise and cost issues would create powerful affordable low-GHG reduction solutions that could be easily applied to vehicle fleets to reduce greenhouse gases from the US and globally. Assess commercially viable high-efficiency low-GHG spark-ignition engines for light and heavy vehicles - Fundamental research suggests that an 18 to 28 percent improvement in gasoline and alcohol engine efficiency is possible beyond todays state-of-the-art engines, while maintaining criteria emission reductions. Demonstration of these technologies will identify practical efficiency benefits, performance limitations, fuel requirements (octane sulfur, etc.), as well as validate low cost projections. Partner on series hydraulic hybrid/clean engine shuttles with California South Coast Air Quality Management District - Demonstrate low GHG potential from shuttle buses equipped with series hydraulic hybrid technology and powered by the worlds first gasoline HCCI engine. The HCCI engine gets diesel efficiency from gasoline fuel without the need for costly diesel after treatment. This phase of the partnership will begin a real-world evaluation of a pilot fleet of vehicles with ultra clean gasoline HCCI engines to determine its durability and cost-effectiveness to reduce emissions and GHGs. Transfer technology to affordably double fuel efficiency of urban commercial vehicles Uphold CRADA commitments established in 2010 to transfer EPAs advances in hydraulic hybrid technologies (promote adoption of technology and technical assistance), providing continuity in EPAs commitments to the truck and fleet industry for development and deployment of affordable heavy hybrids. In addition, the program will continue the technology transfer of EPAs advances in clean engine combustion technologies (such as clean combustion gasoline homogeneous-charge compression ignition (HCCI) engines and high-efficiency E85 engines).
78
Performance Targets: The Clean Automotive Technology program is working through its technology transfer demonstration projects with industry to develop performance data that definitively quantifies the real-world vehicle greenhouse gas reduction potential of these clean automotive technologies. EPAs initial testing of two of its real-world hydraulic hybrid vehicles (HHV) showed significant improvement in fuel economy. The CAT program has added to its commercialization goals to include technology transfer for the first phase of retrofitting hydraulic hybrid and engine technology in medium and heavy commercial trucks through 2013, and in light-duty vehicles through 2015. Work under this program supports the strategic objective: Addressing Climate Change. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
(+$77.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$33.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$202.0) This reflects a reduction to EPAs technology transfer support for cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) partners working to commercialize hydraulic hybrid retrofit for high-volume hybridization of on-the-road medium commercial vehicles. (-$318.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,976.0) This reduction reflects a phase down of the federal cost-share for California technology demonstration partnerships (with South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board, and California Energy Commission), requiring California to pick up a greater share of the cost in order to demonstrate these advanced technologies in their fleets.
(-$1,000.0) Funding will be discontinued in this appropriation for the ENERGY STAR program since ENERGY STAR work under the Science and Technology appropriation will be completed in FY 2010. Funding for ENERGY STAR is continued in the Environmental Programs and Management appropriation.
79
Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104, and 108; Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6605; NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; FTTA, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a.
80
Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$103,224.6
$99,619.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$133,822.0

$34,203.0

$11,443.0
$111,062.0 714.7
$12,480.6
$115,705.2 707.3
$11,443.0
$111,062.0 714.7
$7,650.0
$141,472.0 850.6
($3,793.0)
$30,410.0 135.9
Program Project Description: Federal support for the criteria pollutant and air toxics programs includes a variety of tools to help characterize ambient air quality and the level of risk to the public from toxics in the air, and to help measure national progress toward improving air quality and reducing air toxics risk. The program supports development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) through modeling and other tools. The program also develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their local areas. Finally, the program includes activities related to the stationary source residual risk program, which involves an assessment of source categories subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards to determine if more stringent standards are needed to further reduce the risks to public health (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: As part of implementing the ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards, EPA will continue providing state and local governments with substantial assistance in developing SIPs during FY 2012. EPA will ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the U.S., and the Agency will work with state and local air quality agencies to ensure that PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity regulation and guidance. EPA also will assist areas in identifying the most costeffective control options available and provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement conformity. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to assist state, tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing the effectiveness of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. EPA is working to implement improvements to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) federal program, within current statutory limitations, that address deficiencies in design and implementation and identify and evaluate needed improvements. The air quality grants and permitting program will be improved by implementing updates to the grant allocation processes to ensure resources are properly targeted and utilizing program efficiency measures.
81
In FY 2012, EPA will work with partners to continue improving emission factors and inventories, including a better automated, higher quality National Emissions Inventory. This effort includes gathering improved activity databases and using geographic information systems and satellite remote sensing, where possible, for key point, area, mobile, and fugitive source categories and global emission events. A key part of EPAs improved emissions factors development program relies upon electronic submissions of emissions data directly from the sources affected by our regulations. The data that are required for improving our emissions factors are the same data that are required to review regulations. By obtaining the data as it is being collected, EPAs goal with this effort is to reduce the need for developing information collection requests that are typical every time the Agency begins the rule development process. The electronic collection of data will not only expedite the development and revision of emissions factors, but it will also allow EPA to develop rules in a more efficient manner once the electronic data collection program is fully operational. EPA also is working on improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and to get a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution. Performance Targets: EPA, collaborating with the states, will implement federal measures, assist with the development of SIPs, and develop air toxics tools to continue improving air quality (as measured by the air quality index and other measures) and to continue reducing air toxics risk. Work under this program also supports performance results in the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program in the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$123.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$4,751.0 / -28.2 FTE) This represents the outgoing transfer of mobile source resources, including 28.2 FTE with associated payroll of $4,097.0, to the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. (+$968.0) This represents the incoming transfer of stationary source resources from the Federal Support for Air Toxics program. The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program has been consolidated with this program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. (-$56.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
82
(-$77.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
83
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$23,468.8
$24,446.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($24,446.0)

$2,398.0
$26,844.0 145.8
$2,381.7
$25,850.5 138.8
$2,398.0
$26,844.0 145.8
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
($2,398.0)
($26,844.0) -145.8
Program Project Description: Federal support for the air toxics program includes a variety of tools to help characterize the level of risk to the public from toxics in the air and help measure the Agencys progress in reducing this risk. The program develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local, and tribal agencies as well as communities to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their local areas. The program also includes activities related to the Stationary Source Residual Risk Program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: All activities in this program will be assumed by the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program and the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program to support the switch to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. Performance Targets: There are no FY 2012 performance targets associated with this program project because the resources have been transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program and the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$968.0) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities for the Stationary Source Program to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. (-$1,430.0 / -5.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities for the mobile source program, including 5.4 FTE with associated payroll of $776.0, to the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program in support of a sectorbased multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
84
Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
85
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Science & Technology
FY 2010 Actuals $87,648.2

$87,648.2 309.7
FY 2011 Annualized CR $91,782.0

$91,782.0 306.2
FY 2012 Pres Budget $100,578.0

$100,578.0 357.8
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $8,796.0

$8,796.0 51.6
$91,782.0
$91,782.0 306.2
Program Project Description: The most common mobile sources of air pollution are highway motor vehicles and their fuels. Other mobile sources, such as airplanes, ships, construction equipment and lawn mowers also produce significant amounts of air pollution. EPA establishes national emissions standards for each of these sources to reduce the production of air pollution. The Agency also provides emissions and fuel economy information for new cars, and educates consumers on the ways their actions affect the environment. Primary responsibilities include developing, implementing, and ensuring compliance with national standards to reduce mobile source-related air pollution from light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses, nonroad engines and vehicles and their fuels; evaluating emission control technology; and providing state, tribal, and local air quality managers and transportation planners with access to information on transportation programs and incentive-based programs. Other activities include testing vehicles, engines and fuels, and establishing test procedures for, and determining compliance with, federal emissions and fuel economy standards. EPA works with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the mobile source controls in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and transportation conformity determinations. EPA also develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risks specific to their local areas. Reductions in emissions of mobile source air toxics, such as diesel particulate matter (PM), are achieved through establishing national emissions standards and innovative partnership approaches working with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as a variety of stakeholder groups. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Climate Change In FY 2012, EPA will undertake a number of critical mobile source related actions to implement the Administrators priority to take common-sense actions to address climate change. These efforts will include actions to implement the first-ever harmonized fuel economy and greenhouse
86
gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty vehicles (model years 2012-2016) which were finalized by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 2010 (40 CR Parts 85, 86 and 600). EPA also will be responding to the Presidents May 2010 directive to work with NHTSA to finalize first-time fuel economy and GHG emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, which are the transportation sectors second largest contributor to oil consumption and GHG emissions. In addition, EPA will be responding to the Presidents directive to work with NHTSA to develop a coordinated national program that will set further standards to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and later. All of these programs have the goal of taking coordinated steps to deliver a new generation of clean vehicles, and to do this through a cohesive federal program that also is harmonized with applicable state requirements. In addition, the Agency will continue its work to assess GHG emissions from non-road sources, specifically ocean-going vessels and aircraft. EPA is participating in the appropriate international forums for ocean-going vessels (International Maritime Organization-IMO) and aircraft (International Civil Aviation Organization-ICAO) in order to coordinate its efforts to address GHG emissions from these sources. In the fuels arena, EPA will continue to implement the new Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2) program and carry out several other actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA dramatically expanded the renewable fuels provisions of EPAct and requires additional EPA studies in various areas of renewable fuel use.
EISA requires that EPA set an annual RFS standard and the 2012 RFS standard will be promulgated in FY 2012. EISA also required EPA to develop a comprehensive lifecycle GHG methodology to implement the Acts GHG threshold requirements. A multi-year testing emission program to address the EPAct/EISA requirements will be completed in FY 2011. The testing program evaluates the impact of fuel properties (e.g., aromatic content, vapor pressure, distillation properties, ethanol content, etc.) on light-duty vehicle emissions. In FY 2012, EPA
87
will continue evaluating the results of the testing program, incorporating the newly gathered data into emission models and regulatory analyses. The results from this program will be used to update the Agencys fuel effects model used to support regulations. In FY 2012, the Agency also will continue to implement its real-time reporting system to ensure compliance with RFS2 provisions. This real-time system will handle 4,000 to 6,000 submissions per day, encompassing 30,000 to 40,000 transactions per day, and the generation of 1.2 billion Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) per month. RINs are assigned to each gallon of renewable fuel generated, and recording RINs allows for an accurate tracking of the renewable throughout the supply chain. In addition, the Agency will continue to develop and update lifecycle models to allow assessment of new biofuel technologies and to evaluate feedstocks and fuel pathways for future fuels and processes. FY 2012 represents year four in EPAs five-year modernization plan to upgrade its vehicle, engine, and fuel testing capabilities at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). Because EPA is responsible for establishing the test procedures needed to measure emissions and estimate the fuel economy of new vehicles, and for verifying car manufacturers data on fuel economy, the Agency is investing in additional testing and certification capacity to ensure that new vehicles, engines, and fuels are in compliance with new vehicle and fuel standards. The new standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions in particular will require EPA to more frequently verify car manufacturers data for a greater variety of vehicle and engine technologies. To prepare for this workload, the Agency will continue its support of the multiyear National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) modernization effort. In FY 2012, $6.2 million will be allocated to the NVFEL modernization effort, addressing EPAs highest priority needs related to certifying new heavy-duty vehicles with GHG emissions standards. Concurrent with the upgrade of the NVFEL testing facilities and equipment, EPA is requesting 8 additional FTE to address the increased workload resulting from growth in its vehicle and compliance program in both size and complexity. The FY 2012 workload reflects a more than four-fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine certificates EPA issues and much more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated technologies and the expanded international universe of the regulated parties that must be monitored to ensure a fair competitive playing field Clean Air EPA will continue to achieve results in reducing pollution from mobile sources, especially nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions associated with national emissions standards included in the Agencys National Clean Diesel Campaign. The Tier 2 Vehicle program, which took effect in 2004, will make new cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks 77 to 95 percent cleaner than 2003 models. The Clean Trucks and Buses program, which began in 2007, will make new highway diesel engines as much as 95 percent cleaner than current models. Under the Non-road Diesel Program, new fuel and engine requirements will reduce sulfur in off-highway diesel by more than 99 percent. Under the recently finalized Locomotive and Marine Engines Rule, new fuel and engine requirements will reduce dangerous fine particle pollution (PM) by 90 percent and NOx by 80 percent for newly-built locomotives and marine diesel engines. Combined, these
88
measures will prevent over 26,000 premature deaths each year, reduce millions of tons of pollution a year, and prevent hundreds of thousands of respiratory illnesses by 2030.
In addition, the recently finalized rule to control emissions from ocean-going vessels will reduce NOx emission rates by 80 percent and PM emission rates by 85 percent, compared to the current limits applicable to this class of marine engines, and prevent an additional 13,000 premature deaths annually (40 CFR Parts 80, 85, et al). Additional emission reductions from light-duty vehicles will be a key strategy in helping areas attain the ozone, PM, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) and in reducing exposure to toxics for the millions of people living, working, or going to school near major roads. In FY 2012, EPA will work on new light-duty vehicle control regulations (Tier 3), which could include tighter NOx standards, off-cycle standards, and PM standards for gasoline vehicles. The Tier 3 program may also include lower limits for sulfur in gasoline that will enable tighter emission standards by allowing more efficient aftertreatment. Gasoline sulfur control could also provide immediate benefits through in-use fleet and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction co-benefits. The program will address any needs for mitigation of adverse air quality impacts that might develop from the increased use of renewable fuels (e.g., increase in NOx due to increases in ethanol use). EPAs NVFEL will continue to conduct testing operations on motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines, nonroad engines, and fuels to certify that all vehicles, engines, and fuels that enter the U.S. market comply with all federal clean air and fuel economy standards. The NVFEL will continue to conduct vehicle emission tests as part of pre-production tests, certification audits, inuse assessments, and recall programs to ensure compliance with mobile source clean air programs. Tests are conducted on a spot check basis on motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines, nonroad engines, and fuels to: 1) certify that vehicles and engines meet federal air emission and fuel economy standards; 2) ensure engines comply with in-use requirements; and 3) ensure fuels,
89
fuel additives, and exhaust compounds meet federal standards. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to conduct testing activities for tailpipe emissions, fuel economy, gasoline sulfur, reformulated gasoline, ultra low sulfur diesel, alternative fuel vehicle conversion certifications, Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) evaluations, certification audits, and recall programs. In addition to these testing activities, EPA will continue expanding its compliance testing of heavy-duty and nonroad engines. In FY 2012, EPA anticipates reviewing and approving approximately 5,000 vehicle and engine emissions certification requests, including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty diesel engines, nonroad engines, marine engines, locomotives and others. This represents a significant expansion in EPAs certification burden over previous years, due in part to the addition of certification requirements for stationary engines and for marine and small spark-ignited engines. The Number of EPA-Issued Vehicle and Engine Certificates Have More Than Quadrupled Since 1995
Projected Model Year 2012 Certificates Total = 5,000+
Certification and compliance testing of advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, light-duty diesel applications, and advanced after-treatment for heavy-duty highway vehicles will be a major focus in FY 2012. The Agency also will continue to review the in-use verification program data submitted by vehicle manufacturers to determine whether there are any emissions compliance issues. In addition, EPA will continue to expand its web-based compliance information system to be used by manufacturers and EPA staff to house compliance data for all regulated vehicles and engines. EPA will continue to be responsible for vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and gas guzzler fuel economy testing and for providing the fuel economy data to the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Internal Revenue Service. In FY 2012, EPA expects to expend significant resources on ensuring compliance with certification as well as inuse requirements for foreign-built engines and equipment. A rule establishing onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements for nonroad engines will be developed in FY 2012. To meet the new nonroad diesel standards, engine manufacturers will produce engines that are going to be more complex and dependent on electronic controls, similar to highway engines. OBD standards are needed to ensure that engines are properly maintained and compliant, ensuring that the full benefits of the emission standards are realized in the real world. In addition, EPA will implement an in-use compliance testing program for nonroad diesel
90
engines conducted by diesel engine manufacturers per a consent decree. This program is vital to ensuring that new engine standards are actually met in-use under real-world conditions. Other priorities include addressing off-cycle emissions from heavy-duty trucks through the application of a supplemental test procedure, a rulemaking (in response to court remand) justifying and updating the 2012 model year standards for snowmobiles, and the promulgation of new jet aircraft engine emission standards that would align federal rules with international standards and propose other controls and program upgrades under Clean Air Act (CAA) authority. In addition, the Agency will continue its efforts to evaluate the use of lead in aviation gasoline and its use in piston engines. EPA will continue to support implementation of existing vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations including the Tier II light-duty (LD) vehicle program, the Mobile Sources Air Toxics (MSAT) programs, the 2007-2010 Heavy-Duty (HD) Diesel standards, and the Non-Road Diesel Tier 4 standards (and earlier nonroad standards) in order to ensure the successful delivery of cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuel. The Agency also will continue implementation activities for the Locomotives/Marine rule finalized in 2008 and for small gasoline engine standards that began with model year 2009. Other FY 2012 activities include the implementation of the Agencys new GHG fuel economy labelling program and ongoing assessment and analysis of emissions and fuel economy compliance data. Ensuring that emission standards are actually met under real-world conditions is an essential element of EPAs efforts to ensure fair competition and a level economic playing field, EPA will continue to implement a manufacturer-run, in-use compliance surveillance program for highway heavy-duty diesel, locomotive, marine spark ignition (SI) and large SI engines. EPAs emission models provide the overarching architecture that supports EPAs regulatory programs, generating emission factors and inventories needed to quantify emission reductions. EPA continues to improve in this area with the development of the new mobile source emission model, MOVES. MOVES is greatly improving the Agencys ability to support the development of emission control programs, as well as provide support to states in their determination of program needs to meet air quality standards. The CAA requires regular updates of the emission models to account for technology changes and new emission data. Assessing mobile source emissions requires sustained and ongoing emission research resources. In FY 2012, EPA will continue improving MOVES by implementing emission testing programs to collect the necessary information from new technologies, incorporating new emission data into the model, and expanding the application of the model to include additional nonroad sources and toxic emissions. As part of implementing the eight-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards, EPA will continue to provide state and local governments with substantial assistance in developing SIPs and making conformity determinations during this period. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the United States and continue to ensure consistency in adequacy findings for motor vehicle emissions budgets in air quality plans, which are used in conformity determinations. EPA also will continue to work with state and local transportation and air quality agencies to ensure that PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity regulation and guidance. In addition, EPA will work with states and local governments to ensure
91
the technical integrity of the mobile source controls in the SIPs for the eight-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality. EPA also will assist in identifying control options available and provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement conformity. EPA will partner with states, tribes, and local governments to create a comprehensive compliance program to ensure that vehicles and engines pollute less. EPA will use advanced inuse measurement techniques and other sources of in-use data to monitor the performance of OBD systems on vehicle models to make sure that OBD is a reliable check on the emissions systems. In 2010, basic and/or enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance testing was being performed in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from EPA. EPA will continue to assist state, tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing the effectiveness of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop voluntary incentives for different economic sectors (construction, ports, freight, and agriculture) to address the emissions from existing diesel engines. Even without funds for Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, work is being done across these sectors at the national and regional level to clean up the existing fleet. Reducing emissions from diesel engines will help localities meet the Agencys NAAQS and reduce exposure to air toxics from diesel engines. EPA also has developed several emissions testing protocols that will provide potential purchasers of emission control technology a consistent, third party evaluation of emission control products. EPA has developed partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and private companies to create project teams to help fleet owners create the most cost-effective emissions reduction programs. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(N35) Cumulative Millions of Tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) reduced since 2002 from mobile sources
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
1.69
1.86
2.03
Tons
Measure Type
Measure
(O33) Cumulative Millions of Tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
1.71
1.88
2.05
Tons
92
Measure Type
Measure
(O34) Cumulative Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
3.39
3.73
4.07
Tons
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(P34) Cumulative Tons of PM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources
FY 2010 Target
122,434
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
136,677
FY 2012 Target
146,921
Units
Tons
Recent national emissions standards finalized by the Agency also include the control of air toxics from mobile sources (the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule in 2007), significantly reducing hydrocarbon air toxics while delivering PM co-benefits, and the establishment of first-ever evaporative emission standards for small spark ignition and recreational marine engines (the Small SI/Recreational Marine Engine Rule in 2008). All together, EPA estimates that six recent national standards, including the 2007 Heavy Duty, Nonroad Diesel Tier 4, and Light Duty Tier 2 rules, will yield approximately $300 billion in combined benefits annually by 2030. Performance targets for reduction of toxicity-weighted emissions also are supported by work under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project. Work under this program project supports the Agencys High Priority Performance Goal (Priority Goal), addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. For a detailed description of the EPAs Priority Goals (implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit www.Performance.gov. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$433.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$4,115.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for modifications and equipment upgrades to EPAs National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL), which were funded at $10.3 million in FY 2010. The FY 2012 funding level of $6.2M will be directed toward the building of a new heavy-duty vehicle certification test site. This new test site is critical to the Agencys ability to certify that new heavy-duty vehicles sold in the U.S.
93
comply with the new GHG emission standards EPA will be issuing for heavy-duty vehicles. (+$1,359.0 / +8.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in FTE to address the more than fourfold increase in the number of vehicle and engine certificates EPA issues and the much more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated technologies and the expanded international universe of the regulated parties that must be monitored. This includes payroll of $1,329.0 and travel costs of $30.0. (-$268.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (+$2,050.0/ +6.0 FTE) This reflects additional resources to support the implementation of the new national GHG emissions/CAFE standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2012-2016, compared to the FY 2010 spending levels. These resources will advance U.S. policy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. This includes $797.0 for associated payroll. (+$3,996.0/ +4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase from FY 2010 spending levels to support implementation of Heavy-Duty GHG emission standards and for initial analysis and technology assessment efforts needed to support U.S. participation in international efforts at IMO and ICAO to address GHG emissions from ocean-going vessels and commercial aircraft. This analysis and technology assessment work will include inventory modeling, compliance modeling, cost estimation, and air quality benefits analysis. This includes $531.0 for associated payroll. (+$6,181.0/ +33.6 FTE) This reflects an incoming transfer of mobile source resources and FTE which had been distributed across multiple programs to the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program, including 33.6 FTE with associated payroll of $4,873.0. This increase is offset by an equal decrease through program project consolidation. This consolidation supports the goals, objectives, and performance measures of the overall mobile source program. (+$269.0) This reflects an increase for programmatic laboratory fixed costs. (-$138.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$971.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
94
continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f); Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; NEP Act, SAFETEA-LU of 2005; EPAct of 2005; EISA of 2007; Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (40 CR Parts 85, 86 and 600); Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (40 CFR 80, 85, 86, 94, 1027, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, and 1068).
95
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
96
Indoor Air: Radon Program Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$5,408.1
$5,866.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$3,901.0

($1,965.0)

$453.0
$6,319.0 39.4
$485.6
$5,893.7 33.1
$453.0
$6,319.0 39.4
$210.0
$4,111.0 23.1
($243.0)
($2,208.0) -16.3
Program Project Description: Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. The law directs EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise the public of steps they can take to reduce exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute training centers to ensure a supply of competent radon service providers, establish radon contractor proficiency programs, and assist states with program development through the administration of a grants program. This program, combined with the Indoor Air S & T Program, supports the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV. R&IE is the only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) radon laboratory. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, although the indoor air and radon programs will be shrinking and streamlining some functions, the funds provided in the Presidents Budget will allow EPA to achieve results in indoor radon risk reduction. As part of this reduction, EPA will have to reconsider the provision of federal radon laboratory services, potentially relying more on the State Indoor Radon Grants program. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Indoor Air: Radon Program under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
97
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$242.0/-1.5 FTE) To accommodate this lower funding level, EPA plans to eliminate lower priority efforts to provide exposure services to support local, state, and federal radon programs; radon laboratory inter-comparisons and device verification exposures to support privatized radon proficiency programs; and distribution and analysis of test kits and analyses for community-based environmental justice partners. The total reduction includes $158.0 in payroll funding and $4.0 in travel. (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990; Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the SARA of 1986; TSCA, section 6, Titles II and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671); and IRAA, Section 306.
98
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$19,253.0
$20,759.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$17,198.0

($3,561.0)

$762.0
$21,521.0 63.8
$808.0
$20,061.0 63.4
$762.0
$21,521.0 63.8
$370.0
$17,568.0 54.3
($392.0)
($3,953.0) -9.5
Program Project Description: Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to conduct and coordinate research on indoor air quality, develop and disseminate information on the subject, and coordinate efforts at the federal, state, and local levels. This program, combined with the Radon S & T Program, supports the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV. R&IE is the only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) radon laboratory. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide limited support to tribal communities with field measurements and assessments upon request and provide technical support for indoor air quality remediation. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Reduce Risks from Indoor Air program under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$384.0/ -1.5 FTE) To accommodate this lower funding level, EPA plans to eliminate lower priority in-person tribal training courses on indoor air quality intervention and remediation approaches as well as lower the labs capacity for responding to Regional requests for field measurements, assessments, and technical support. The total reduction includes $118.0 in payroll funding and $5.0 in travel. With the FY 2012 Presidents Budget funding level, EPA will continue to provide limited support to tribal communities
99
with field measurements and assessments upon request and provide technical support for indoor air quality remediation. (-$8.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
100
Radiation: Protection Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$11,433.3
$11,295.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$9,629.0

($1,666.0)

Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$2,095.0
$2,495.0 $15,885.0 88.6
$1,962.1
$2,586.2 $15,981.6 84.2
$2,095.0
$2,495.0 $15,885.0 88.6
$2,096.0
$2,487.0 $14,212.0 76.1
$1.0
($8.0) ($1,673.0) -12.5
Program Project Description: This program supports the ongoing radiation protection capability at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada. These nationallyrecognized laboratories provide radioanalytical and mixed waste testing and analysis of environmental samples to support site assessment, clean-up, and response activities for Superfund projects and in the event of an accident or radiological incident. Both labs provide technical support for conducting site-specific radiological characterizations and cleanups, using the best available science to develop risk assessment tools. The labs also develop guidance, in collaboration with the public, industry, states, tribes, and other governments, for cleaning up Superfund and other sites that are contaminated with radioactive materials. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA, in cooperation with states, tribes, and other federal agencies, will provide ongoing site characterization and analytical support for site assessment activities, remediation technologies, and measurement and information systems. EPA also will provide training and direct site assistance including field surveys and monitoring, laboratory analyses, and health and safety, and risk assessment support at sites with actual or suspected radioactive contamination. Some of these sites are located near at-risk communities, emphasizing the Administrations commitment to protecting vulnerable communities. EPAs laboratories will continue to support EPA Regional Superfund Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), providing laboratory and field-based radioanalytical and mixed waste analyses. They also provide technical services, guidance, and standardized procedures.
101
Performance Targets: EPAs radiation labs are supporting Strategic Plan Goal 1, Objective 4: Reducing Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation through their ongoing work. The program developed an efficiency measure that demonstrates EPAs ability to expedite processes while ensuring safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP). FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$11.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and teleconferencing. (+$1.0) This is an increase for contracts to support the radiation lab work. (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the SARA of 1986; Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982; Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act of 1992.
102
Radiation: Response Preparedness Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$2,827.9
$3,077.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$3,042.0

($35.0)

$4,176.0
$7,253.0 42.3
$4,242.7
$7,070.6 41.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0 42.3
$4,082.0
$7,124.0 42.3
($94.0)
($129.0) 0.0
Program Project Description: The National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada, are nationally recognized radiological laboratories that provide field sampling and analyses, laboratory analyses, and direct scientific support to respond to radiological and nuclear incidents.3 This includes measuring and monitoring radioactive materials and assessing radioactive contamination in the environment. This program comprises direct scientific field and laboratory activities to support preparedness, planning, training, and procedures development. In addition, selected personnel are members of EPAs Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) and are trained to provide direct expert scientific and technical assistance in the field. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPAs RERT, a component of the Agencys emergency response program, will continue to improve the level of readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The laboratory RERT members will conduct training and exercises to enhance and demonstrate their ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities in the field, using mobile analytical systems. Laboratory staff also will support field operations with fixed laboratory analyses and provide rapid and accurate radionuclide analyses in environmental matrices.4
3 4
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/narel/iag.html Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/
103
Also, in FY 2012, both labs will continue to develop rapid-deployment capabilities to ensure that field teams are ready to provide scientific data, analyses and updated analytical techniques for radiation emergency response programs across the Agency. The laboratories will maintain readiness for radiological emergency responses; participate in emergency exercises; provide onsite scientific support to state radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation remediation; participate in the Protective Action Guidance (PAG) development and application; and respond, as required, to radiological incidents. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Radiation: Response Preparedness program under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$97.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$5.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$16.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs. (-$8.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA); Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and EAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II).
104
Program Area: Enforcement
105
Forensics Support Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $15,245.3

$2,727.0 $17,972.3 101.0

$2,450.0 $17,801.0 105.2

$2,389.0 $17,715.0 105.2
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($25.0)

($61.0) ($86.0) 0.0
$15,351.0
$2,450.0 $17,801.0 105.2
Program Project Description: The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the nations most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases, as well as technical expertise for Agency compliance efforts. This work is critical to determining non-compliance and building viable enforcement cases. EPAs National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) is a fully accredited environmental forensics center under International Standards Organization (ISO) 17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)5. Laboratory accreditation is the recognition of technical competence through a third-party assessment of a laboratorys quality, administrative, and technical systems. It also provides the general public and users of laboratory services a means of identifying those laboratories which have successfully demonstrated compliance with established international standards. NEICs accreditation standard has been customized to cover both laboratory and field activities. NEIC collaborates with other federal, state, local and tribal enforcement organizations to provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation, and case resolution activities in support of the Agencys Civil Enforcement program. The program also coordinates with the Department of Justice and other federal, state and local law enforcement organizations to provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.6 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2012 include focused refinement of single and multi-media compliance monitoring investigation approaches, customized laboratory methods to solve unusual enforcement case challenges, and applied research and development in both laboratory and field applications. In response to case needs, the NEIC will conduct applied research and development to identify, develop, and deploy new
5
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academy of Sciences, 2009, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589 6 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html
106
capabilities, test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques, and provide technology transfer to other enforcement personnel involving environmental measurement and forensic applications. Consistent with these activities and working with appropriate organizations across the Agency, NEIC also will play a role in evaluating the scientific basis and/or technical enforceability of select EPA regulations. Additionally, NEIC will apply its technical resources in support of the Agencys national enforcement priorities. In FY 2012, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation. The program also will continue to utilize advanced technologies to support field measurement and laboratory analyses. Performance Targets: Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$511.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$466.0) This change reduces resources that support the operations of NEIC and maintenance for its laboratory instruments. This reduction may defer NEIC's purchase of new equipment to support the Agency's criminal and civil enforcement cases and could also defer maintenance on some of its current laboratory and field equipment. (-$70.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); EPCRA.
107
Program Area: Homeland Security
108
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$6,805.1
$6,836.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$1,065.0

($5,771.0)

$23,026.0
$1,760.0 $31,622.0 49.0
$20,954.9
$1,269.5 $29,029.5 46.4
$23,026.0
$1,760.0 $31,622.0 49.0
$11,379.0
$0.0 $12,444.0 25.0
($11,647.0)
($1,760.0) ($19,178.0) -24.0
Program Project Description: This program provides resources to coordinate and support protection of the nations critical water infrastructure from terrorist threats and all-hazard events. Reducing risk in the water sector requires a multi-step approach to: determine risk through vulnerability, threat, and consequence assessments; reduce risk through security enhancements; prepare to effectively respond to and recover from incidents; and measure the water sectors progress in risk reduction. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response and Preparedness Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act) also provides that EPA support the water sector in such activities. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Since the events of 9/11, EPA has been designated as the sector-specific agency responsible for infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems. EPA is utilizing its position within the water sector and working with its stakeholders to provide information to help protect the nation's drinking water supply from terrorist or other intentional acts. Specifically, EPA is responsible for developing new security technologies to detect and monitor contaminants as part of the Water Security Initiative (WSI), establishing a national water laboratory alliance, and planning for and practicing for response to both natural and intentional emergencies and incidents. In FY 2012, EPA will move to the next phase of the WSI pilot program, focusing on support and evaluation activities. EPA also will continue to support water sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the nations critical water infrastructure. The Agency will continue to integrate the regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot laboratories into a national, consistent program. All of these efforts support the Agencys responsibilities and commitments under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), as defined within the Water Sector Specific Plan, which includes specific milestones for work related to the WSI, the Water Laboratory Alliance, and metric development.
109
Water Security Initiative and Water Laboratory Alliance EPAs goal is to develop a robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance and monitoring system7 for drinking water and a water laboratory network that would support water surveillance and emergency response activities. The overall goal of the initiative is to design and demonstrate an effective system for timely detection and appropriate response to drinking water contamination threats and incidents through a pilot program that has broad application to the nations drinking water utilities in high threat cities. WSI consists of five general components: (1) enhanced physical security monitoring; (2) water quality monitoring; (3) routine and triggered sampling for high priority contaminants; (4) public health surveillance; and (5) consumer complaint surveillance. Recent simulation analyses underscore the importance of a contaminant warning system that integrates all five components of event detection, as different contaminants are detected by different sequences of triggers or alarms. WSI is intended to demonstrate the concept of an effective contamination warning system that drinking water utilities in high threat cities of all sizes and characteristics could adopt. Resources appropriated to date have enabled EPA to award a total of five pilots for the WSI. The FY 2012 request includes $7.3 million for necessary ongoing WSI pilot support and evaluation activities and dissemination and knowledge transfer and $1.3 million for WATR. Funding will allow the Agency to provide technical support to the existing pilots, assist in conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons learned from the pilots to the water sector, and develop and execute an approach to promote national voluntary adoption of effective and sustainable drinking water contamination warning systems. In FY 2012, EPA will complete its evaluation of each pilot and continue to prepare and refine a series of guidance documents for water utilities on designing, deploying, and testing contamination warning systems based on additional lessons learned from the pilots. These guidance documents are planned to be finalized by 2013. In FY 2012, the pilots will conclude with a thorough evaluation of their operation, performance, and sustainability (i.e., the practicality of a water system deploying, operating, and maintaining the contamination warning system components, including costs and benefits). In the absence of an actual contamination event, much of the evaluation of the pilots will occur through reviewing, for example, component and system availability, alarm rates, operation and maintenance costs, and the success of conducting sample analysis in response to a trigger. The Agency will begin to execute a partnership-based outreach plan (based on coordination with water associations and water systems) to promote national adoption of drinking water contamination warning systems. This outreach plan will include the development of integrated tools and training materials to assist drinking water utilities with designing and deploying contamination warning systems. The tools and training materials will reflect data and lessons learned from the pilots. EPA anticipates conducting this outreach through a formal partnership with one or more water sector organizations to promote utility adoption of lessons learned through the pilots.
7
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 (HSPD-9).
110
In a contamination event, the sheer volume or unconventional type of samples could quickly overwhelm the capacity or capability of a single laboratory. To address this potential deficiency, EPA has established a national alliance of laboratories harnessed from the range of existing lab resources from the local (e.g., water utility) to the federal levels (e.g., CDCs Laboratory Response Network) into a Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA). The WLA focuses solely on water and represents the water component of the EPAs Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN). The ERLN is a network with a similar purpose as the WLA but with a focus on analyses of all other environmental media. The WLA will reduce the time necessary for confirming an intentional contamination event in drinking water and speed response and decontamination efforts. Launched in 2009, the WLA is composed of a number of environmental, public health, and commercial laboratories across the nation with membership increasing steadily. In FY 2012, efforts will focus on the national implementation of the WLA through the Water Laboratory Alliance Plan, a national plan which provides a protocol for coordinated laboratory response to a surge of analytical needs. EPA also will work with regional and state environmental laboratories to conduct exercises, within the framework of the Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan, and continue efforts to expand the membership of the WLA with the intention of achieving nationwide coverage. In addition, EPA will continue to support environmental laboratories and utilities by facilitating access to supplemental analytical capacity and improved preparedness for analytical support to an emergency situation. Under the WLA, EPA also will establish partnerships with stakeholders to further efforts necessary to validate methods for contaminants of high concern for intentional contamination in drinking water. About 90 percent of these contaminants currently lack validated methods. Water Sector-Specific Agency Responsibilities EPA is the sector-specific agency responsible for infrastructure protection activities for the water sector (drinking water and wastewater utilities). EPA is responsible for developing and providing tools and training on improving security to the 52,000 community water systems and 16,000 publicly-owned treatment works. In FY 2012, EPA will continue working to ensure that water sector utilities have tools and information to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, other intentional acts, and natural disasters. The following preventive and preparedness activities will be implemented for the water sector in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and states homeland security and water sector officials: Conduct webcasts to prepare utilities, emergency responders, and decision-makers to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and contamination threats and events; Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance to ensure that water and wastewater utilities and emergency responders react rapidly and effectively to intentional contamination and other incidents. Tools include: information on high priority contaminants, incident command protocols, sampling and detection protocols and methods, and treatment options;
111
Sustain operation of the Water Desk in the Agencys Emergency Operations Center by updating roles/responsibilities, training staff in the incident command structure, and ensuring adequate staffing during activation of the desk; Develop tools and technical assistance for water utilities under the Climate Ready Water Utilities effort, which would enable these utilities to account for climate change consideration in long-range planning and operations; Support the adoption and use of mutual aid agreements among utilities to improve recovery times; Continue to implement specific recommendations for emergency response, as developed by EPA and water sector stakeholders, including providing an expanded set of tools (e.g., best security practices, incident command system and mutual aid training, recovery, and resiliency) in order to keep the water sector current with evolving water security priorities; Continue to implement specific recommendations of the Water Decontamination Strategy as developed by EPA and water sector stakeholders (e.g., defining roles and responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies during an event); and Develop annual assessments, as required under the NIPP, to describe existing water security efforts and progress in achieving the sectors key metrics. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports EPAs Protect Human Health objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$183.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$9,020.0/-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects completion at the end of FY 2010 of certain activities associated with the five full-scale contamination warning system demonstration pilots in public water systems under the WSI. EPA will not perform research activities associated with the WSI Pilot Program in FY 2012. Other work, including support and evaluation of the pilots and dissemination and knowledge transfer, will be conducted with the resources remaining in the program. This reduction includes $133.0 in associated payroll. (-$39.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$700.0) This reflects a decrease to outreach activities, such as tabletop and full-scale exercises, conducted to increase the number of state and utility labs participating in the WLA program. Such outreach activities will be reduced by half. (-$1,772.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reflects a decrease to preparedness and risk reduction efforts for the water sector as these efforts ramp down due to work already completed.
112
Decreased efforts include training and tabletop exercises, technical assistance webinars, and conferences that directly support the water sector. This reduction includes $266.0 in associated payroll. (-$224.0) This reflects a reduction to the WSI program as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$75.0) This reflects a reduction to general expenses and other program support areas. Statutory Authority: SDWA 42 U.S.C. 300f300j9 as added by Public Law 93523 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments, Sections 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq Sections 301, 302, 303, and 304.
113
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$4,264.2
$3,423.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($3,423.0)

$41,657.0
$53,580.0 $98,660.0 174.2
$37,697.9
$51,558.9 $93,521.0 176.4
$41,657.0
$53,580.0 $98,660.0 174.2
$30,078.0
$40,662.0 $70,740.0 170.9
($11,579.0)
($12,918.0) ($27,920.0) -3.3
Program Project Description: EPAs Research and Development Programs research provides critical support to agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries and scales. However, these solutions were accomplished using 20th century approaches, focusing on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Such an approach limits the Agencys ability to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions that meet current needs without compromising the future. The Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) will continue to plan and implement a systems-based program. That approach will address scientific and technological gaps in a communitys ability to prepare for and recover from large-scale catastrophic events including chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) attacks. When terrorist attacks and even natural disasters occur, sustainable environmental approaches enhance the resiliency and speed the recovery of the communities that are affected. Communities that have a high degree of resiliency will be better prepared for and recover more quickly and completely from a disaster than communities that are not as resilient. The HSRP will evaluate tools and develop capabilities so that cost effective response and recovery approaches can be identified for future use by the response community, elected and appointed decision makers, and risk managers. Research will further state-of-the-art approaches to address all phases of community response and recovery to ensure public and worker safety,
114
protect property, and facilitate recovery. The Agency will continue to work with other federal agencies and organizations, through collaborative research efforts, to strengthen remediation and decontamination capabilities. EPAs Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)a federal advisory committee comprised of independent expert scientists and engineersrecognizes that the HSRP is both expansive and complex as is the Agencys responsibility for responding to future terror events. The December 2008 BOSC report noted that prior and recent reviews [by the National Academy of Sciences and Science Advisory Board] of the National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) have recognized this and have helped shape the scope of the current research program. The NHSRC has done a commendable job in analyzing and delineating the scope of its research program relative to available resources. The BOSC reported that the program is successfully providing utility to NHSRC clients and downstream end users. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA homeland security research on chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) contaminants will continue to fill critical gaps in our ability to effectively respond to and recover from threats and attacks, including large-scale catastrophic incidents, thereby enhancing the resilience of our communities. EPA has unique knowledge and expertise related to decontamination and disposal of contaminated materials and in protecting the nations drinking water and water infrastructure. FY 2012 Homeland Security Research Program funds will be used to deliver science and engineering research results to EPAs Water, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Air and Radiation programs, among others, to better facilitate and enable their ability to carry out the Agencys homeland security missions. These results include tools and techniques to facilitate response to and recovery from incidents involving CBR agents. Other applied science and technical support needs also will be provided to EPAs response community (National Decontamination Team, Environmental Response Team, Radiological Emergency Response Team, Removal Managers, and On-Scene Coordinators). For example, the programs experience and expertise were critical in supporting EPAs coordinated Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill response. EPAs HSRP also provides support and assistance in interactions with water utilities to help ensure the nations water systems are secure and drinking water is safe. The FY 2012 request for the HSRP includes a reduction of $8.2 million from the FY 2010 enacted budget. This reflects a 75 percent reduction to methods development, the planned completion of decontamination research for the Safe Buildings Program, and the reduced need for water contamination detection tools as work reaches completion. Decontamination Research EPAs decontamination research directly supports the Agencys National Response Framework (NRF) as well as its homeland security responsibilities. In many cases, the research program also supports the Department of Homeland Securitys needs for EPA expertise in a number of key areas including materials decontamination and disposal, threat assessment, and sampling and analytical methods. There are reductions in funding for some aspects of the homeland security Decontamination Research Program. Activities in FY 2012 will include the following:
115
Risk analysis research will continue, at a reduced level, to provide information that aids decision-makers in managing risks associated with exposure to biological and chemical agents. This information includes the science required to develop exposure limits and cleanup goals. Much progress has been made in collecting and evaluating data on the toxicity, infectivity, mechanism of action, fate, transport, and exposure consequences associated with CBR contamination. In 2012 and beyond, these data will be extrapolated to predict human response from exposure to varying doses of biological organisms. This information will support the development of cleanup goals for sites contaminated with biological agents. Development of Provisional Advisory Levels (PALs) for additional chemicals will provide health effect information for intermediate durations of exposure (hours days). Research will continue to identify and fill data gaps related to risk analysis and to develop improved methods to communicate risk information to decision-makers and the public. Testing and evaluation of commercially-available technologies will continue to support those in need of purchasing reliable equipment to detect and decontaminate CBR contaminants resulting from terrorist attacks on buildings and outdoor areas. Research will continue, at a significantly reduced level, which supports the development and capabilities of the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN). The program has made significant progress in the last several years on developing and verifying methods for the analysis of chemical, biological, and radiological warfare agents. The remaining methods development funding will be used to develop methods for newly identified, high priority contaminants. EPA will continue this support by updating the Selected Analytical Methods (SAM) manual, which identifies CBR agents and analytical methods that are needed to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to document the completion of remediation. Decontamination and consequence management research will continue, at a reduced level, to develop and improve decontamination and disposal techniques for the clean-up of outdoor areas, buildings, and infrastructure (e.g., subways, bridges, stadiums, and drinking water and wastewater systems) contaminated with CBR agents. The Safe Buildings portion of the program will be discontinued because the vast majority of research to support cleanup of the interior of buildings has been completed. EPA will, in partnership with several other government entities, collaborate on a large-scale field demonstration of decontamination methods for anthrax developed over the last few years. Also, EPA will work with other agencies to develop detection and analysis methods, and evaluate decontamination methods for outdoor areas, indoor areas and water infrastructure for new chemicals that may be used by terrorists. EPA will continue to develop methods to decontaminate structures and areas contaminated with radiological materials, as well as the safe disposal of radiologically-contaminated materials and decontamination residue. EPA also will provide a synthesis of its work on the impacts of decontamination activities on sensitive materials.
116
Water Infrastructure Protection Research Water Infrastructure Protection Research provides scientific data and tools for the Water Program and water utilities to improve the nations ability to protect water systems from attack and to detect and recover from an attack. This research directly supports the national Water Security Initiative while providing effective ways to detect CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater systems, to contain the contamination, and to treat the water and decontaminate the infrastructure. EPA has produced many award-winning products over the past few years designed to improve the water utilities capabilities including the CANARY event detection software that won the prestigious 2010 R&D 100 Award.8 Since the Water Security Initiative (WSI) is maturing, some aspects of the research program are reduced. Activities in FY 2012 will include the following: Support to provide technical assistance to water utilities regarding water contamination detection software tools will continue. These tools include the Threat Ensemble Vulnerability Assessment and Sensor Placement Optimization Tool (TEVA-SPOT) and the CANARY event detection software. Work will support implementation of WSI by water utilities with updates and improvement to software tools that help place detection systems in optimal locations within the water system, and to assist in detecting contamination. Research will be undertaken to support strategies that contain contamination (thus minimizing public exposure). This work includes the development of real-time distribution systems models to help decision makers isolate contaminated portions of the systems so that the water may be removed, and to locate the origin of the contamination. Methods will be developed to decontaminate water and wastewater treatment systems to rapidly restore function in a cost-effective manner. The program also will evaluate effective methods for treating and disposing of wastewater generated from decontamination activities. Testing and evaluation of commercially-available technologies will continue to support those in need of purchasing reliable equipment to detect and decontaminate CBR contaminants resulting from terrorist attacks on water and wastewater treatment systems. Radiation Monitoring Maintenance of the RadNet air monitoring network supports EPAs responsibilities under the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework (NRF). The network includes deployable monitors and near real-time stationary monitors.
http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/news/news122007.html
117
Through FY 2011, EPA expects to install all 134 purchased monitors providing near real-time radiation monitoring coverage for each of the 100 most populous U.S. cities as well as expanded geographic coverage. In FY 2012, the Agency will maintain the expanded RadNet air monitoring network. These near real-time monitors replaced or augmented the previous system of 60 conventional air samplers. Fixed stations will operate routinely and in conjunction with as many as 40 deployable monitors following a radiological incident. With the expanded RadNet air monitoring network, average response time and data dissemination will be reduced from days to hours and will provide the Agency and first responders with greater access to data, improving officials ability to make decisions about protecting public health and the environment during and after an incident. EPA will continue to update its fixed and deployable monitoring systems including their communications capability across various media. Additionally, the data will be used by scientists to better characterize the effect of a radiological incident. Biodefense There is no request for this program in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(H72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
100
100
90
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(H73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security initiatives.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
100
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
100
90
Percent
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. In FY 2012, the program plans to meet its targets of completing and delivering planned outputs in support of: 1) the efficient and effective clean-up and safe disposal of decontamination wastes, 2) the Water Security Initiative, 3) the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of clean-up goals and procedures following contamination, 4) supporting the Environmental Response Laboratory Network, and 5) the programs ability to provide timely quality assured ambient radiation monitoring during an emergency. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPAs goal of providing
118
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and stakeholders needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, EPAs Research and Development Program has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that these programs engage partners when making modifications. EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its FY 2012 strategic plan goal of protecting public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA-regulated radioactive waste and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$585.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$114.0/-0.5 FTE) This reflects the net result of infrastructure realignments of FTE and resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This change includes a decrease of $66.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and agency priorities. (-$49.0) This reflects adjustments to IT and telecommunications resources. Realignment of these resources is based on FTE allocations. (-$53.0\-0.4 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. It also includes a decrease of $53.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and agency priorities. (-$67.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$137.0\-0.3 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services in the Research and Development program. This change includes a decrease of $40.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and agency priorities. (-$133.0\-1.0 FTE) This reflects a shift from the Homeland Security Research Program to the Chemical Safety and Sustainability research program to better align resources,
119
skills, and agency priorities. This change includes a transfer of $133.0 in associated payroll to reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and agency priorities. (-$586.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$119.0\+10.0 FTE) This change reflects a shift of resources for the Agencys water security and decontamination research activities. This also reflects the transfer of extramural funding in the amount of $1,330.0 to payroll to cover the cost of the additional 10.0 FTE. (-$3,500.0) This reflects a 75 percent reduction to the methods development research in FY 2012. The program has made significant progress in the last several years on developing and verifying methods for the analysis of chemical, biological, and radiological warfare agents. The remaining methods development funding will be used to develop methods for newly identified, high priority contaminants. (-$4,089.0\-0.6 FTE) This reduction reflects: (1) planned completion of decontamination research for contaminated buildings (the Safe Buildings Program) and (2) a reduced need for water contamination detection tools as the Water Security Initiative completes its mission and a large extramural grant to study microbial risk assessment reaches completion. This change includes a reduction of $80.0 in associated payroll to reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and agency priorities. (-$2,225.0) This reflects a reduction of pesticide program resources. Affected areas include the improvement of disinfection capabilities as applied to the food and agriculture sectors. (-$596.0) This reflects a reduction of resources for EPA's RadNet national environmental radiation monitoring network.
120
(-$499.0) This reflects a reduction in resources for efforts to improve national radiological laboratory capacity and capability. This will result in the termination of laboratory capacity audits and proficiency testing of laboratories, a reduction in incident response radiological laboratory training, and a reduction in the publication of incident response radiological laboratory guidance documents. This disinvestment will lead to many of the nations radiological laboratories being inadequately prepared for a major nuclear or radiological incident due to slower data generation and delay of consequence management activities aimed at protecting the public. (+$3.0) This reflects additional resources to support efforts related to enhancing decontamination capability and capacity. Statutory Authority: AEA of 1954, as through P.L. 105394, November 13, 1998, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. - Section 275 Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; CAA Amendments 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq Sections 102 and 103; CERCLA, as amended by the SARA 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., Sections 104, 105 and 106; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; PHSA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq., Section 241; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Sections 201, 204, 303, 402, 403, and 502; SDWA 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1433, 1434 and 1442; NDAA of 1997, Public Law 104-201, Sections 1411 and 1412; PHSBPRA of 2002, Public Law 107188, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq., Sections 401 and 402 (amended the SDWA); TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 53 Section 2609; OPA, 33 U.S.C 40; PPA, 42 U.S.C 133; RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq; EPCRA 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.; CWA 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; FIFRA 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C 9; FQPA 7 USC 136 et seq. Executive Order 10831 (1970); PRIA; FSMA, Sections 203 and 208; Executive Order 13486: Strengthening Laboratory Biosecurity in the United States (2009); HSPD-5; HSPDs 7-10; HSPD-19.
121
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$6,300.3
$6,369.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$5,978.0

($391.0)

Building and Facilities Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$593.0
$8,070.0 $1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0
$593.0
$9,652.1 $1,194.0 $17,739.4 3.3
$593.0
$8,070.0 $1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0
$579.0
$8,038.0 $1,172.0 $15,767.0 3.0
($14.0)
($32.0) ($22.0) ($459.0) 0.0
Program Project Description: This program involves activities to ensure that EPAs physical structures and assets are secure and operational, and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in the event of an emergency. These efforts also protect the capability of EPAs vital laboratory infrastructure assets. Specifically, funds within this appropriation support security needs for the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide enhanced physical security for the NVFEL and its employees. This funding supports the incremental cost of security enhancements required as part of an Agency security assessment review. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$15.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its Currently, there are no
122
work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$1.0) This increase supports the security needs of the NVFEL. Statutory Authority: Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629); CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f); Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; NEP Act, SAFETEA-LU of 2005; EPAct of 2005; EISA of 2007.
123
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
124
IT / Data Management Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$98,258.9
$97,410.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$88,576.0

($8,834.0)

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$4,385.0
$162.0 $24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$4,054.0
$152.3 $24.0 $16,498.3 $118,987.5 481.6
$4,385.0
$162.0 $24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$4,108.0
$0.0 $0.0 $15,352.0 $108,036.0 481.5
($277.0)
($162.0) ($24.0) ($1,735.0) ($11,032.0) -21.6
Program Project Description: High quality data in support of sound science serves as a strategic resource that supports the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment. IT/Data Management (IT/DM) programs facilitate the Agencys Science and Technology (S&T) programs by delivering essential services to Agency staff to allow them to conduct their work effectively and efficiently. These three themes, facilitating mission activities through better information and tools; improving agency work processes to promote efficiencies; increasing transparency and innovation in the agency work processes and enabling the work force with reliable tools and services are reflected in the following investments. IT/DM supports the development, collection, management and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program and regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration and public access. IT/DM manages the Agencys Quality System, ensuring EPAs processes and data are of high quality and adhere to federal guidelines. IT/DM supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs and telecommunications. The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive purposes, activities can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/Information Management (IT/IM) policy and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and
125
maintenance enhancements (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. IT/IM and IOME activities are provided to the programs funded under S&T. Resources under this program also fund the Agency-wide Quality Program. The Quality Program is a key management system that ensures the quality of all services provided by EPA, including, for example, all of the science and technology underpinning all of EPA's environmental work, all of EPA's data and all of EPA's documents for public distribution. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: For FY 2012, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the following S&T funded programs: Internet Operations and Maintenance Enhancements (IOME) FY 2012 activities in this area implement and maintain the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over 200 top-level pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on the EPA Web site. In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery mechanism for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2012, IOME activities will be funded at $0.42 million in non-payroll funding under the S&T appropriation.) IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning - FY 2012 activities will ensure that all due steps are taken to reduce redundancy among information systems and data bases, streamline and systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities, and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM activities and systems. EPAs Quality Program has consistently played a major role in each of these areas. In FY 2012, the Quality Program will initiate a number of revisions to comply with the CIO Quality Policy 2106 (http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/21060.pdf). (In FY 2012, Quality Program activities will be funded at $0.99 million in non-payroll funding and $2.7 million in payroll funding under the S&T appropriation.) Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$267.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Currently, there are no
126
(-$498.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in efforts to improve EPAs IT capabilities in order to support the Agencys expanding use of video conferencing under the green travel and conferencing initiative. (-$18.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961 and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
127
Program Area: Operations and Administration
128
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$310,238.8
$315,238.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$324,965.0

$9,727.0

Building and Facilities Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$72,918.0
$28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$72,841.7
$29,896.7 $871.9 $489.4 $76,052.0 $490,390.5 410.6
$72,918.0
$28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$76,521.0
$33,931.0 $916.0 $536.0 $81,431.0 $518,300.0 408.5
$3,603.0
$5,000.0 $12.0 $31.0 $2,949.0 $21,322.0 -2.6
Program Project Description: Science & Technology (S&T) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program are used to fund rental of laboratory and office space, utilities, security, and also to manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety, and environmental management functions, facilities maintenance and operations, energy conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, sustainable buildings programs, and space planning. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis, and is implementing a long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical. From FY 2007 through FY 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and facilities nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $1.1 million in S&T dollars over this period. The Agencys Space Strategy efforts continue to pursue several long term policy options that could lead to further efficiencies and potential reductions to the Agencys real property footprint. In FY 2011 thru FY 2014, EPA plans to release additional space for more savings. These achieved savings and potential savings partially offset EPAs escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for regional offices in Boston, Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle are significantly higher than those previously negotiated. The
129
Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services Administration and other private landlords by conducting reviews and verifying that billing statements are correct. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $35.66 million for rent, $20.20 million for utilities, $10.71 million for security, $0.90 million for transit subsidy, and $2.58 million for Regional moves in the S&T appropriation. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new, advanced technologies, and energy sources. EPA will continue to direct resources towards acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 134239, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Orders environmental performance goals related to buildings through several initiatives, including comprehensive facility energy audits, re-commissioning, sustainable building design in Agency construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power purchases, and the use of Energy Star rated products and building standards. In FY 2012, the Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37 billion British Thermal Units or three percent. EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately 21 percent less energy than it did in FY 2003. EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will meet the requirements of EO 13514 through: Managing existing building systems to reduce consumption of energy, water, and materials; Identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing assets, optimize real property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and Implementing best management practices in energy-efficient management of real property including Agency labs and data centers. As part of the Agencys commitment to promoting employee health and wellness, the Agency collected data to assess its health and wellness programs nationwide. The data will be used to establish a baseline from FY 2010, which the Agency will use to explore options to improve health and wellness programs, and to develop performance improvement targets and an action plan with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of life of EPA employees. In the interim EPA has a short-term plan that includes the following initiatives: Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand health and wellness programs in GSA-owned and leased facilities. Some options include healthier food choices, increasing fitness center activities, and expanding health unit capabilities.
Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13423/, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
130
Enhance outreach efforts to employees to increase fitness center memberships, registration for seminars and educational programs, and inoculations and screenings in health units. Establish or expand sports competitions and fitness challenges to build or strengthen our fitness programs nationwide. Offer more health educational classes and seminars to increase employee attendance and participation. Lastly, EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 1315010 Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue the implementation of the Safety and Health Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2,034.0) This increase reflects the net effect of rent reduction as a result of the space consolidation effort, projected contractual rent increases, and reallocation involving EPM, S&T and Superfund appropriations. (+$1,018.0) This reflects an increase in utility costs. (+$454.0) This reflects an increase in security due to guard contract costs in RTP and Cincinnati facilities. (+$2,333.0) This reflects an increase in funding for Regional moves for the Reproductive Toxicology Facility (RTF), which is moving to the main campus in Research Triangle Park (RTP). (-$35.0) This reflects a decrease in transit subsidy based on projected needs. (-$1,083.0) This reflects efficiencies achieved in health and safety audits, security systems maintenance by utilizing a Physical Access Control System, and preventative maintenance and on-site engineering support at EPAs facility. (-$882.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
10
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13150.html
131
including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$236.0) This reduction eliminates EPAs funding for Lab 21 conference, which will now be fully funded from private sector resources. Statutory Authority: FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection); Energy Policy Act of 2005; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
132
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
133
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$62,696.4
$62,944.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$58,304.0

($4,640.0)

$3,750.0
$66,694.0 467.9
$4,146.4
$66,842.8 470.1
$3,750.0
$66,694.0 467.9
$3,839.0
$62,143.0 447.5
$89.0
($4,551.0) -20.4
Program Project Description: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 3(c)(5), states that the Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with labeling and common practices, the product will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Further, FIFRA defines unreasonable adverse effects on the environment as any unreasonable risk to man or the environment. EPAs Pesticides Program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe. As directed by FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Act of 1996 that amended FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA is responsible for registering and re-evaluating pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. To make regulatory decisions and establish tolerances for the maximum allowable pesticide residues on food and feed, EPA must balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider cumulative and aggregate risks, and ensure extra protection for children. Laboratory activity for the Pesticide Program supports the goal of protecting human health through efforts at three laboratories: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories provide a variety of technical services to EPA, other federal and state agencies, tribes, and other organizations. The laboratories assist the Agency and state enforcement laboratories by providing reference standards, analytical methods development, training, and assistance with laboratory audits. They develop and validate analytical methods for risk assessment and enforcement projects. The analytical methods are available for use by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA, and states. Additionally, the laboratories perform chemical and efficacy analyses and assist in investigations of incidents such as crop damage or illegal pesticide residues. For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/labs/index.htm.
134
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In 2012, the Agency will protect human health by ensuring the availability of appropriate analytical methods for detecting pesticide residues in food and feed, ensuring suitability for monitoring pesticide residues, and enforcing tolerances. This will be accomplished by developing and validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for food, feed, and water for use by other federal and state laboratories, and EPA. Laboratories further support the estimation of human health risks from pesticide use by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository (NPSR). EPAs NPSR collects and maintains pesticide standards (i.e., samples of pure active ingredients or technical grade active ingredients for pesticides). The repository distributes these standards to EPA and other federal laboratories and tribal laboratories involved in pesticide enforcement, including tolerance , enforcement verification of label claims, and investigations of pesticide use/misuse in support of EPAs regulatory decisions for FIFRA and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The laboratories also perform efficacy measurement and testing of antimicrobial products with public health claims for example hospital disinfectants and research on methods to measure the efficacy of various types of antimicrobials, including sporicides. EPA's pesticide laboratories provide quality assurance and technical support and training to EPA regional offices, state laboratories, and other federal agencies that implement FIFRA. The laboratories will evaluate registered products that are most crucial to infection control (e.g. sterilants, tuberculocides, and hospital-level disinfectants). Under the Plant Incorporated Protectants or PIP method validation program, evaluation will continue on several novel molecular-based methods. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk and can be found in the Performance Four -Year Array in Tab 11. Some of this programs performance measures are program outputs, which represent statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and when used in accordance with the packaging label, present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for realizing benefits in that the programs safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace. There are no specific performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$52.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$23.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
135
advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$60.0) This increase represents additional funds to support fixed laboratory costs for the pesticide program. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended, 408 and 409.
136
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$41,584.5
$42,203.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$37,913.0

($4,290.0)

$2,279.0
$44,482.0 301.4
$2,285.9
$43,870.4 334.9
$2,279.0
$44,482.0 301.4
$2,448.0
$40,361.0 288.2
$169.0
($4,121.0) -13.2
Program Project Description: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with labeling and common practices, the product will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA defines unreasonable adverse effects on the environment as any unreasonable risk to man or the environment. Along with assessing the risks that pesticides pose to human health, EPA conducts ecological risk assessments to determine potential effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems. EPA works to protect ecosystems, particularly the plants and animals that are not targets of the pesticide, and satisfies additional responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).11 As directed by FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide is not likely to harm the environment, and may impose risk mitigation measures such as restricting uses, denying uses, or requiring monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects on water sources.12 In making its regulatory decisions, the Agency considers both the risks and the benefits derived from the use of the pesticide. Laboratory activities for the pesticides program support the goal of protecting the environment from pesticide use through three pesticides laboratories: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories develop and validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods and genetically modified organism Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) methods to ensure the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA
11
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)1 and 7(a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 Internet site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleQA.html. 12 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
137
offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The pesticide laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state, and other EPA laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In 2012, the Agency will support the protection of the environment by developing methods and conducting analyses to make better informed decisions regarding pesticide exposures and risk to the environment and by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository (NPSR) to support federal and state laboratories involved in enforcement activities. Under the PIP method validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based methods. The laboratories also will support the protection of the environment by: 1) Evaluating residue analytical methods used for detecting pesticide residues in environmental matrices, such as water, soil, and sediment. Evaluating residue analytical methods will allow the program to better assess the results generated by the registrant and submitted to the Agency, which is required by the pesticide registration guidelines of FIFRA. Evaluating residue analytical methods also will assist the agency in developing and validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for environmental matrices for use by other federal and state laboratories to estimate environmental risks. 2) Responding to urgent pesticide program needs for analytical chemistry support to address specific short-term, rapid turnaround issues of high priority. The laboratories cooperate with the Regional Offices on activities related to analysis of environmental samples for select pesticides or other environmental contaminants related to pesticide production or disposition. Additionally, the laboratories develop exposure data for dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other persistent contaminants of environmental concern, to support agency environmental risk assessments. 3) Conducting product performance evaluations of antimicrobials to remove ineffective products from the market. The labs also provide data to support use of effective tools for remediation efforts and testing capacity for environmental monitoring of microbial populations (due to overt or unintentional contamination). Another activity involves conducting validation services on methods used to detect DNA and/or proteins for PIPs in major agricultural commodities such as corn, soybeans, potatoes, and cotton. EPAs laboratories provide technical support and quality assurance support to regional, state and other federal laboratories in numerous ways. The laboratories are responsible for the posting and upkeep of residue analytical methods and environmental chemistry methods for food, feed, soil, and water on the EPA Web site. These methods are frequently the only resource available to Regional Offices, state laboratories, and other federal agencies for current methodology information for the newest pesticides. The microbiology laboratory also posts and maintains the methods used to determine the efficacy of microbiological products on the Web where there are approximately 400 methods currently available (see http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/methods/).
138
Additionally, the Agency responds to approximately 90 requests per year for method information. These requests primarily come from state FIFRA laboratories. The laboratories are involved in the development of multi-residue analytical methods (MRMs), which are methods capable of measuring several similar pesticides simultaneously. These MRMs are made available to state and federal laboratories involved in residue monitoring and enforcement activities. The pesticides program operates the EPA NPSR, which provides pesticide reference materials to federal and state laboratories for enforcement activities. The NPSR shipped approximately 6,000 analytical reference standards to enforcement laboratories in FY 2007 and approximately 6,500 standards in FY 2008. In FY 2009, 5,013 standards were provided. The number increased to 6,870 in FY 2010. FY 2011 and FY 2012 standards are anticipated to be 6,500 for each year. The laboratories also participate in the American Association of Pest Control Officials and the State FIFRA Issues and Research Evaluation Group pesticide laboratory technical meetings with state and industry chemists, responding to issues raised by enforcement laboratories. Additionally, the laboratories are represented on and work through the Association of Analytical Chemists to develop and implement consensus methods for microbiology and chemistry. In the area of quality assurance, the Agencys laboratories assist state and federal partners in several ways. Examples include providing review of quality management plans and laboratory projects conducted under interagency agreements with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); providing technical assistance and oversight on quality assurance and technical questions from FDA and DoD laboratories for a variety of projects; providing quality assurance oversight to the FDA/White Oak facility for the Three Step Method (TSM) collaborative validation study (the FDA did not have a quality assurance unit in place at the time of the study); and conducting a readiness review at 10 collaborating laboratories working on the validation of the TSM. The TSM quantitatively measures the efficacy of antimicrobials for inactivating anthrax spores. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk and can be found in the Performance Four-Year Array in Tab 11. Some of the pesticide programs performance measures are program outputs, which represent statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. There are no specific performance measures under this program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$125.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
139
(-$15.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$59.0) This increase represents additional funds to support laboratory fixed costs for the pesticide program. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended 408 and 409.
140
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$13,508.9
$13,145.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$12,550.0

($595.0)

$537.0
$13,682.0 89.7
$505.1
$14,014.0 99.9
$537.0
$13,682.0 89.7
$544.0
$13,094.0 88.1
$7.0
($588.0) -1.6
Program Project Description: Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment expands the concept of protecting against unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide13 This language authorizes the emergency use program to respond in infestations along with other aspects of the program that enhances the benefits of pesticides. EPA must ensure that such emergency uses will not present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. EPAs timely review of emergency exemptions has avoided an estimated $1.5 billion in crop losses per year,14 resulting from incidents of new pests on crops when exemptions are necessary to allow non-standard pesticide use to stem off a specific outbreak or while progress is made towards full registration of new pesticides. In such cases, EPAs goal is to complete the more detailed and comprehensive risk review for pesticide registration within three years. FIFRA clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human health and the environment from the pesticide registration process that it establishes. Section 3 of FIFRA also authorizes EPA to register products that are identical or substantially similar to already registered products. While some effective termiticides have been removed from the market due to safety concerns, EPA continues to work with industry to register safe alternatives that meet or exceed all current safety standards and offer a high level of protection.
13 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm. 14 Baseline data on crop market prices, crop production, and total acres grown are from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) databases, while the percentage of potential yield loss without pesticides is estimated by Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) scientists based on published and unpublished studies. The number of acres treated with the pesticides are based on data submitted by state Departments of Agriculture.
141
Three pesticide laboratories provide data that are used by EPA to make informed regulatory decisions that recognize societal benefits: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories also validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. Additionally, the laboratories ensure that pesticides deliver intended results. The laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop multiresidue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will realize the benefits of pesticides by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository (NPSR) and conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials. EPA's laboratories will continue to provide quality assurance and technical support and training to EPA regions, state laboratories, and other federal agencies that implement FIFRA. The laboratories will evaluate registered products that are most crucial to infection control (sterilants, tuberculocides, and hospital-level disinfectants). Under the Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIP) method validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based methods. The pesticide laboratories support the program by evaluating analytical methods for detecting pesticide residues in food and feed ensuring suitability for monitoring pesticide residues and enforcement of tolerances. The NPSR also distributes analytical standards to federal and state laboratories involved in enforcement activities. The laboratories develop and validate multiresidue pesticide analytical methods for food, feed and water for use by other federal (USDA Pesticide Data Program and FDA) and state laboratories. These laboratories generate residue data that are then used by the program to estimate human health risks. The laboratories are prepared to respond to urgent program needs for analytical chemistry support and special studies to address specific short-term, rapid turnaround priority issues. In addition to residue methods, the laboratories provide method validation services for genetically modified organism products. They also develop data to support FIFRA Section 18 uses for new chemicals where efficacy data are non-existent (particularly biothreat agents, including B. anthracis, or emerging hospital pathogens) and evaluate the product performance of antimicrobials used to control infectious pathogens in hospital environments. The laboratories develop new test methods for novel uses or emerging pathogens, including biothreat agents. The outputs of this work provide guidelines for efficacy data for public health claims, guidance for registration, and facilitate technical support and training on testing methods and procedures. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
142
Some of this programs performance measures are program outputs, which represent statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and, when used in accordance with the packaging label, present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for realizing benefits in that the programs safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace. There are no specific performance measures under this program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$4.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$3.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$14.0) This increase represents additional funds to support laboratory fixed costs for the pesticide program. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)as amended, 408 and 409.
143
Program Area: Research: Air, Climate and Energy
144
Research: Air, Climate and Energy Program Area: Research: Air, Climate and Energy Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $102,758.1

$102,758.1 311.4

$111,449.0 313.6

$108,000.0 309.6
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($3,449.0)

($3,449.0) -4.0
$111,449.0
$111,449.0 313.6
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries and at different scales (national, regional, and local). However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best science available at the time and typically focused on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions that are designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential human health and environmental risks in the future. Air quality decisions historically rested solely on the health and environmental consequences of individual pollutants. As many air pollutant levels decrease, however, concern grows for potential health and environmental effects from multipollutant exposures. Climate change may be affected by, and contribute to, particles in these multipollutant mixtures. A change in climate may cause changes in temperature, humidity, and cloud formation that can lead to the evolution of secondary pollutants (e.g., ozone and organic compounds) and changes in pollution-causing particles. An increase in secondary pollutants and particle changes may cause increased degradation of air and water quality. At the same time, community traffic plans and land use decisions also have impacts on climate and air quality. A comprehensive understanding of these processes is necessary to inform the models used to make air quality and community adaptation decisions and to avoid partial, disconnected information that undermines sound decision making. In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results than those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.
145
Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,15 the new integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing research portfolio. The Agency will plan, develop and conduct research leveraging the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems. The Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Programs integrated research approach will provide models and tools necessary for policy makers at all levels of community and government to make the best decisions. In coordination with other Research Programs, EPA will extend its research to include impacts to disadvantaged or otherwise compromised communities. The new research approach integrates multiple science disciplines and includes multiple users to promote sound policy decisions as we move forward in the 21st century. EPA will use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY 2012, EPA is realigning and integrating the work of twelve of its base Research Programs into four new Research Programs: Air, Climate and Energy Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Sustainable and Healthy Communities Chemical Safety and Sustainability
15
For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fy12-budget-guidance-memo.pdf.
146
This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the innovative use of multiple disciplines to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will also continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. This program realignment will strengthen EPAs ability to leverage its partnerships to ensure its research is addressing the highest Agency priorities. The following Research Programs will be integrated into the Air, Climate and Energy Research Program: Clean Air Research Global Change Research Biofuels Research (within the Sustainability Program) Mercury Research (within the Human Health and Ecosystems Program)
The following are descriptions of current FY 2012 Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) activities categorized under the key program areas: Clean Air Research ($83.1 million)Clean Air research provides the scientific foundation for review and implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In order to better address the true atmospheric complexities of air pollution, EPA conducts research using a multi-pollutant source to health outcome approach. This air quality approach will link health and environmental impacts to their dominant sources and will provide information for a more effective and efficient air quality management strategy. Global Change Research ($20.8 million)Global Change research provides scientific information to enable decision makers and stakeholders to develop the most effective policies and strategies to respond to global change. Research will continue to improve understanding of how climate change affects the Agencys ability to fulfill its statutory, regulatory and programmatic requirements, and identifies opportunities within the provisions of the statutes (e.g., the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act) to address the anticipated impacts of a changing climate. The Air, Climate and Energy Program will continue to provide the underlying research to support the Agencys implementation of the Clean Air Act, which mandates scientific review of the NAAQS as well as the evaluation of risks associated with HAPs. The ACE program will also continue to be an active participant in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the interagency Federal effort to improve scientific understanding of climate change and global change.16 EPA will continue to participate in USGCRPs programmatic, assessment, and planning activities, including the development of the National Climate Assessments. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Protecting human health and the environment from the effects of air pollution and developing a better understanding of climate change impacts on natural systems, while meeting the demands of a growing population and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation. As we
16
For more information, see http://www.globalchange.gov/
147
investigate solutions to reduce and prevent emissions and investigate potential environmental implications of a changing climate, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding the complex interplay between air quality, the changing climate, and a changing energy landscape, and the subsequent human health and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants. By integrating air, climate and energy research, and in working with the other Research Programs, EPA will conduct research to understand the complexity of these interactions. The ACE Program will provide cutting-edge scientific information and tools to support EPAs strategic goals to protect and improve air quality. New knowledge will investigate environmental implications of strategies to reduce emissions and sustainably adapt to climate change. EPAs ACE Research Program is designed to promote innovative, sustainable, and integrated solutions to air pollution and climate change to minimize adverse impacts on public health and the environment. The ACE Program also will continue to provide responsive, robust, and dynamic research in support of EPAs programs to improve public health and the environment, increase life expectancy, and protect the most susceptible populations. Following are overarching research themes to be addressed by the program based on ongoing input from EPAs partners. These research themes and questions will be independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors during the spring and summer of 2011. Theme 1: Develop and evaluate multi-pollutant, regional, and sector-based approaches and advance more cost-effective and innovative strategies to reduce air emissions that adversely affect atmospheric integrity. Air pollution sources emit mixtures of pollutants, including greenhouse gases. Individuals are therefore exposed to multiple air pollutants at any one time. Multi-pollutant and sector-based pollutant reduction approaches will be developed to simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and account for the evolution and transformation of these mixtures in the atmosphere and the effects of a changing climate. Integrated pollution reduction approaches will enable EPA to develop and implement sustainable solutions to effectively meet its goal to ensure a clean and healthy environment. The ACE Research Program will: Work with experts in industry, academic and research communities, and with other federal, state and local partners to develop integrated strategies that reduce and prevent atmospheric pollution from key economic sectors. Assess the full life-cycle health, environmental and social impacts of alternative sectorspecific strategies, such as biofuels for transportation. Develop, evaluate, and adapt innovative technologies for both monitoring multi-pollutant mixtures in the atmosphere and assessing source emissions for a range of needs, including community information, compliance and enforcement, regional and national assessments and air quality planning.
148
Develop research tools that can evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution strategies at the local, regional and national levels. Theme 2: Assess the impacts of atmospheric pollution, accounting for interactions between climate change, air quality, and water quality. Understanding the concurrent impacts of atmospheric pollution and climate change is a critical step in evaluating the benefits and sustainability of environmental policies. Many of the environmental outcomes EPA is seeking to improve are sensitive to weather and climate change. Research is needed to explain how changes in climate will affect achieving and maintaining air pollution and other environmental goals. Adding to the complexity is the need to understand how air pollutants, acting in combination with each other and with stressors impacted by climate change (e.g., temperature, aeroallergens), impact human health and ecosystems. The ACE Research Program will: Develop methods to assess health and ecosystem impacts of exposure to multiple air pollutants in different environments including polluted urban areas, indoor environments, and affected ecosystems. Develop tools and methods to assess impacts of air pollution and climate change at community, regional, national and international scales. Link economic, technology, air quality, water quality, land use, ecosystem, and other models to enable integrated analyses of atmospheric pollution impacts. Gather, synthesize and report data on past changes in relevant environmental endpoints and climate-related metrics. Theme 3: Provide environmental modeling, monitoring, metrics, and information needed by communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Documented changes to environment and human health due to climate change are challenging the ability of federal, state, and local agencies to meet their responsibilities to protect public health and the environment. EPA has an important role to play in providing information that will help communities adapt to the environmental consequences of climate change. The ACE Research Program will: Assess the characteristics of populations and ecosystems that are at greatest risk to the adverse effects of air pollution and climate change. Develop integrated approaches to assess how social and economic factors affect vulnerability to air pollution and climate change. Develop tools and methods that enable evaluation of adaptation efforts and inform coordinated, sustainable responses to the impacts of climate change, in partnership with other federal agencies and research institutions. Develop tools to assess behavioral, social and economic responses to mitigation or adaptation policies addressing climate change that can affect vulnerability to air pollution or climate change impacts. Support Agency efforts to develop and maintain a next generation monitoring network for ambient air pollutants, including both the NAAQS and HAPs. In particular, it will
149
provide field validation of available, untested and undeployed monitoring methods, refinement of outdated techniques and methods, and innovative new technologies. Within these integrated themes, EPA will continue its research to understand air pollution near roads, attempting to link roadway emissions with health outcomes.17 EPA is conducting studies in Detroit from September 2010 through 2012, in collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration, to measure and characterize emissions and to understand potential exposures associated with roadway emissions. This research is being coordinated by EPA with a cooperative study conducted by the University of Michigan focusing on the links between emissions, ambient concentrations, exposure metrics and health outcomes in asthmatic children residing near roadways. Through 2012, EPA will be publishing and reporting study data. Based on this near roads research, EPA will refine pollution models to provide regulators, community planners and decision makers with the tools needed to assess land-use and future land-use planning. These tools will inform key decisions such as school building locations and renovations. This research includes an assessment of the use of passive road barriers in mitigating air pollution effects. Because the 2010 Report to Congress is complete, EPA will reduce funding for research on the impacts of biofuel production in FY 2012. The decrease will reduce EPA research on filling gaps identified in the Report to Congress, while still enabling EPA planning for the 2013 Report to Congress as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). EPA also will reduce funding for the Mercury Research Program and discontinue research examining mercury hot spots evaluating mercury emission measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact of different coals and technology configurations on coal combustion residues. The program will use data already generated to produce final products and reports. During 2012, each of the six NAAQS will be at some phase within the review cycle: Science Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessment, Policy Assessment, external review (e.g., Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee review or public review), or Proposed Rulemaking leading to Final Rule Making. Currently, Particulate Matter and Ozone are in the final phases of review. The NAAQS reviews focus on individual pollutants as statutorily mandated in five-year cycles of review. The Air, Climate and Energy research program will continue to provide the critical science to support the review process and the development of models and tools to support implementation of the NAAQS. EPA will support the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves18 to inform investments to develop and deploy improved stoves. The goal of the alliance is to reduce the health risks of people exposed to the emissions from cookstoves used by the worlds poor to cook and heat. Clean cookstoves can save lives, enhance livelihoods, empower women and combat climate change. By utilizing EPAs unique expertise in characterizing emission generation, quantifying exposures and assessing human health effects, ACE will address the health, environmental, economic, and gender risks associated with the use of solid fuels in traditional cookstoves. Performance Targets:
17 18
For more information, see Near Roads: http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/air/linkages.html For more information, see the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves: http://cleancookstoves.org/overview/.
150
To be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas Reinvestment Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently a pilot program for the National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will use science of science policy approaches to assessing the impact that federal science and technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following this section: (+$3,000.0) This reflects an increase to help the Agency develop efficient, highperforming, and cost-effective monitors for ambient air pollutants, including both the NAAQS and HAPs. In particular, it will provide field validation of available, untested and undeployed monitoring methods, refinement of outdated techniques and methods, and innovative new technologies. With this investment, the Agency will seek lowest-cost, automated monitoring technologies to minimize future monitoring burdens felt by state and local agencies. This investment in a next generation air monitoring network supports the Agencys priority of improving air quality across the nation by helping modernize monitoring methods and monitors. (-$36.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$150.0) This reflects a decrease to the Clean Air Research Program and will reduce source receptor and dose-effect research that investigates human exposure to air pollutants and the resulting health effects. This decrease could reduce the level of detail in risk estimates that support NAAQS regulations. This decrease will also delay reporting for the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study. (-$625.0) This reflects a reduction to research investigating the impacts of climate change on estuarine ecosystems. (-$762.0) This reduction to the Clean Air Research Program will reduce research activities that support the development and application of models and technologies used to understand the relationships between air pollution, ambient concentration and exposures, and assist in the development of state implementation strategies. This decrease will result in a delay to possible model improvements that could aid state and regional air quality implementation plans.
151
(-$2,200.0) This reflects a disinvestment of research in biofuels due to the completion of the 2010 Report to Congress. The decrease will reduce EPA research on filling gaps identified in the Report to Congress, while still enabling EPA planning for the 2013 Report to Congress as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). (-$2,429.0 / -3.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to the Mercury Research Program and includes a reduction of 3.1 FTE and decreased associated payroll of -$412.0. The program will discontinue research examining mercury hot spots evaluating mercury emission measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact of different coals and technology configurations on coal combustion residues. The program will use data already generated to produce final products and reports. (-$247.0 / -.9 FTE) This decrease represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $820.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Air, Climate and Energy Program. The following transfers will integrate Clean Air, Global Climate Change, Mercury and Biofuels Programs into the transdisciplinary Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort will improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. This integration reflects EPAs efforts to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making, thereby strengthening the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health. (+$83,186.0 / +261.8 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Clean Air Research Program into the new, integrated Air, Climate and Energy Research Program, including $35,373.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as Information Technology (IT) reductions, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Clean Air Program narrative. (+$20,810.0 / +41.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Global Change Research Program into the new, integrated Air, Climate and Energy Research Program, and includes $5,521.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Global Change Program narrative. (+$1,204.0 / +6.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program for mercury research and includes
152
$886.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Program narrative. (+$2,800.0) This reflects a transfer of resources from the Sustainability Research Program for biofuels research. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Sustainability Program narrative. Statutory Authority: CAA 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Title 1, Part A Sec. 103 (a) and (d) and Sec. 104 (c); CAA 42 U.S.C 7402(b) Section 102; CAA 42 U.S.C 7403(b)(2) Section 103(b)(2); Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C 11318; Economy Act, 31 U.S.C 1535; EISA, Title II Subtitle B; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NCPA; NEPA, Section 102; PPA; USGCRA 15 U.S.C. 2921.
153
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
154
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $108,932.9

$108,932.9 407.5

$111,073.0 427.0

$118,776.0 439.6

$7,703.0 12.6
$111,073.0
$111,073.0 427.0
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to reduce pollution and minimize waste in specific industries. However, these solutions were accomplished approaches based on the best science available at the time for very specific problems, for example, focusing on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions that are designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential health and environmental detriment in the future. One such novel challenge is nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus). The problem of nutrient loading and the events that cascade from it are not just a pervasive problem for aquatic ecosystems, but also may create public health problems, both of which could be exacerbated by climate change and changes in water quantity. Nutrients enter and impact every step of the hydrologic cycle from air to land to fresh surface water to groundwater to estuaries to marine systems. Excessive nutrient loads are currently responsible for poor biological condition in over 30 percent of the nations stream miles and about 20 percent of the nations lakes and reservoirs. In addition, these loads raise public health concerns associated with cyanobacterial blooms, nitrate and nitrite pollution, and the formation of disinfection by-products in drinking water supplies. Solving the nutrient pollution problem and ensuring sustainable, safe water resources, will require engaging expertise across many sectors and across traditional scientific disciplines. Integrated, research is needed to help develop improved management practices for nutrients and other novel water challenges in the face of competing demands for water resources. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and produce more timely, efficient results than
155
those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. Consistent with the Administrations science and technology priorities for FY 2012,19 the new integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing water research portfolio. The Agency will plan, develop and conduct research leveraging the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers, and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. In addition, research for scientific, technological, and behavioral innovations will help ensure clean, abundant and equitable supplies of water that support human health and resilient aquatic ecosystems. Research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems. EPA will use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY 2012, EPA is realigning and combining the Drinking Water and Water Quality base Research Programs into one Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the use of an approach to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will also continue, but with an emphasis on applications and outcomes. This program realignment will strengthen EPAs ability to leverage partnerships to ensure research is addressing the highest Agency priorities.
19
156
The following are descriptions of FY 2012 Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program activities categorized under each program area: EPAs Drinking Water Research Program (FY 2012 request: $52.5 million) conducts comprehensive integrated research in support of EPAs Water Program and regional offices implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The program focuses on characterization and management of human health risks across the water continuum with an emphasis on sound scientific approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable drinking water. The Water Quality Research Program (FY 2012 request: $66.2 million) is designed to support the Clean Water Act (CWA), providing scientific information and tools to the Agency and others to help protect and restore the designated uses of water bodies that sustain human health and aquatic life. Research focuses on the development and application of water quality criteria, the implementation of effective watershed management approaches, and the application of technological options to restore and protect water bodies using information on effective identification, treatment and management alternatives. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Following are descriptions of problem areas to be addressed by the program based on ongoing input from EPAs partners. These research themes and questions, as well as the Agencys FY 2012 research plan, will be independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors. Increasing demands for sources of clean water-combined with poor land use practices, growth, aging infrastructure, and climate variability threaten to our nation's water resources. Research is needed to inform management of our nation's waters in an integrated, sustainable manner that will promote economic prosperity and human and aquatic ecosystem health. In FY 2012, the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program will begin addressing the critical science questions impacting the development and maintenance of safe, sustainable waters. It will begin to address key issues such as comprehensive water resource management, water sustainability metrics, infrastructure life-cycle assessments, and economical and effective management of stressors (e.g., nutrients, sediments, pathogens other contaminants). Safe and Sustainable Water Resources efforts will address existing high priority water research needs, such as recreational water protection, water-energy interdependencies, geologic sequestration, green infrastructure, and hydraulic fracturing. The Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program seeks safe, resilient and sustainable solutions to the increasingly complex water challenges facing the nations regions, states, tribes, cities, and rural areas. Research areas that may be investigated in FY 2012 include potential impacts of a changing climate on water resources, existing infrastructure problems associated with built urban environments and sprawl, potential consequences of increased energy demand and mineral extraction on water quality, and maintaining and using natural and engineered aquatic systems to fully ensure the needed capacity and quality of water that supports the nations range of growing demands and uses. Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research
157
will guide the national implementation of EPAs regulatory and non-regulatory efforts by providing information on new approaches to enable the following: Systematic protection and restoration of watersheds to provide safe and sustainable water quality necessary for human and ecosystem health; Sustainable water quality and availability to support the needs of healthy humans, ecosystems, and economies; and Water infrastructure capable of the sustained delivery of safe water, providing for the removal and treatment of wastewater consistent with its sustainable and safe reuse, and management of stormwater in a manner that values it as a resource and a component of sustainable water resources. Research that informs assessing the potential public health and environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing. In particular, EPAs Science Advisory Board recommends that EPA undertake five to ten case studies in order to provide an understanding of how potential risks may vary in the key geologic and geographic situations where hydraulic fracturing is or may be used. The new Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program will take a systems approach to protecting human and aquatic ecosystem health and protecting and restoring watersheds for the sustainability of the nations water resources. This approach will continue to include targeted research on key priorities. For example, in FY 2010, the Agency began outreach and investigation into a study designed to determine whether hydraulic fracturing has adverse effects on drinking water resources in response to a FY 2010 request from Congress. Work in FY 2012 will continue to assess the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Beaches work in FY 2012 will continue to support criteria development and implementation guidance regarding the applicability and use of new molecular tools. The molecular tools provide a more sensitive measure of waterborne pathogens that can cause disease and allow public health officials to determine more quickly if water is safe for swimming. While immediate needs for the 2012 criteria are being met, work to support an expected five year revision will focus on new and unanswered questions. Large scale epidemiology studies will be more difficult to support with the proposed reduction, but continued development of measures of waterborne pathogen occurrence and tools for assessing illnesses related to pathogens will remain a priority. There will not be large scale health studies in FY 2012, but work on tools to use in future health studies will continue. Aging Water Infrastructure research, which began as a FY 2007 initiative, will wrap up efforts to provide new tools for infrastructure condition assessment, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation. This research also will provide improved tools for decision-support and asset management. Green infrastructure work will continue to support several regional projects. This work will provide better predictive tools and guidance for selecting and implementing appropriate green technologies. Supporting work also will seek to link green technologies to improving watershed health at various scales and locations. This information is important to municipal governments for capital planning projects to meet both the current needs and future needs,
158
Finally, carbon sequestration research will continue in FY 2012 and will focus on mechanical well integrity, biogeochemical and hydrologic models of the fate and transport of carbon dioxide and displaced fluids in subsurface formations, and monitoring and modeling approaches for characterizing and managing sites in support of the SDWA underground injection control (UIC) program. Performance Targets: As EPA scientists work closely with the program and regional offices to develop the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources solution-oriented research portfolio, EPA also is developing FY 2012 measures for program managers to ensure the research is responsive to our partners critical research needs. In addition, to be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas Reinvestment Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently a pilot program for the National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS uses science of science policy approaches focusing on assessing the impact federal science and technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to the 2010 enacted Budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following this section: (+$5,966.0 / +7.0 FTE) This reflects funding for green infrastructure research to improve watershed management practices and facilitate the nations transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems. The increase also includes 7.0 FTE with associated payroll of $931.0. A significant portion of funds will leverage the innovative thinking by academias scientists through Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants. (+$4,226.0 / +5.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for research on hydraulic fracturing which includes $665.0 in associated payroll for 5.0 FTE. Research will provide policy relevant methods, models, monitoring tools, and data on potential risks associated with extracting gas from subsurface formations using vertical and horizontal fracturing technologies. Research will inform key areas lacking information to provide an adequate assessment of the potential public health and environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing. In particular, EPAs Science Advisory Board recommends that EPA undertake five to ten case studies in order to provide an understanding of how the risks may vary in the key geologic and geographic situations where hydraulic fracturing is or may be used. Evaluation of the chemicals conducted under this investment will provide a sound foundation upon which to base the choice of safer hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agencys priority to protect the quality of the nations waters by ensuring the protection of our aquifers.
159
(-$550.0) This reflects a reduction to the development of best management practices and informing decisions associated with control of pathogens in drinking water systems. This decrease will limit the extent to which the Agency can respond to the priorities defined by EPAs Distribution System Research and Information Collection Partnership (RICP). (-$1,005.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$2,000.0) This reflects a decrease in Beaches research due to continued progress in meeting the requirements of the consent decree and settlement agreement. Work to support implementation efforts through the Office of Water will receive a higher priority. In particular, as the Beaches work nears completion, human health effects efforts will transition to a technical support level. Research on methods and new molecular tools will continue. Large scale epidemiology studies will be more difficult to support with this reduction, but continued development of measures of waterborne pathogen occurrence and tools for assessing illnesses related to pathogens will remain a priority. There will not be large scale health studies in FY 2012, but work on tools to use in future health studies will continue. While immediate needs for the 2012 criteria are being met, work to support an expected five year revision will focus on new and unanswered questions. (+$1,066.0 / +0.6 FTE) This increase represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $1579.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program. The following transfers will integrate Drinking Water and Water Quality Research Programs into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort will improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. This integration reflects EPAs efforts to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making, thereby strengthening the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health issues. (+$52,547.0 / +196.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Drinking Water Research Program into the new, integrated Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program, including $25,050.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as Information Technology (IT) reductions, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Drinking Water Program narrative.
160
(+$66,229.0 / +243.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Water Quality Research Program into the new, integrated Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program and includes $31,105.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Water Quality Program narrative. Statutory Authority: SDWA Part E, Sec. 1442 (a)(1); CWA Title I, Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 Sec 104 (a) and (c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); MPRSA Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C. 1443; ODBA Title II; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA;, CWPPRA; (ESA; NAWCA; FIFRA 7 U.S. C. 135 et seq; TSCA U.S. C. 136 et seq.
161
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
162
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $75,221.1

$75,221.1 276.5

$77,831.0 283.7

$95,657.0 292.7

$17,826.0 9.0
$77,831.0
$77,831.0 283.7
Program Project Description: As primary support for environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment, EPAs research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best science available at the time, which often focused on more narrow issues such as on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Such an approach that focuses on a single chemical at a time using expensive and time consuming methodologies is not adequate for providing the information needed to assess the hazards and exposure of the large numbers of chemicals in commerce. As science advances, EPA is working to develop more efficient and effective tools for evaluating the effects of chemicals as function of species, gender, genetics and lifestage. EPA needs the research capability to fully understand complex interactions and in order to inform policy choices to develop more sustainable solutions. In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its planning, conduct and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and lead to the generation of environmental science information that is more responsive to more modern public health and environmental challenges and hence will be of greater use to decision makers. Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,20 the new
20
163
integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing research portfolio. The Agency will plan, develop and conduct research in ways that bring together the expertise of a wide range of disciplines in the biological, chemical, physical, computational and social sciences. Additionally, EPA will assess the needs and priorities of the Research Programs partners in the program offices and regions, to provide more effective and efficient tools for evaluating chemical exposures, hazards and risks. In addition, research action plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities. EPA will use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY 2012, EPA is integrating Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), and Nanotechnology research, as well as portions of Human Health, Human Health Risk Assessment, Pesticides and Toxics, and Sustainability research, into a new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program.
This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the use of a systems perspective to achieve EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will also continue, with an emphasis on utilizing the integrated approaches developed by the core Research Program. The Research Program realignments will strengthen EPAs ability to leverage partnerships to ensure EPA research is addressing the highest Agency priorities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
164
We need chemicals to clean everything from industrial equipment to our clothes to the water we drink and to help us provide an abundant food supply for our growing population. While chemicals contribute to our economic well-being and our quality of life, some may also adversely affect our health, society, and the environment. We need new ways to evaluate and reduce the effects of harmful chemicals on society and the environment while maintaining our economic well-being. To this end, EPA has been working to reshape its research on chemicals to ensure that we develop timely innovative, systematic, effective, and efficient approaches and tools to inform decisions that will reduce such impacts of chemicals. The CSS Research Program has been working with partners from across EPA as well as external stakeholders to identify the critical science questions that will be addressed under the CSS Research Program in 2012. These research themes and questions, as well as the final research action plan, will be independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors. Research under CSS will support the development and applications of tools that would contribute to the design of safer chemicals. The Administrations science and technology priorities for FY 2012 stress the need for more multidisciplinary research that transforms the approaches used to address the nations problems. This funding will combine the unique capabilities and expertise in EPA to address the national challenge associated with the large number of chemicals and products used and introduced annually in the United States. Funds will support a range of science activities, in coordination with EPA policy activities that will help address this issue in a systemic, integrated manner and provide for more sustainable solutions to environmental issues. CSS will build on existing research on cost-efficient, energy-efficient, generic, and green pathways for synthesizing chemicals that are constituents of products that pose potential exposures to humans and ecosystems. In addition, the program will develop approaches, such as life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, that will demonstrate the benefits of green pathways when evaluated from life cycle impacts and cost bases. The CSS Research Program also will develop innovative, approaches and tools that inform more sustainable solutions to the design of chemicals. For example, EPA is developing approaches to identify and assess the environmental impacts of specific properties of nanomaterials contained in next-generation batteries. These assessment tools will be invaluable to manufacturers and will allow them to create nextgeneration batteries that are that is both economically viable and environmentally friendly. With the use of nanotechnology in the consumer and industrial sectors expected to increase significantly in the future, nanotechnology offers society the promise of major benefits. The challenge for environmental protection is to ensure that, as nanomaterials are developed and used, unintended adverse consequences of exposures to humans and ecosystems are identified and prevented or minimized. In FY 2012, the CSS Program will conduct research on the environmental impacts of nanomaterials and other chemicals from a life cycle perspective. Impacts to people or the environment from chemicals can occur at any point from the extraction of raw materials to make the chemical; to processes to create the chemical and incorporate it into products; through the chemicals use; and at its end of life, when it is disposed of or recycled. In addition, research conducted within the CSS Program will inform chemical evaluation strategies that integrate
165
specific decision needs into tiered approaches for developing the scientific information used for risk assessments and risk management decisions. CSS will support the development and application of improved and new: Strategies and approaches for the efficient assessment and management of the thousands of existing and emerging chemicals (including pesticides, toxic substances, endocrine disruptors, nanomaterials) in commerce (i.e., knowing what to test, when to test it, and how); Advanced computational tools for improving existing methods to understand inherent properties and predict behaviors and impacts of chemicals and their related products throughout their life-cycle; Approaches for alternative product formulations using green chemistry and engineering principles throughout their life-cycle that lead to greater sustainability; Multidisciplinary approaches to better characterize the impact on environmental media and aquatic organisms of real world releases of endocrine active compounds (including natural hormones, pesticides, industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals) from wastewater treatment plans, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and drinking water plants, and to develop risk management and mitigation strategies. Approaches to address issues of cumulative risk, chemical mixtures in the environment, vulnerability of populations, and environmental equity; and Methods to translate research findings into decision support tools that are useful and usable to regulators and risk managers, as well as the other Agency Research Programs: Air, Climate, and Energy; Sustainable Water and Water Resources; Sustainable and Healthy Communities; Human Health Risk Assessment; and Homeland Security. As part of EPAs sustained support for fundamental research and the vitality and productivity of research universities and laboratories, CSS will support new Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants for: A Center for Life Cycle Chemical Safety, A Center for Sustainable Molecular Design focused on the safer design of chemicals without endocrine activity, Innovative treatment designs and technologies approaches for mitigating EDCs and other emerging chemical contaminants from drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, and, High throughput screens that would improve our understanding of the pathways of toxicity relevant to endocrine-mediated endpoints in mammalian and ecological organisms.
166
EPA is developing performance measures for this program to ensure the research meets the critical needs of partners. The key performance foci will be: Identifying and synthesizing the best available scientific information, models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions, with a focus on human and ecosystem health Supporting the screening and testing protocols that EPAs Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Program will validate for use in evaluating the potential for chemicals to cause endocrine-mediated effects Developing the scientific underpinning related to the effects, exposures, and risk management of specific individual or classes of both pesticides and toxic substances that are of high priority to the Agency to inform Agency risk assessment and management decisions.ORD is collaborating with EPAs Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to develop a workplan that will allow OCSPP to incorporate efficient toxicological assessment approaches into its prioritization of chemical action plans and other decision-making processes. ORD meets with OCSPP periodically to help identify their highest priority science needs and ensure that the research program is addressing these needs in an efficient and timely manner. The following are descriptions of FY 2012 Chemical Safety and Sustainability activities categorized under key program areas: Computational Toxicology ($21.2 million) Computational toxicology is the application of mathematical and computer models to help assess the hazards and risk chemicals pose to human health and the environment. Supported by advances in informatics, high-throughput screening, and genomics, computational toxicology offers scientists the ability to develop a more detailed understanding of the hazards posed by large numbers of chemicals, while at the same time reducing the use of animals for toxicological testing. EPA is developing robust and flexible computational tools that can be applied to the thousands of contaminants and contaminant mixtures found in Americas air, water, and hazardous-waste sites. ToxCast: EPAs Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast) is a state-of-the-art chemical screening approach that builds statistical and computational models that identify and forecast toxicity pathways relevant to human health effects. EPA uses ToxCast data to develop prioritization tools for regulatory decision making in Agency program offices. EPA has an existing partnership with Pfizer, as well as pending partnerships with several large pharmaceutical companies including Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi-Aventis. During Phase II of ToxCast, these partnerships will allow EPA to directly compare ToxCast results with data on chemicals already clinically proven to be toxic to humans. Completion of Phase II is planned for FY 2012. EPA will continue to use ToxCast data to refine toxicological prediction models for developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and cancer causing chemicals. The goal is to transition to the use of ToxCast for regulation determination beginning in FY 2013. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to assess appropriate reference substances for assessing estrogen, androgen, and thyroid systems and expand its
167
collaborations on proof of concept investigations of toxicological pathways in the ToxCast program. EPA expects to award four additional ToxCast contracts that will become operational in FY 2012. These contracts, as well as new STAR research grants, will accelerate and sustain EPAs activity in this area of science. Tox21: The Tox21 effort unites the Agencys capabilities with those of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH)s Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Tox21 integrates EPAs ToxCast assays with the thousands of chemicals being tested at the NIH NCGC.21 The Tox21 library contains data on roughly 10,000 chemicals; a public online database (PubChem) houses the results of high throughput screening of the nuclear receptors and stress pathways of these chemicals. EPA is making long-range efforts to leverage data from ToxCast and Tox21 and other supporting knowledge bases to develop virtual first generation models of the liver and embryo. In addition, the e1k study, launched in FY 2011, will provide endocrine activity profiles on an additional 1000 chemicals for use by the Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (CSPP) program. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ($16.9 million) The EPA research program provides direct support to CSPPs endocrine screening and testing efforts by evaluating current testing protocols and developing new protocols to evaluate potential endocrine effects of environmental agents. EPAs research in this area also includes developing and applying methods, models, and measures to evaluate real-world exposures to endocrine disruptors and characterize related effects resulting from these exposures for humans and wildlife. In addition, EPA develops risk management tools to prevent or mitigate exposures to EDCs. In FY 2012 the Agency will conduct research to: Define toxicity pathways by which endocrine disruptors adversely affect the health of mammalian and aquatic organisms; Characterize the shape of the dose-response curve and its implications for risk assessment, and; Develop approaches for assessing cumulative risk and methods for extrapolating results across species, ultimately reducing animal testing. Additional research in FY 2012 will identify sources of EDCs entering the environment, focusing on wastewater and drinking water treatment plants and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This research will explore the extent to which these sources contribute to environmental releases of endocrine active compounds, examine the impact of these compounds on aquatic organisms, and develop improved technologies that can be applied to reduce harmful endocrine active compound levels. For example, technological advances in the field of green
21
Collins et al., 2008, Science; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/906.pdf
168
engineering will enable chemicals to be manufactured without endocrine activity. Innovative and cost-effective technologies will advance the assessment and management of environmental endocrine disruptors and other emerging contaminants of concern and strengthen the Agencys ability to protect human health and wildlife. Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants will complement these FY 2012 intramural research activities. The limitations of current tools and approachesand the number of chemicals to assess challenge the nations efforts to make chemicals use environmentally sustainable (i.e.,greener). As a modern society, the United States produces tens of thousands of chemicals and millions of products to enhance our productivity, comfort, and well-being. EPAs mission is to safeguard human health and the environment, including responsibility for assessing and managing risks from chemicals over their life cycle. Current regulatory decisions to control the use of specific chemicals are based on a wide range of tools and information that represent the best available science; however, these tools are unable to handle the large number of chemicals currently in commerce. Additionally, the available tools have failed to fully address complex aspects of risk, such as the impact of life-stage vulnerability, genetic susceptibility, disproportionate exposures, and cumulative risk. New computational, physico-chemical, and biological science tools are rapidly developing that will transform the way risks of chemical products are evaluated. Broadly applicable, predictive, high-throughput tools will be combined using a systems approach to integrate toxicity and exposure pathways in the context of the life cycle of the chemical, as well as addressing the long standing need to assess environmentally relevant mixtures. By formally integrating its chemicals research, EPA will advance the science in the sustainable development, use, and assessment of chemicals by developing and applying integrated chemical evaluation strategies and decisionsupport tools. Such new scientific approaches are needed for the safer use, assessment, and management of chemicals. Currently, there are nearly 150,000 chemicals registered in the European REACH Program and over 84,000 chemicals on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, and each year about 1,000 new chemicals are introduced into commerce. EPA is developing innovative, high-throughput tools that are capable of screening thousands of chemicals in a day. By developing this technology, EPA will have the science and tools needed to make evaluations more quickly and cost-effectively. In 2012, additional funding will support grants to academia through the Agencys STAR Program, complementing the intramural research effort on EDCs. This research will allow for an acceleration of the latest state-of-the-art technologies and innovations to advance the assessment and management of environmental endocrine disruptors and other emerging contaminants of concern. EPA also will continue its ongoing investment in next-generation computational toxicology tools to speed and facilitate implementation of the Agencys Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The application of these tools will introduce a more efficient approach to identifying potential endocrine disruptors and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical. This research is critical to help the Agency meet its priority of strengthening chemicals management and risk assessment, as well as bolstering ongoing efforts to quickly screen the large universe of known chemicals in commerce today for potential to interact with the endocrine system.
169
There are three distinct drivers for ORDs Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program: The need to tailor data generation and evaluation approaches to support varying decisions. Rapid and efficient risk assessment requires intelligent testing approaches that apply broad, predictive approaches, including those that use highthroughput tools, to integrate toxicity and exposure pathways using systems approaches and consideration of the entire chemical life cycle. The goal of this Research Area of CSS is to develop and provide Integrated Evaluation tools and approaches for providing context relevant answers to issues of chemical safety assessment. For example, some decisions only need screening-level assessments to identify within a large number of chemicals a small number which may cause concern. Using the experience gained in the ToxCast program, the CSS program will develop non-animal and highthroughput tests targeted at common adverse health effects induced by chemicals, including birth defects, reproductive impairment, immunological and neurological disorders, cancers and impacts on wildlife population structures. Research in these areas will inform assessments and decision making on impacts to humans and wildlife at the individual and population levels. Although the emphasis of this research area is on developing the scientific knowledge required to develop and refine tools and models, the testing and evaluation of these tools will be an integral component of the research. The need to more efficiently and effectively assess chemical risks and identify what to do about them. In support of Goal 4 of the EPA Strategic Plan, which calls for reducing chemical risks, EPA research must integrate efforts to improve the nextgeneration of risk assessment and risk management approaches. New approaches will ensure faster, more efficient, and more sustainable decisions with reduced uncertainty for both legacy and new chemicals. New assessment and management methods will support a broad array of decisions, ranging from screening and prioritization to major regulatory decisions for humans and wildlife. Using tools and approaches from the first activity area--such as toxicogenomic methods, structure-activity relationships that are betterinformed by inherent properties information, and LCA methods--the new assessment and management methods developed in this activity will incorporate data on chemical inherency, exposure, and hazard. These new assessment and management methods also will incorporate information from life cycle assessment and other methodologies that can provide more realistic and environmentally relevant assessments than simply focusing on a single chemical without considering its environmental context. These new methods must incorporate the means to assess vulnerabilities from inherent and extrinsic factors that lead to differential susceptibilities, and, therefore, can inform community and environmental justice mandates being planned in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program for assessing and mitigating environmental impacts. The need to focus on the highest-priority chemicals-related problems facing EPA and the nation, so that research remains relevant to the Agency's mission. Even as the Chemicals Research Program provides the foundation for a transformation in the current business practices for chemical management, it is necessary to be
170
mindful that there will be timecritical research needs for fulfilling regulatory mandates. EPA researchers will engage Agency partners on an annual basis and determine the types of research needed to directly support key regulatory decisions. This year, for instance EPA is working in the key area of assessing cumulative risks of childrens exposure to insecticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in schools. This activity will, therefore, be focused on how to incorporate into the integrated evaluation strategy those methods, models, and data that address the highest priority needs as determined by regular discussions between the senior managers of the Chemicals Research Program and those of the EPA partner offices and other stakeholders. By developing approaches to generating and using data that are fit to particular decision contexts (some decisions require more data, others less), EPA program offices will be better able to meet their deadlines. The research and development products from EPAs new Chemical Safety and Sustainability (CSS) Research Program will benefit the regulation and use of existing pesticides and industrial chemicals and enhance green chemistry and engineering opportunities for the design, production, and use of both new and existing chemicals. CSS research products also will be used by EPA programs and other decision makers to support community level decisions by providing tools and data used by EPAs Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program for those contaminants of highest priority and concern to the community, considering susceptibilities and exposures of the most vulnerable populations. Better approaches to chemical testing and assessment also will inform air toxics and drinking waterrelated national, regional and local decision making, as well as decisions on waste management, remediation, and emergency response. Decision makers need targeted, credible, and usable information to inform their decisions, and the CSS Research Program is focused on developing approaches that can provide such information in a timely manner. CSS will build upon existing EPA research in chemical management and extend efforts to develop innovative, approaches and tools that inform more sustainable solutions to the design and management of chemicals throughout their life cycle. The following illustrates the key elements of the program and demonstrates our central focus on developing intelligent and integrated evaluation strategies that support context-relevant assessments.
171
Schematic of linkages between integrated evaluation strategies, context-relevant assessments, and decision support.
Under the CSS Program, development of enhanced chemical screening and prioritizing testing approaches for smarter context-relevant chemical assessment and management will not only directly support regulation of existing pesticide and industrial chemicals, but also enhance green chemistry opportunities for the design and use of new chemicals. This program also will support community-level decision making specific to those contaminants of highest priority and concern to individual localities and communities. For example, better approaches to chemical testing and assessment also will lead to better air toxics and drinking water-related regional and local decision making. Importantly, these tools can be used by EPA Program and regional offices and stakeholders to significantly increase risk information available for individual chemicals and environmentally relevant mixtures and provide a practical context for effective risk prevention through safer product development and management for those chemical uses that pose unacceptably high risks. The need for green chemistry research and ensuring safer chemicals in products also has been highlighted in recent chemicals legislation under consideration by Congress, such as the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010. Proposals include a revised policy to assist in renewing the manufacturing sector of the United States by spurring innovations in green chemistry; the development of a scientifically and technically trained green chemistry workforce in the United States; approaches to inform and engage communities about green chemistry; and a network of EPA-funded green chemistry and engineering centers, some funded by EPA, which would support the development and adoption of safer alternatives to harmful chemical substances.
172
Additional funding also will support E-waste/E-design research to improve the sustainability of electronic materials. EPA research in this area analyzes the factors that drive a chemical effects and exposures, over the chemicals life cycle; knowledge gained through this research will allow those who design, use, and regulate chemicals to develop assessments and management methods that reduce negative impacts from the manufacture, use, and disposal or recycling of chemicals and products that contain them. . In planning and implementing the new CSS Program, EPA program and regional offices have worked with EPAs Office of Research and Development to identify and address critical science questions in order to formulate the CSS Research Program. In addition, EPA will collaborate with multiple federal and non-government stakeholders, particularly those interested in chemical safety. Performance Targets: To be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA will support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas Reinvestment Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will use science of science policy approaches to assess the impact Federal science and technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following this section: (+$7,000.0) Additional funding will support grants to academia through the Agencys STAR Program, complementing the intramural research effort on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). This research will allow for an acceleration of the latest state-of-theart technologies and innovations to advance the assessment and management of environmental endocrine disruptors and other emerging contaminants of concern. (+$5,434.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects an increase for a new green chemistry and design for the environment initiative and includes associated payroll of $120.0. It includes $1,000.0 for E-waste/E-design research to improve the sustainability of electronic materials. The proposed research would develop new scientific information and tools that will lead to the development of safer chemicals, including nanomaterials. Funds will be used to integrate data from multiple scientific disciplines and sources into innovative user friendly decision tools, databases, and models for use by environmental decisionmakers. This research will spur innovations in green chemistry as well as to help develop a scientifically and technically trained green chemistry workforce, approaches to inform and engage communities about green chemistry, and a network of green chemistry and
173
engineering centers to support the development and adoption of safer alternatives to chemical substances. (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase for next-generation computational toxicology tools to speed and facilitate implementation of the Agencys Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The application of these tools will introduce a more efficient approach to identifying potential endocrine disruptors and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical. This research is critical to help the Agency meet its priority of strengthening chemicals management and risk assessment. (-$750.0) This reflects a reduction to the nanotechnology research that would result in a delay of material properties and life-cycle assessment research in using new energy applications, such as next-generation lithium-ion batteries, as case studies for developing LCA approaches for nanomaterials. This reduction also will delay FY 2012 commitments made to the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to support development of non-animal test methods for nanomaterials, in particular for carbon nanotubes and silver nanoparticles. (-$1,032.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,377.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction to research supporting the development of scientific tools for biotechnology and includes a reduction of 0.9 FTE with decreased associated payroll of -$120.0. The program will reduce research into refining the use of remote sensing as a tool for the management of insect resistance in genetically modified crops, also known as Plant Incorporated Pesticides (PIP) crops. The program has completed research on decision support systems to identify insect infestations that would indicate the development of insect resistance. (-$1,500.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research on screening assays and predictive toxicology approaches. (+$8,051.0 / +9.0 FTE) This increase represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $4,815.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program. The following transfers will integrate Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, and Nanotechnology research, as well as portions of Human Health, Human Health Risk Assessment, Pesticides and Toxics, and Sustainability research, into a effort that better
174
aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. This integration reflects EPAs efforts to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making, thereby strengthening the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health issues. (+$31,025.0 / +100.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $12,606.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as Information Technology (IT) reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Human Health and Ecosystems program narrative. (+$21,211.0 / 34.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Computational Toxicology Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $4363.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Computational Toxicology program narrative. (+$16,888.0 / +46.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Endocrine Disruptors Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $5,847.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Endocrine Disruptors program narrative. (+$15,043.0 / +77.1FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Pesticides and Toxics Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $10,023.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Pesticides and Toxics program narrative. (+$5,440.0 / +1.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources associated with nanotechnology and E-waste/E-design research from the Sustainability Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $126.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Sustainability program narrative.
175
(+$4,215.0 / +25.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $3,324.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Preservation and Restoration Program narrative. (+$1,708.0 / +6.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $808.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Human Health Risk Assessment program narrative. (+$127.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Clean Air Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $127.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Clean Air program narrative. Statutory Authority: CAA, Sec. 103, 104 & 154; CCA, 40 U.S.C 11318; CERCLA; Childrens Health Act; 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, 15 U.S.C. 750; CWA, Sec. 101 - 121; Economy Act, 31 U.S.C 1535; ERDDAA, 42 U.S.C. 4361-4370; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 346; FIFRA; FQPA; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section 102; PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13103; RCRA; SDWA, 42 U.S.C.; TSCA, Section 10, 15, 26 U.S.C.
176
Human Health Risk Assessment Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $41,516.4

$3,169.1 $44,685.5 216.2

$3,404.0 $46,303.0 182.5

$3,342.0 $45,742.0 195.8

($62.0) ($561.0) 13.3
$42,899.0
$3,404.0 $46,303.0 182.5
Program Project Description: EPAs Research and Development program provides critical support to Agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best science available at the time. In some cases, this resulted in a more limited focus, for example, focusing on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential health and environmental detriment in the future. The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program will continue to provide the risk assessments necessary to guide EPAs actions to protect public health and the environment. The program generates health assessments that are used extensively by EPA program and regional offices, and other parties to develop regulatory standards for environmental contaminants and to manage cleanups. The HHRA Program will continue to evolve to meet todays complex environmental challenges, developing multi-pollutant science assessments for health and climate effects (as called for by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and other scientific reviews such as the 2004 NAS report on Air Quality Management). Three complementary areas comprise the HHRA Program: 1) The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other priority health assessments, 2) Risk assessment guidance, methods, model development, and 3) Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) of criteria air pollutants. IRIS and other health hazard assessments: EPAs HHRA Program prepares peer reviewed, qualitative and quantitative health hazard assessments on environmental pollutants of major relevance to EPAs regulatory mandates. EPA program and regional offices use these
177
assessments to support their decision-making. The Agency disseminates the assessments to the public on the IRIS Internet database.22 EPA and the risk assessment/risk management community consider IRIS the premier source of hazard and dose-response information for environmental pollutants. Currently there are more than 550 health hazard assessments available through IRIS. Methods, Models and Approaches to Improve Risk Assessment Science: The risk assessment/risk management community needs approaches, methods, and models to enhance the quality and objectivity of assessments through the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances. The HHRA Program often uses these innovations in the development of IRIS assessments and ISAs. In addition, they often support decision-making by EPAs program and regional offices. These scientific products receive external peer review, and then EPA disseminates them through the published literature and EPA web sites. Integrated Science Assessments: Congress requires that EPA regularly summarize the stateof-the-science for criteria air pollutantsozone, particulate matter, sulfur and nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and leadto assist EPAs Air and Radiation Program in determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These ISAs (formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents) are major risk assessments that undergo rigorous external peer review by the CASAC. In FY 2008, an evaluation by EPAs Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)a federal advisory committee comprised of independent expert scientists and engineersconcluded that the HHRA Program has been highly responsive to the needs of the program offices and regions, producing products that are critical to EPAs regulatory mission and form the foundation for regulatory decisions and policies. This prospective and retrospective review evaluated the programs relevance, quality, performance, and scientific leadership. The evaluation found that the program is making substantial and satisfactory progress; has clearly defined milestones; and provides additional essential support to EPA programs to respond to unscheduled emergency needs. In July 2010, the BOSC reviewed the mid-cycle report on the progress of the HHRA program in implementing its previous recommendations. The BOSC affirmed its previous evaluation of the relevance of the program and noted significant progress on its previous recommendations. EPA is using the BOSCs evaluation and recommendations to help plan, implement, and strengthen the program over the next five years. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA requests $27.1 million to continue to develop IRIS and other health hazard assessments. EPA will continue to implement and to ensure the program effectively meets the needs of EPA, the federal government and the American public. The program will make significant progress on health hazard assessments of high priority chemicals (e.g. dioxin, methanol, cumulative phthalate assessment, benzo-a-pyrene, Libby asbestos cancer assessment, and PCB non-cancer assessment), completing work for interagency science consultation, external
22
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
178
review, or posting on the IRIS web page.23 The IRIS program will expand intrinsic scientific knowledge and expertise in refinement of IRIS assessments. EPA will continue to develop Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) and other health hazard assessments to support program and regional decision-making. EPA will respond with science assessment support on chemical contaminant issues requiring quick action and, ultimately, quick decisions and solutions (e.g., Katrina, the World Trade Center disaster and Deepwater Horizon oil spill). Responding to these types of issues is a key part of EPAs mission to protect human health and the environment and corresponds with a BOSC recommendation. EPA requests $5.5 million in FY 2012 to continue to be a leader in the development of risk assessment approaches, methods, and models to enhance the quality and objectivity of assessments through the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances. EPA will continue to develop approaches for applying mode of action in risk assessment and improve quantification of health risks, such as Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic and Biologically Based Dose Response modeling, as well as characterizing environmental exposure and risk to susceptible populations. EPA will continue implementation of Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) to support a more continuous process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies for human health and ecological assessment development. HERO lends transparency to the process of assessment development by allowing access to the data used for scientific decisions. In addition, EPA requests $9.8 million continue to develop ISAs of criteria air pollutants, as a mandated prerequisite to EPAs review of the NAAQS and effectively meet court ordered deadlines to provide these assessments. The ISAs provide important scientific analyses in support of many of EPAs important rulemakings. In FY 2012, the program will release final ISAs for ozone and lead to contribute to EPAs Air and Radiation Programs review of the NAAQS and creation of state-of-the-science methods for continuous evaluation of assessments of new scientific information on criteria air pollutants. The HHRA Program also will begin exploring multi-pollutant assessment approaches as called for by the 2008 CASAC consultation on EPAs draft plan for review of the Primary NAAQS for Carbon Monoxide and the 2004 NAS report on Air Quality Management. As part of EPAs effort to integrate research efforts to deliver more innovative, sustainable solutions to environmental problems, HHRAs next generation risk assessment research is moving into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. Within this integrated program, EPA will advance risk assessment approaches by incorporating knowledge derived from recent advances in molecular biology, systems biology and gene-environment interactions in human disease. EPA expects this effort will result in more comprehensive, timely approaches for assessing potential environmental impacts, and new approaches for preventing future risks resulting from chemical exposure.
23
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/
179
This new effort is complementary to HHRA and continued investments in FY 2012 will allow the program to make significant progress toward its long-term goals of providing state-of-thescience for health hazard assessments. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(H83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
90
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
90
100
90
Percent
EPA uses performance measures for this program to manage and improve the development of risk assessments to support EPA decision-making. These outcomes support the achievement of EPAs Strategic Plan goals. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting planned annual outputs (detailed in the programs research plan). In addition, to be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas ReinvestmentMeasuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will use science of science policy approaches to assess the impact of federal science and technology investments on society, the environment, and the economy. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$987.0 / +0.3 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. (+$384.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$255.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirements is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$70.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
180
(-$104.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE may offset savings in individual areas. (-$126.0 / +14.0 FTE) This net FTE increase supports development of Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) and strengthens the Agencys work on addressing risk assessment methods and includes associated payroll of $1,862.0. In addition, $1,988.0 in extramural funds is redirected to payroll to support these risk assessment FTE. (-$190.0 / -1.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers in the HHRA Research Program. It also includes a reduction of programmatic FTE that reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$311.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the government-wide Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$416.0 / -1.1 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), EPAs long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. This will not have programmatic impacts. This change includes a decrease of $146.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. (-$418.0 / -0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a reduction of resources in support of risk assessment research and includes decreased associated payroll of $120.0. It will delay some work addressing benchmark dose software updates. (-$490.0 / +2.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to extramural resources for science associated with Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and the statistics workgroup within the HHRA Program. This reduction will limit our capacity to contract out expert external support for PBPK and statistical support, but is partially offset by an increase of 2.1 FTE and associated payroll of $279.0. The following transfer is based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the source programs and is included in the 2010 enacted budget. The changes above, including the Administrative Efficiency Initiative reduction, incorporate changes for the portion of the program being transferred. (-$1,708.0 / -6.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for NexGen risk assessment approaches to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program including
181
$808.0 in associated payroll. The integration of efforts under this new program will provide for more effective and efficient risk assessments and support the Agency priority for assuring the safety of chemicals. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7403 et seq. - Sections 103, 108, 109, and 112; CERCLA (Superfund, 1980) Section 209(a) of Public Law 99-499; FIFRA (7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et seq. (1996), as amended), Sec. 3(c)(2)(A); FQPA PL 104-170; SDWA (1996) 42 U.S.C. Section 300j-18; TSCA (Public Law 94-469): 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976), Sec. 4(b)(1)(B), Sec. 4(b)(2)(B).
182
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
183
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $183,002.7

$422.5 $549.7 $22,525.3 $206,500.2 625.3

$345.0 $639.0 $21,264.0 $208,343.0 647.0

$454.0 $614.0 $17,706.0 $189,800.0 621.7

$109.0 ($25.0) ($3,558.0) ($20,543.0) -25.3
$188,095.0
$345.0 $639.0 $21,264.0 $210,343.0 647.0
Program Project Description: As the support to Agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment, EPAs research has provided effective solutions to highpriority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research has enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries and at national, regional and local scales. While these solutions were effective in moving the Agency toward its goal of protecting human health and environment, they were accomplished using the best available science at the time and were occasionally more limited in scope, for example, focusing on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science has advanced, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions that are designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential health and environmental risks in the future. To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and provide more timely and efficient benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,24 the new integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing research portfolio. This research will leverage the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state
24
184
and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems. EPA will use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY 2012, EPA is realigning and integrating the following individual Research Programs into a new integrated, Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program: Human Health research Ecosystems Services research Land Protection and Preservation research Pesticides and Toxics research Sustainability research Fellowships
The hallmark of this new SHC Research Program is a central focus on the integration, translation and coordinated communication of research on the many issues that impact the sustainability and health of communities.25 Integrated research on these issues under the new SHC program will focus on addressing the specific health and environmental needs of local communities. The
25
In the graphic above, the proportions of the former research programs transferring to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities program reflect funds from all appropriations.
185
program will conduct research to address issues such as environmental justice concerns, waste reduction and site clean-up, and green development. The SHCRP will focus primarily on environmental sustainability at the community scale. The SHC program aims to conduct research and development that will help communities assess their current health and environmental condition and identify strategies that increase ecosystem services while decreasing community health risks. Healthy communities will translate to healthy economies. The following are descriptions of current SHC activities categorized under key program areas: Human Health Research (FY 2012 request $45.4 million)Human health research provides tools and models to evaluate and manage health risks from exposures to environmental chemicals. Human Health research can promote environmental justice by focusing on groups such as children and the elderly that may be more susceptible and perhaps disproportionately impacted; research models are developed in concert with stakeholders and applied in community-based participatory research projects to characterize communities at disproportionate risk. For example, the C-FERST (Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool), will be pilot tested in EPAs CARE (Community Action for a Renewed Environment) program to identify key community exposures and evaluate risk mitigation strategies, and STAR grants will explore innovative methods for assessing potential interactions between pollution exposures and social stressors. Ecosystems Services Research (FY 2012 request $60.9 million)Ecosystems Services research is focused on better understanding the implications of impacts on ecosystems and the services they provide. Research includes analyzing the effects of different environmental management scenarios in particular communities or regions over the intermediate to long term on the maintenance of critical ecosystem services that are expensive or impossible to replace: assessing regional scale vulnerability to ecosystem stressors. Research examines and quantifies the impacts of human behavior on an ecosystems ability to produce natural benefits and services. This science generates scientific information tools for assessing risk management, informing impactful policy decisions, and creating long-term environmental solutions. SHC research will also examine Oil Spill and Superfund topic areas that are explained in further detail in the Oil Spill and Superfund SHC programs. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will conduct pilot projects that explore and address problems in an integrated manner by focusing specifically on an urban community, on multiple communities in the Gulf of Mexico region, a rural community, and on certain high-priority problems facing communities across the nation. The first phase of research in the SHC Research Program will be to identify the most significant problems that diminish community sustainability in terms of human and environmental health in a particular urban community. Examples include the ability to simultaneously meet air and water quality goals and standards, reduce and/or safely dispose of wastes and clean up contaminated sites, preserve or mitigate wetlands, reduce the burden of pollutant exposure to children and the elderly on health care delivery, and avoid solutions that
186
place a disproportionate burden on households with low socioeconomic status. The program will conduct extensive transdisciplinary, multi-stressor, multi-endpoint evaluations of the issues that communities are facing, relying heavily on state-of-the-art decision analysis with local officials and stakeholders. After gathering data, analyzing trends, and synthesizing findings, the SHC Research Program will develop an "optimal" portfolio of processes and initiatives that can be drawn from to maximize the sustainability and resilience of a community, including human, natural, and economic capital, which could be readily used by other communities across the nation. Following are two representative examples focusing on human health protection. First, the CFERST is being developed and applied with input from prospective users including regional decision-makers, CARE community projects, city planners, tribal groups, and NGOs. This userfriendly, web-based tool will enable users to access an array of exposure information from multiple databases. This one-stop tool will assist EPA and other users in characterizing communities as areas of disproportionate exposure, which could assist in identifying risk reduction and remediation strategies. Second, EPA will establish Research Centers of Excellence in Environmental Health Disparities. These Centers will conduct research that brings environmental, social and economic sciences together to focus on the best ways protect human health in sustainable communities without disproportionately impacting any subgroups or populations. This research will address goals articulated by EPAs Office of Environmental Justice Plan EJ 2014 and support decisions that incorporate equity into sustainable community development. In a third component, the SHC Research Program will identify specific barriers to community sustainability in its core research areas (e.g. land, wastes, ecosystem services) that face a large number of communities across the nation. The program will then conduct R&D to identify effective strategies to reduce the barriers. Examples include substituting ecosystem services resulting from land restoration for expensive gray infrastructure upgrades; technology to reduce or recycle materials to avoid wastes; and smart growth tools that reduce air and water pollution while improving community health. The SHC Research Program also will address knowledge, methods and decision support gaps that communities face, by developing tools that can be used by local decision makers to address problems of human and environmental health. Following are key research questions to be addressed by the program based on ongoing input from EPAs partners. These research questions, as well as the SHC research plan, will be independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors: What computational and measurement tools (e.g., ecological footprint, return on investment, probabilistic analysis) are needed to support the application of sustainability indicators to community decision making? What types of systems analysis methods (e.g., material flow analysis, life cycle assessment, system dynamics modeling) can be effectively applied or modified to help communities develop plans to address their long term human health and environmental challenges? How can decision support systems best be designed so that they provide clearly understandable results to decision-makers and stakeholders and are usable by communities on a real-time, iterative basis?
187
Finally, EPA will be developing indicators and performance measures, so that communities will have measurement tools to characterize their current level of sustainability; develop meaningful goals and quantifiable objectives for the future, understand the consequences of alternative investment strategies, track their progress, and confirm that their investments in solutions to improve their sustainability are yielding the intended results. Key research questions include: What data are available at the national scale that could be useful to communities, and how can the numerous state and local datasets be collected and organized to facilitate sustainability analysis when a region spans multiple jurisdictional boundaries? What indicators are most appropriate for assessing the overall environmental sustainability of a community? What indicators are of most utility in diagnosing the causes of sustainability problems and identifying potential solutions? What indicators are most useful for setting environmental goals and communicating these goals to community stakeholders? What are the most useful indicators for tracking the performance of projects intended to increase environmental sustainability of communities? In FY 2012, the Agency is increasing funding in areas critical to support the Administrations science priorities. EPA is strengthening the future scientific workforce by increasing funding for fellowships to students in pursuit of careers and advanced degrees in environmental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In FY 2012, EPA will provide $14 million for STAR Fellowships, including support for an estimated 243 continuing fellows and 105 new STAR fellows. The FY 2012 budget also will support a study of the Agencys laboratory network focusing on current capability to address important strategic issues central to EPA's mission over the next 10 years. This investment responds to Congressional legislation and President Obamas direction, in Executive Order 13514, that all federal agencies implement an integrated strategy toward sustainability. Performance Targets: To be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas Reinvestment Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will use science of science policy approaches to assess the impact of federal science and technology investments on society, the environment, and the economy.
188
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following this section: (+$6,000.0) This request reflects increased funding for training the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program. The increase supports the Administrations science and technology priority for investing in a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase to support the plan for a long-term review of EPAs laboratory network. This cross-Agency integrated management approach reflects EPA labs, centers and program offices aim to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making. This investment will strengthen the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health issues. (-$150.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research integrating health indicators with socio-economic indicators for the Environmental Quality Index (EQI). This reduction will slow the effort to provide comparison metrics for prioritization of research. (-$667.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,685.0) This reflects a reduction to ecosystems research for mapping and modeling current ecosystem services and future ecosystem services predicted under multiple scenarios. The reduction will reduce and delay a number of research projects including EMAP condition monitoring, site-specific demonstration projects in the southwest, a sitespecific demonstration project and use of remote sensing technology in the AlbermarlePamlico Watershed, and the Regional Vulnerability Assessment toolkit. (-$2,000.0) This reduction is the result of a one-time supplemental appropriation included in FY 2010 for oil spills research. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request. (-$3,000.0) This reduction is the result of an increase included in the Congressionallydirected FY 2010 Appropriation providing an additional $3,000.0 for children's environmental health research in FY 2010. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request. (-$3,500.0) This reduction reflects decreased funding for the Advanced Monitoring Initiative. Research with the Interagency Group on Earth Observations will focus only on
189
those areas that are core EPA priorities; the remaining collaborative research with NASA will be integrated into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. (-$14,067.0 / -21.4 FTE) This decrease represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes a decrease of $6,868.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program. The following transfers26 will integrate the Human Health Research, Ecosystems Services Research, Land Protection and Preservation Research, Pesticides and Toxics Research, Sustainability Research Programs and Fellowships into the transdisciplinary Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort is expected to improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. This integration reflects EPAs efforts to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making, thereby strengthening the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health issues. (+$113,217.0 / +367.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including $49,335.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as Information Technology (IT) reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative. (+$9,386.0 / +32.1FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including $4,216.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program narrative. (+$18,548.0 / +65.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Sustainability Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including $9,130.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional
26
The FY 2012 total for the Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities includes an additional $502 thousand in EPA Green Conferencing resources that are not included in EPAs Research Program.
190
details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative. (+$17,261.0 / +6.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Fellowships Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including a transfer of $664.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program narrative. (+$12,116.0 / +58.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Pesticides and Toxics Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including a transfer of $7,666.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program narrative. Statutory Authority: CAA, Sections 103 and 104. 42 U.S.C. 7403, 42 U.S.C. 7404, 103; 104; CWA, Sections 101, 104 & 404, 33 U.S.C. 1254; CCA, 40 U.S.C. 11318; CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451 - Section 302; Executive Order 12866; ERDDAA; ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 - Section 2; FIFRA Sections 18 and 20; TSCA, Section 10. 15 U.S.C. 2609; WRRA.
191
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
192
Drinking Water Programs Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$99,394.2
$102,224.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$104,616.0

$2,392.0

$3,637.0
$105,861.0 589.4
$3,889.3
$103,283.5 598.2
$3,637.0
$105,861.0 589.4
$3,787.0
$108,403.0 585.3
$150.0
$2,542.0 -4.1
Program Project Description: This program provides technical support to drinking water programs through the Technical Support Center (TSC), which evaluates engineering and scientific data (including treatment technology information) to establish its applicability to the drinking water programs needs. The Center also: Develops and implements regulations to support national occurrence surveys and assists in the assessment of the contaminant occurrence data resulting from those surveys; Develops and evaluates monitoring approaches and analytical methods, including assessing data provided by others to demonstrate the effectiveness of new/alternate analytical methods; Trains regional and state certification officers and develops guidelines for the drinking water laboratory certification program; Works with EPA regional offices and states to help drinking water utilities better understand their treatment and distribution systems and implement improvements to optimize performance; and Provides other technical support to develop and implement National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). The Center also provides external technical assistance in support of EPA regional and state drinking water programs.27 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Drinking Water Technical Support Program will:
27
For additional program information see http://www.epa.gov/safewater https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=63cecb6866ee587d2bfafc7b77c3563c&cck=1&au=&ck
193
Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of drinking water regulations. This includes the development of methods for updating rules and implementing the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), and responding to technical implementation questions regarding the entire range of NPDWRs; Implement EPAs Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program. This program sets standards and establishes methods for EPA, state, and privately-owned laboratories that analyze drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA will conduct three regional program reviews during FY 2012. TSC visits each regional office on a triennial basis and evaluates their oversight of the state laboratories and the state laboratory certification programs within their purview; Support small drinking water systems efforts to optimize their treatment technology under the drinking water treatment Area Wide Optimization Program (AWOP). AWOP is a highly successful technical assistance and training program that enhances the ability of small systems to meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection byproducts standards. By FY 2012, EPA will have worked with four regional offices and 24 states to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using the performance-based training approach targeted toward optimizing key groundwater system and distribution system integrity. The performance-based training brings together a group of public water supply operators from different localities for a series of sessions where they learn key operational and problem solving skills. Each skill is needed to enable operators to address the factors limiting optimized performance of their plant; Complete the review and validation of the data from the second round of contaminant monitoring conducted under UCMR2. The monitoring period for UCMR2 was January 2008 to December 2010. The last of the monitoring results should be reported by public water systems by the middle of calendar year 2011. The monitoring results, used in conjunction with health effects information and other occurrence data, will contribute significantly to the regulatory determination process; Publish the regulation that will support the third round of unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCMR3) and coordinate with states and regional offices to carry out the agencys pre-monitoring implementation responsibilities. Key activities for EPA include management of all aspects of small-system monitoring, approval and oversight of supporting laboratories, troubleshooting and technical assistance, and review and validation of data. EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, to annually set aside $2 million of State Revolving Funds to pay the costs of small system monitoring and sample analysis for contaminants for each cycle of the UCMR. UCMR3 monitoring is scheduled to begin in January 2013; and Provide analytical method development/validation to enable implementation of the nations drinking water compliance monitoring and occurrence data gathering.
194
Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure

(aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment & source water protection.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
92
91
91
Percent Population
Measure Type
Measure
(apm) Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
89.6
90
90
Percent Systems
Work under this program supports EPAs protect Human Health Objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$163.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority:
195
SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f300j9 as added by Public Law 93523 and the amendments made by subsequentenactments.
196
Program Area: Clean Air
197
Research: Clean Air Program Area: Research: Clean Air Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change Objective(s): Radiation; Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $74,920.0

$74,920.0 265.5

$81,917.0 269.5
FY 2012 Pres Budget $0.0

$0.0 0.0

($81,917.0) -269.5
$81,917.0
$81,917.0 269.5
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Research and Development provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect the air Americans breathe and supports the Administrators priority for improving air quality. The program provides the underlying research to support the Agencys implementation of the Clean Air Act, which mandates promulgation and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)28 as well as the evaluation of risks associated with Hazardous Air Pollutants.29 In addition, the program has integrated research activities around a multi-pollutant approach to address ozone and other criteria pollutants as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In moving toward the multi-pollutant theme, the program increasingly focuses on how to address specific source sectors contributing to air pollution, a systems approach that will result in more effective and efficient air quality management strategies. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best science available at the time and typically focused on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Protecting human health and the environment from the effects of air pollution and developing a better understanding of climate change impacts on natural systems, while meeting the demands of a growing population and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation. As we investigate solutions to reduce and prevent emissions and investigate potential environmental implications of a changing climate, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding the complex interplay between air quality, the changing climate, and a changing energy landscape, and the subsequent human health and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants.
28
The NAAQS set limits for criteria pollutants regulating levels of tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 29 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html
198
In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results that those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating most of the Clean Air Research Program into the new Air, Climate and Energy Research Program. EPA is integrating the remainder of the Clean Air Program, nanotechnology, into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the innovative use of a multiple disciplines to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$3,000.0) This reflects an increase to help the Agency develop efficient, high-performing, and cost-effective monitors for ambient air pollutants, including both the NAAQS and HAPs. In particular, it will provide field validation of available, untested and undeployed monitoring methods, refinement of outdated techniques and methods, and innovative new technologies. With this investment, the Agency will seek lowest-cost, automated monitoring technologies to minimize future monitoring burdens felt by state and local agencies. This investment in a next generation air monitoring network supports the Agencys priority of improving air quality across the nation by helping modernize methods and monitors. (+$1,756.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$531.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$124.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$133.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$136.0 / +0.3 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic
199
priorities. This includes an increase of 0.3 FTE and associated payroll of $40.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$150.0) This reflects a decrease to the Clean Air Program and will reduce source receptor and dose-effect research that investigates human exposure to air pollutants and the resulting health effects. This decrease could reduce the level of detail in risk estimates needed to support NAAQS regulations. This decrease will also delay reporting for the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study. (-$224.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and local area network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$459.0 / -1.5 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 1.5 FTE and associated payroll of $200.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$536.0 / -1.5 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. It also includes a reduction of 1.5 FTE and associated payroll of $200.0 that reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$549.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (-$762.0) This reduction to the Clean Air Research Program will reduce research activities that support the development and application of models and technologies used to understand the relationships between air pollution, ambient concentration and exposures, and assist in the development of state implementation strategies. This decrease will result in a delay to possible model improvements that could aid state and regional air quality implementation plans. (-$818.0 / -4.0 FTE) This reflects a shift from the Clean Air Research Program to the Global Change Research Program for research on air quality-climate interactions to effectively couple regional air quality and global climate models. The reduced resources include 4.0 FTE and associated payroll of $532.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$127.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollars and FTE resources for nanotechnology research to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. The reduced resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $127.0 and reflect EPA's workforce
200
management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$83,186.0 / -261.8 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program and includes $35,373.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate the Clean Air Research Program into the transdisciplinary Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: CAA 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Title 1, Part A Sec. 103 (a) and (d) and Sec. 104 (c); CAA 42 U.S.C 7402(b) Section 102; CAA 42 U.S.C 7403(b)(2) Section 103(b)(2); Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C 11318; Economy Act, 31 U.S.C 1535; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NEPA, Section 102; PPA.
201
Research: Global Change Program Area: Research: Clean Air Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $19,646.9

$19,646.9 36.3

$20,826.0 35.5

$0.0 0.0

($20,826.0) -35.5
$20,826.0
$20,826.0 35.5
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Research and Development is focused on understanding and assessing the effects of global changeparticularly climate variability and changeon air quality, water quality, aquatic ecosystems, human health and social well being in the United States and supports the Administrators priorities for taking action on climate change, improving air quality and protecting Americas waters. The Agency strives to produce timely and useful information, decision support tools and adaptation strategies that will enable resource managers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to account for global change when making decisions. EPA also is developing decision support tools to help decision makers evaluate alternative strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to better quantify the environmental implications (and potential co-benefits) associated with deployment of these strategies. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best science available at the time and typically focused on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Protecting human health and the environment from the effects of air pollution and developing a better understanding of climate change impacts on natural systems, while meeting the demands of a growing population and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation. As we investigate solutions to reduce and prevent emissions and investigate potential environmental implications of a changing climate, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding the complex interplay between air quality, the changing climate, and a changing energy landscape, and the subsequent human health and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach
202
will create synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results than those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Global Change Research Program into the new Air, Climate and Energy Research Program. This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the innovative use of a multiple disciplines to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$432.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs. (+$818.0 / +4.0 FTE) This reflects a shift to the Global Change Research Program from the Clean Air Research Program to better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. The resources include 4.0 FTE and associated payroll of $532.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$232.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For that program, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (+$131.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (+$104.0 / +2.0 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignment of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This includes an increase of 2.0 FTE with associated payroll of $266.0. (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$26.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$30.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas
203
may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$92.0 / -0.2 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 0.2 FTE and associated payroll of $27.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$85.0 / -0.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. It also includes a reduction of 0.1 FTE and associated payroll of $13.0 that reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$625.0) This reflects a reduction to research investigating the impacts of climate change on estuarine ecosystems. (-$20,810.0 / -41.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program, including $5,521.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate the Global Change Research Program into the transdisciplinary Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C 11318; Economy Act, 31 U.S.C 1535; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NCPA; NEPA, Section 102; PPA; USGCRA 15 U.S.C. 2921.
204
Program Area: Clean Water
205
Research: Drinking Water Program Area: Research: Clean Water Goal: Clean and Safe Water Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $50,346.0

$50,346.0 182.9

$49,155.0 190.2

$0.0 0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($49,155.0) ($49,155.0)

-190.2
$49,155.0
$49,155.0 190.2
Program Project Description: EPAs Drinking Water Research Program conducts comprehensive integrated research in support of EPAs Office of Water and regional offices. The program provides methodologies, data, tools, models, and technologies in support of regulatory decisions, health risk assessments and other needs pertaining to the Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) statutory requirements. Research also is targeted at the implementation of regulatory decisions, addressing compliance issues associated with groups of contaminants, promoting the sustainability of water resources, and the reliable delivery of safe drinking water, as well as developing approaches to improve water infrastructure. Research in the Drinking Water Research Program is coordinated with the Agencys regulatory activities and timelines. Key research areas include: Supporting EPAs Drinking Water Strategy30 through technology research and evaluation of alternative approaches to control multiple contaminants effectively and affordably; Addressing information gaps associated with chemicals and microorganisms that are on the third Contaminant Candidate List and supporting the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule; Addressing science issues associated with revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and related research on distribution systems and sustainable water infrastructure; Providing support to those implementing recent regulatory decisions including the Ground Water Rule, the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule, and the Long-Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Supporting simultaneous compliance challenges, particularly co-compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule, Microbial and Disinfectant Byproduct rules; and Supporting regulatory needs associated with the Underground Injection Control regulations pertaining to geologic sequestration of carbon and aquifer storage and
30
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/sdwa/dwstrategydocs/Drinking_Water_Strategyfs.pdf
206
recovery as well as research on water resource implications associated with hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Increasing demands for sources of clean water-combined with land use practices, growth, aging infrastructure, and climate variability can threaten our nation's water resources. Competing challenges require research to inform improved management practices that consider long-term sustainability for human and aquatic ecosystem health. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Drinking Water Research Program into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of a perspective to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$4,226.0 / +5.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for research on hydraulic fracturing which includes $665.0 in associated payroll for 5.0 FTE. Research will provide policy relevant methods, models, monitoring tools, and data on potential risks associated with extracting gas from subsurface formations using vertical and horizontal fracturing technologies. Research will inform key areas lacking information to provide an adequate assessment of the potential public health and environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing. In particular, EPAs Science Advisory Board recommends that EPA undertake five to ten case studies in order to provide an understanding of how the risks may vary in the key geologic and geographic situations where hydraulic fracturing is or may be used. Evaluation of the chemicals conducted under this investment will provide a sound foundation upon which to base the choice of safer hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agencys priority to protect the quality of the nations waters by ensuring the protection of our aquifers. (+$1,180.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$36.0 / +2.9 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general
207
expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$216.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (+$65.0) This realignment of resources from the Land Protection and Remediation Program reflects the natural evolution in research direction from groundwater remediation issues to groundwater protection issues related to carbon sequestration. (-$28.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs for rent, utilities, security and other expenditures. (-$91.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$150.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$352.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers in the Drinking Water Research Program. It also includes a reduction of programmatic FTE that reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$356.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of $120.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$550.0) This reflects a reduction to the development of best management practices and informing decisions associated with control of pathogens in drinking water systems. This decrease will limit the extent to which the Agency can respond to the priorities defined by EPAs Distribution System Research and Information Collection Partnership (RICP). (-$732.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
208
continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$52,547.0 / -196.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program and includes a transfer of $25,050.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate the Drinking Water Research Program into the transdisciplinary Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: SDWA Part E, Sec. 1442 (a)(1); CWA Title I, Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 Sec 104 (a) and (c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); MPRSA Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C.
209
Research: Water Quality Program Area: Research: Clean Water Goal: Clean and Safe Water Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $58,586.9

$58,586.9 224.6

$61,918.0 236.8

$0.0 0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted ($61,918.0) ($61,918.0)

-236.8
$61,918.0
$61,918.0 236.8
Program Project Description: The Water Quality Research Program is designed to support the Clean Water Act (CWA), providing scientific information and tools to the Agency and others to help protect and restore the designated uses of water bodies that sustain human health and aquatic life. The program conducts research on the development and application of water quality criteria, the implementation of effective watershed management approaches, and the application of technological options to restore and protect water bodies using information on effective treatment and management alternatives. The Water Quality Research Program is responsive to the needs of EPAs Water program and regional offices, which are the programs primary partners in developing research priorities, and also supports the Administrators priority of protecting Americas waters. The Water Quality Research Program will support priorities set in consultation with EPAs Water program and regional offices, taking into account such factors as pollutant/stressor type, water body types, and source of pollutants (e.g.,agricultural versus urban). In particular, urban watershed management is a top Agency priority. Continued efforts on green infrastructure research will facilitate the nations transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems and watershed management practices. This and other Water Quality research is categorized within three broad areas: Water Quality Integrity Research; Watershed Management Research; and Source Control and Management Research. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Increasing demands on sources of clean water, land use practices, growth, aging infrastructure, and climate variability pose threatens to our nation's water resources. Research is needed to inform improved management our nation's waters in an integrated, sustainable manner that will promote economic prosperity and human and aquatic ecosystem health.
210
To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Water Quality Research Program into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$319.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$5,966.0 / +7.0 FTE) This reflects funding for green infrastructure research to improve urban watershed management practices and facilitate the nations transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems. The increase also includes 7.0 FTE with associated payroll of $931.0. A significant portion of funds will leverage the most innovative thinking by academias top scientists through STAR grants. (+$1,087.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (+$589.0 / +2.2 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes 2.2 FTE with associated payroll of $293.0 Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. (+$183.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$92.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$227.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in
211
individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$273.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$510.0 / -1.3 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated with the Water Quality Research Program. This change includes a decrease of 1.3 FTE and associated payroll of $173.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$731.0 / -1.3 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. This change includes a decrease of 1.3 FTE and associated payroll of $173.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$2,000.0) This reflects a decrease in Beaches research due to continued progress in meeting the requirements of the consent decree and settlement agreement. Work to support implementation efforts through the Office of Water will receive a higher priority. In particular, as the Beaches work nears completion, human health effects work will transition to a technical support level. Research on methods and new molecular tools will continue. Large scale epidemiology studies will be more difficult to support with this reduction, but continued development of measures of waterborne pathogen occurrence and tools for assessing illnesses related to pathogens will remain a priority. There will not be large scale health studies in FY 2012, but work on tools to use in future health studies will continue. (-$66,229.0 / -243.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new, integrated Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program and includes $31,105.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate the Water Quality Research Program into the transdisciplinary Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: CWA Title I, Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 Sec 104 (a) and (c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 Section 2(a); MPRSA Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C. 1443; ODBA Title II; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA; ESA; NAWCA; FIFRA 7 U.S. C. 135 et seq; TSCA U.S. C. 136 et seq.
212
Program Area: Human Health and Ecosystems
213
Research: Computational Toxicology Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,929.9

$13,929.9 33.0

$20,048.0 32.7

$0.0 0.0

($20,048.0) -32.7
$20,048.0
$20,048.0 32.7
Program Project Description: Computational Toxicology assesses the risks that certain chemicals pose to human health and the environment using mathematical and computer models. Established in 2003, EPAs Computational Toxicology Research Program (CTRP) examines the sources of chemicals in the environment and assesses their potential to cause adverse health effects. The CTRP develops robust and flexible computational tools, which are used to assess thousands of contaminants found in Americas air, water, and hazardous-waste sites. Advances in informatics, highthroughput screening, and genomics enable EPA scientists to use CTRP results to develop a detailed understanding of the risks posed by large numbers of chemicals, while at the same time reduce the use of animals for toxicological testing. These tools are transforming environmental health protection by providing risk assessors and managers more efficient and effective methods for managing chemical risks. The National Center for Computational Toxicology, established in 2005, comprises the largest component of the CTRP. The strategic directions of the CTRP are highly consistent with the National Research Council report Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy31 (Tox21), and include several substantial and innovative projects in chemical screening and prioritization, informatics, and systems biology32. EPAs Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program and other EPA laboratories conduct research under the Computational Toxicology program. The contribution of the STAR program to the CTRP includes two centers in bioinformatics and two in computational toxicology. The research of these centers will help fill gaps in our understanding of the molecular pathways that may result in toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus, which we know represent highly susceptible life stages to chemical exposure. As these pathways are identified, assays will be developed to test their sensitivity to thousands of chemicals.
31
Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970&page=1 32 http://epa.gov/ncct/download_files/basic_information/CTRP2_Implementation_Plan_FY09_12.pdf
214
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. The Computational Toxicology program efforts are at the core of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals33. The Strategic Plan and the CTRP Implementation Plan for FY 2009-2012 highlight the unique capabilities of EPA to provide the necessary science to transform how chemical and other risk assessments are performed, and thus support improved management of environmental contaminants and chemical risk. Unfortunately, traditional research approaches within the CTRP portfolio are limited in their ability to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Computational Toxicology Research Program into the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability (CSS) program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary approach to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$756.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs. (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase for next-generation tools to speed and facilitate implementation of the Agencys Endocrine Disruptor Screening program (EDSP). The application of these tools will introduce a more efficient approach to identifying potential endocrine disruptors and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical. This research is critical to help the Agency meet its priority of strengthening chemicals management and risk assessment. (+$285.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
33
National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,OH 45242, publication # 100K09001
215
(+$92.0 / +2.7 FTE) This change reflects the net result of realignments of resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align with programmatic priorities, including 2.7 FTE with associated payroll of $359.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. (-$3.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and local area network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$133.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of FTE resources for STAR grants including -$133.0 in associated payroll. This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$294.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$21,211.0 / -34.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability program (CSS), including $4,363.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate Endocrine Disruptors Chemicals; Computational Toxicology; and Nanotechnology Research Programs, as well as portions of Sustainability, Human Health, Pesticides and Toxics, and Human Health Risk Assessment programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: SDWA; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments; Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; Oil Pollution Act; BRERA; Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority.
216
Research: Endocrine Disruptor Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $12,471.9

$12.471.9 52.1

$11,355.0 50.1

$0.0 0.0

($11,355.0) -50.1
$11,355.0
$11,355.0 50.1
Program Project Description: EPAs Endocrine Disruptors Research Program applies methods, models, and measures to evaluate real-world exposures to endocrine disruptors and characterize related effects resulting from these exposures for humans and wildlife. The Endocrine Disruptors Research Program provides direct support to EPAs Endocrine Screening and Testing Programs, which are mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. 34 EPA uses Endocrine Disruptors research to develop risk management tools to prevent or mitigate exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Decision-makers use these tools to reduce and prevent exposure of humans and ecosystems to endocrine disruptors. The EDCs Program also develops and evaluates the new and existing test protocols that are used to assess potential endocrine effects of environmental agents. This research program strengthens the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americans against unreasonable risk from exposure to toxicants that interfere with the endocrine system. In addition, the EDCs Program supports the Administrators priorities for assuring the safety of chemicals, protecting Americas waters and building strong state and tribal partnerships. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Unfortunately, traditional research approaches are limited in their ability to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Although chemicals are essential to modern life, we lack innovative systematic, effective, and efficient approaches and tools to inform decisions that reduce the environmental and societal impact of harmful chemicals while increasing economic value.
34
SDWA Section 1457.
217
To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Endocrine Disruptors Research Program into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary approach to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$115.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$7,000.0) Additional funding will support grants to academia through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program, complementing the intramural research effort on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). This research will allow for an acceleration of applying the latest state-of-the-art technologies and innovations to advance the assessment and management of environmental endocrine disruptors and other emerging contaminants of concern. (+133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of FTE resources for STAR grants, including $133.0 in associated payroll. This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$37.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (+$5.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (-$43.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$54.6 / -0.2 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 0.2 FTE and associated payroll of -$26.6. The change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
218
(-$58.9 / -0.3 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated with the Endocrine Disruptors Research Program. The reduced resources include 0.3 FTE and associated payroll of -$39.9. The change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$255.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$413.8 / -1.6 FTE) This represents a net realignment of FTE and resources to the Pesticides and Toxics Research Program to address exposure issues related to potential chemical and/or pesticide stressors to better reflect program support needs. This includes a reduction of 1.6 FTE with decreased associated payroll of -$212.8. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$701.7 / -2.9 FTE) This reflects the realignment of resources for critical equipment purchases and facility repairs and improvements across Agency Research Programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This includes a reduction of 2.9 FTE with decreased associated payroll of -$385.7. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. (-$16,888.0 / -46.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program to better integrate chemical safety Research Programs. The reduced resources include 46.1 FTE and associated payroll of $5,847.0. This transfer will integrate Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, and Nanotechnology research, along with portions of Human Health, Human Health Risk Assessment, Pesticides and Toxics, and Sustainability research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: CAA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 103, 104 & 154; CWA, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 101-121; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.; ERDDAA, 42 U.S.C. 4361-4370; FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136; FQPA, 7 U.S.C.; Pollution Prevention Act PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13103; RCRA 42 U.S.C.; SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 1457 Sec. 136-137, 201-203; TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2609.
219
Research: Fellowships Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $11,453.8

$11,453.8 7.4

$11,083.0 2.6

$0.0 0.0

($11,083.0) -2.6
$11,083.0
$11,083.0 2.6
Program Project Description: It is essential that our nation has a well-trained scientific and engineering workforce that can address complex environmental issues. According to a July 2004 publication by the National Science and Technology Council titled Science for the 21st Century, beginning in 1998, the U.S. experienced a significant decline in science and engineering doctorates. EPA assists in efforts to counteract this decline by offering five fellowship programs that encourage promising students to pursue degrees and careers in environmentally-related fields: Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program:35 U.S. masters and doctoral students in environmental fields compete for EPAs STAR fellowships through a rigorous merit-based review process. The applicants proposed area of research must aim to strengthen the scientific basis for environmental management and promote a broader focus for future research and environmental technology development. EPA provides assistance for up to three years in the form of a stipend ($20,000/year), a research budget ($5,000/year) and tuition assistance (up to $12,000/year). Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Undergraduate Fellowship Program:1 This program awards fellowships to undergraduates whose universities receive less than $35 million annually in federal science and technology funds. For qualifying students in environmental fields, EPA provides up to $19,250 a year for academic support and $8,000 for a three-month summer internship with EPA between the fellows junior and senior years. Environmental Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program:36 In conjunction with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), EPA places qualified technical professionals with a Ph.D. degree or equivalent into EPA headquarters for up to two years. Fellows design and work on projects that produce
35 36
For more information, see http://epa.gov/ncer/fellow/. For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.org/index.shtml.
220
meaningful scientific research for environmental policy makers. The program awards annual stipends ranging between $70,000 and $95,000. Environmental Public Health Fellowship Program:37 In conjunction with the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), EPA provides professional development opportunities to graduates of accredited U.S. schools of public health. Fellows gain real-world experience in environmental public health issues by working in EPA laboratory, regional, program or research management offices across the country. The program awards annual stipends of up to $50,000. EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:38 In partnership with the Government of the United Kingdom, EPA awards Marshall Scholars approximately $40,000 a year for tuition and fees, a stipend, program-related expenses, and travel to and from the United States. Since 1953, the Marshall Scholarship Program has provided opportunities for highly motivated masters degree students to receive support for two years of study in Great Britain. The program places special emphasis on academic fields that address global environmental problems or benefit multilateral efforts. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Fellowships Program into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPAs mission. Within this integrated program, EPAs Fellowships Program will continue to foster long-term investment in the enhancement of environmental research and development, increased promotion of green principles, and an increase in the nations scientific education and workforce. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$526.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$6,000.0) This request reflects increased funding for training the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
37 38
For more information, see http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=751&JobProg_ID=1. For more information, see http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applications/epa.
221
Fellowship Program. The increase supports the Administrations science and technology priority for investing in a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and workforce. (+$540.0 / +3.8 FTE) This increase reflects the net result of realignments of resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align with programmatic priorities, 3.8 FTE with associated payroll of $505.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$164.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$17,261.0 / -6.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program and includes 6.4 FTE and $664.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6981, Sec. 8001; HSWA; ERDDA; SARA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, Sec. 209 (a), Sec. 403 (a,b); CERCLA, 42 USC 9660, Sec.311; RCRA, 42 U.S.C.; OPA, BRERA.
222
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $158,721.8

$158,721.8 472.3

$159,511.0 484.9

$0.0 0.0

($161,511.0) -484.9
$161,511.0
$161,511.0 484.9
Program Project Description: EPAs Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program is a crucial scientific component of the Agencys ability to protect Americans public health and environment. The Human Health and Ecosystems program examines the interactions and impacts between ecosystems and human activity. Human Health Research The Human Health Research Program (HHRP) develops sustainable technological innovations aimed at protecting human health. The HHRP addresses the limitations, gaps, and challenges articulated in EPAs Report on the Environment (2008) and responds to recommendations in the National Research Councils reports Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007) and Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (2009). Using a source-to-exposure-to-effects-to-disease research framework, HHRP develops and links indicators of risk, characterizes and reduce uncertainties in risk assessment, and applies new research information to real world settings. Advanced exposure models illuminate potential risks of environmental contaminants and characterize specific environmental exposures and stressors that contribute to current human health concerns. HHRP research catalyzes the development of public health indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of risk management decisions, especially as they pertain to vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. Ecosystems Services Research The Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) conducts solutions-based research that enables proactive environmental decision making that conserves and protects ecosystem services. ESRP has made significant accomplishments in quantifying the ecological condition of the nations aquatic resources, developing ecological stressor-response models, methods to forecast alternative future scenarios, and creating methods to restore ecological functions and ecosystem services within degraded systems. ESRP leverages the expertise of these accomplishments by integrating scientific resources into a common research framework. This framework allows EPA to assess and quantify ecosystem services and determine how those
223
services are affected by human behaviour. Using this information, ESRP develops decision support tools that help policy makers implement scientifically-sound environmental decisions and create incentives that eliminate or redirect problematic human behaviour. ESRPs research approach provides the Agency with unique opportunities to produce environmental solutions at lower cost and with fewer unintended consequences. Additional research areas In addition to ESRP and HHRP, the Human Health and Ecosystems program works in partnership with NASA to perform advanced monitoring research (AMI); conducts mercury research, nanotechnology research and exploratory research; and develops the Agencys Report on the Environment (ROE). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. The integrative nature of the Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program gives the Agency a unique ability to assess the relationship between environmental agents and human health and well-being. Currently, the Human Health and Ecosystem Services program, along with the rest of EPAs research portfolio, targets high-priority environmental issues and provides technical support for implementing short-term solutions. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Human Health and Ecosystem Services program into the Air, Climate and Energy, Chemical Safety and Sustainability, and Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Programs. These new programs are aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalize on existing capabilities, and incorporate systems analysis in problem definition and research methods to further EPAs mission. This approach will leverage the capabilities of the Human Health and Ecosystem program and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,254.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
224
(+$1,186.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (+$800.0) This increase reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and Ecosystems program to fund ECOTOX, which is a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. The ECOTOX database is relied upon by EPA program and regional offices, as well as external stakeholders, as a source of ecological toxicity data. (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase to support the plan for a long-term review of EPAs laboratory network. This cross-Agency integrated management approach reflects EPA labs, centers and program offices aim to collaborate across traditional program boundaries to support national and regional decision-making. This investment will strengthen the Agencys ability to respond to environmental and public health issues as one EPA. (+$133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a shift of FTE resources from the Homeland Security Research Program to nanotechnology research. The resource shift includes associated payroll of $133.0. (-$1,104.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$532.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas are partially offset by necessary financial system investments and increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$150.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research integrating health indicators with socio-economic indicators for the Environmental Quality Index (EQI). EPA has deemed this research lower priority than other human health efforts. (-$326.0) This decrease reflects the Agency working to reduce its carbon footprint by reducing travel costs, promoting green travel practices, and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. (-$836.0 / -2.2 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. It also includes a reduction of 2.2 programmatic FTE and associated payroll of -$293.0 that reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency to better align resources, skills and Agency priorities, (-$750.0) This reflects a reduction to the nanotechnology research to delay research in using new energy applications, such as next-generation lithium-ion batteries, as case studies for developing Life Cycle Assessment approaches for nanomaterials. This
225
reduction also will delay FY 2012 commitments made to the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to support development of non-animal test methods for nanomaterials, in particular for carbon nanotubes and silver nanoparticles. (-$751.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$769.0 / -3.4 FTE) This decrease reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionally allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. The decrease includes a reduction of 3.4 FTE and decreased associated payroll of -$452.0. (-$1,500.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research on screening assays and predictive toxicology approaches. Research to develop new assays and approaches will be delayed, slowing EPA efforts to transform the efficiency and effectiveness of toxicity testing. (-$1,685.0) This reflects a reduction to ecosystems research for mapping and modeling current ecosystem services and future ecosystem services predicted under multiple scenarios. The reduction will reduce and delay a number of research projects including EMAP condition monitoring, site-specific demonstration projects in the southwest, a sitespecific demonstration project and use of remote sensing technology in the AlbemarlePamlico Watershed, and the Regional Vulnerability Assessment toolkit. (-$2,000.0) This reduction is the result of a supplemental appropriation included in FY 2010 for oil spills research. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request. (-$2,106.0 / -2.2 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. A portion of these administrative savings ($1,000) will be reinvested directly into science through STAR fellowships. The change includes a decrease of 2.2 FTE with reduced associated payroll of $293.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$2,429.0 / -3.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to the mercury Research Program and includes a reduction of 3.1 FTE and decreased associated payroll of -$412.0. The program will discontinue research examining mercury hot spots evaluating mercury emission measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact of different coals and technology configurations on coal combustion residues. The program will use data already generated to produce final products and reports.
226
(-$3,000.0) This reduction is the result of an increase included in the FY 2010 Appropriation providing an additional $3,000.0 for children's environmental health research in FY 2010. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request. (-$3,500.0) This reduction reflects decreased funding for the Advanced Monitoring Initiative. Research with the interagency Group on Earth Observations will focus only on those areas that are core EPA priorities; the remaining collaborative research with NASA will be integrated into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. (-$1,204.0 / -6.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of FTE and resources for mercury research to the new Air, Climate and Energy Research Program. The reduced resources include 6.6 FTE and associated payroll of $886.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$31,025.0 / -100.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for a portion of Human Health Research and nanotechnology research to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability program to better integrate chemical safety Research Programs. The reduced resources include 100.5 FTE and associated payroll of $12,606.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This transfer will integrate the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, Computational Toxicology, and Nanotechnology Research Programs, as well as portions of Sustainability, Human Health, Pesticides and Toxics, Human Health Risk Assessment programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. (-$113,217.0 / -367.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for a portion of Human Health Research, Ecosystem Services Research, the Report on the Environment, and the Advanced Monitoring Initiative to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities program. The reduced resources include 367.9 FTE and associated payroll of $49,335.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research; as well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7404; SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1; ERDDA; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1254; FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.; RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6981; FQPA; TSCA, 15 U.S.C.; USGCRA, 15 U.S.C. 2921
227
Program Area: Land Protection
228
Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program Area: Research: Land Protection Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spills Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $14,687.7

$422.5 $549.7 $22,334.0 $37,993.9 137.6

$345.0 $639.0 $21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0

($345.0) ($639.0) ($21,191.0) ($36, 286.0) -154.7
$14,111.0
$345.0 $639.0 $21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7
Program Project Description: Research performed under the Land Research Program supports scientifically defensible and consistent decision-making for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) material management, corrective action, and emerging materials topics. EPAs Land Research Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americas land. Research under this program has been evolving from waste treatment to beneficial reuse, avoidance of more toxic materials, and operation of waste management facilities to conserve capacity and produce energy. Research addresses resource conservation and material reuse issues, as well as the application of alternative landfill covers and the benefits of landfill bioreactors. To address emerging material management issues, the program made a strategic shift to focus on nanomaterial fate and transport and associated risk management issues. Research efforts are guided by the Land Research Program Multi-Year Plan (MYP),39 developed with input from across the Agency. The MYP outlines steps for meeting the needs of the Research and Development Programs clients and stakeholders and for evaluating progress through annual performance goals and measures. Research under this Program supports human health risk and exposure assessments and methods, which are conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the
39
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-yearplans.htm#land.
229
Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; competition for food, materials, and energy in a global economy; growing waste streams; changing climate; and tighter budgets have exacerbated the challenges. Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach this, EPA is integrating the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$242.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$241.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (+$10.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the Sustainability Research Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$5.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$83.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
230
(-$124.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys technology infrastructure modernization plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources. Realignment of these resources is based on FTE allocations. (-$125.0 / -0.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. This change includes -$13.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$154.0 / -0.3 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. This change includes -$40.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$181.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$331.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reflects a redirection of resources to Drinking Water research, reflecting the natural evolution in research direction from groundwater remediation issues to groundwater protection issues related to carbon sequestration. This reduction includes 2.0 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $266.0. (-$4,215.0 / -25.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program and includes a transfer of $3,324.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate nanotechnology research into the transdisciplinary Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program that better aligns with Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. (-$9,386.0 / -32.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program and includes a transfer of $4,216.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate land restoration research into the transdisciplinary Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program that better aligns with Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: Clean Air Act Sections 103 and 104. 42 U.S.C. 7403, 42 U.S.C. 7404,103; 104; CWA Sections 101, 104 & 404, 33 U.S.C. 1254; Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. 11318; CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451 - Section 302; E.O. 12866; ERDDAA; ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 - Section 2; FIFRA Sections 18 and 20; TSCA Section 10. 15 U.S.C. 2609; WRRA.
231
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
232
Research: Sustainability Program Area: Research: Sustainability Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $25,807.8

$152.0 $25,959.8 73.1

$73.0 $27,360.0 70.8

$0.0 $0.0 0.0

($73.0) ($27,360.0) -70.8
$27,287.0
$73.0 $27,360.0 70.8
Program Project Description: EPAs Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) Research Program provides technologies and decision tools to inform future risk management decisions, and provides technical and scientific support to regional and national sustainability policies and initiatives. These tools and support are provided through three main areas: Sustainability Metrics:. The STS Research Program focuses its efforts on developing scientifically-based sustainability metrics and indices that will support understanding of the implications of different technology and risk management pathways, evaluation of regional ecosystem and human health sustainability over time, and assessment of how various management strategies can move a region towards sustainability. Decision Support Tools:40 This research creates tools, models, and methods that provide information to decision makers on ways to evaluate environmental management issues, from a systems perspective, in order to achieve sustainable outcomes. This research is built on the foundation of life cycle and supply chain analysis techniques. These techniques address the sustainability of alternative policy options, production pathways, and product usage by describing the full environmental impact and sustainability implications of each alternative. Technologies: This research emphasizes the development and testing of technologies that facilitate sustainable outcomes. An example of ongoing technical work is the development and evaluation of a new membrane technology that can recover biofuel from biomass streams at higher purity levels using 50 percent less energy and at lower
40
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/std/sab.
233
cost than current technology. Programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and the People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design competition emphasize finding solutions to client-driven problems while promoting sustainable design and implementation practices that generate research outputs in the form of innovative, inherently benign, integrated, and interdisciplinary designs that will advance the scientific, technical, and policy knowledge necessary to further the goals of sustainability. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the STS Research Program into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. In addition, research on E-waste/E-design under the STS Research Program will be integrated with the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$5,465.0 / 0.9 FTE) This reflects an increase for a new green chemistry and design for the environment initiative and includes associated payroll of $120.0. It includes $1,000.0 for E-waste/E-design research to improve the sustainability of electronic materials. The proposed research would develop new scientific information and tools that will lead to the development of safer chemicals, including nanomaterials. Funds will be used to integrate data from multiple scientific disciplines and sources into innovative user friendly decision tools, databases, and models for use by environmental decision-makers. This research will spur innovations in green chemistry as well as help develop: a scientifically and technically trained green chemistry workforce, approaches to inform and engage communities about green chemistry, and a network of green chemistry and engineering centers to support the development and adoption of safer alternatives to chemical substances. (+$609.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$31.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs.
234
(-$53.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$99.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide Information Technology projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$103.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$148.0 / -0.3 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated with the Sustainability Research Program. The reduced resources include 0.3 FTE and associated payroll of $40.0. (-$209.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of $120.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$610.0 / -3.5 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. This includes a reduction of 3.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of -$466.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$2,200.0) This reflects a disinvestment of research in biofuels due to the completion of the 2010 Report to Congress and Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture reports that are under development. The decrease will reduce EPA research on filling gaps identified in the Report to Congress and limit EPA planning for the 2013 Report to Congress as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA.) (-$3,183.0) This reflects an adjustment for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). Enacted funding levels for SBIR include the amount EPA is required to set aside for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. This adjustment is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in the budget cycle, is redistributed to other Research Programs in the Presidents Budget request. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.
235
(-$2,800.0) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for biofuels to the new Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program. There is no associated payroll included in the transfer. (-$5,440.0 / -1.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for the green chemistry and design for the environment, E-waste/E-design, and nanotechnology research to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. This transfer will integrate Endocrine Disruptors Chemicals; Computational Toxicology; and Nanotechnology Research Programs, as well as a portion of Human Health, Pesticides and Toxics, Human Health Risk Assessment, and Sustainability research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. The resources include 1.9 FTE and associated payroll of $126.0. (-$18,547.0 / -65.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as well as portions of the Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. The resources include 65.1 FTE and associated payroll of $9,130.0. Statutory Authority: CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA: SDWA; SARA: TSCA; ERDAA; EISA.
236
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
237
Research: Pesticides and Toxics Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $27,423.6

$27,423.6 128.2

$27,347.0 137.4

$0.0 0.0

($27,347.0) -137.4
$27,347.0
$27,347.0 137.4
Program Project Description: The Pesticides and Toxics Research Program develops methods, models, and data for use in decisions by EPAs Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Program and other organizations. The program identifies and synthesizes 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, with a focus on pesticides and toxic chemicals. The Research Program has three major goals: Provide predictive tools to inform decision-making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic substances, Develop probabilistic risk assessment methods and models to better protect wildlife populations, and Provide the tools necessary to make risk management decisions related to products of biotechnology. Research in the Pesticides and Toxics Program strengthens the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect human health and the environment against unreasonable risks from exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Unfortunately, traditional research approaches are limited in their ability to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Although chemicals are essential to modern life, we lack innovative systematic, effective, and efficient approaches and tools to inform decisions that reduce the environmental and societal impact of chemicals while increasing economic value. To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.
238
To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Pesticides and Toxics Research Program into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability and the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Programs. These new programs are directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, capitalize on existing capabilities, and promote the use of a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1386.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$518.0 / +2.0 FTE) This reflects a redirection of resources from EDCs research towards Pesticides and Toxics research to address exposure issues related to potential chemical and/or pesticide stressors. This change includes 2.0 FTE with associated payroll of $266.0. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (+$125.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (+$16.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$137.0 / -0.8 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated with the Pesticides and Toxics Research Program. The reduced resources include -0.8 FTE and associated payroll of -$106.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$50.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$201.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement,
239
helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and local area network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$354.0 / -0.7 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. The reduced resources include 0.7 FTE and associated payroll of -$93.0 and reflect EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$332.0 / -1.7 FTE) This reflects the realignment of resources for critical equipment purchases and facility repairs and improvements across Agency Research Programs to better align with programmatic priorities. The reduced resources include -1.7 FTE and associated payroll of -$226.0. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. (-$1,146.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction to research supporting the development of scientific tools for biotechnology and includes a reduction of 0.9 FTE with decreased associated payroll of -$120.0. The program will reduce research into refining the use of remote sensing as a tool for the management of insect resistance in genetically modified crops, also known as Plant Incorporated Pesticides (PIP) crops. The program has completed research on decision support systems to identify insect infestations that would indicate the development of insect resistance. (-$12,116.0 / -58.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program. Reduced resources include 58.2 FTE and associated payroll of $7,666.0. This transfer will integrate Pesticides and Toxics research with Fellowships and Ecosystems research; as well as portions of Land; Sustainability and Human Health research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. (-$15,043.0 / -77.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program to better integrate chemical safety Research Programs. Reduced resources include 77.1 FTE and associated payroll of $10,023.0. This transfer will integrate Pesticides and Toxics research with Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, and Nanotechnology research, along with portions of Human Health, Human Health Risk Assessment, and Sustainability research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: CAA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 103, 104 & 154; CWA, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 101-121; ERDDAA, 42 U.S.C. 4361-4370; FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136; FQPA, 7 U.S.C.; TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2609.
240
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Environmental Programs and Management Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 245 Program Projects in EPM ........................................................................................................ 246 Program Area: Clean Air and Climate .................................................................................. 252 Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs............................................................................... 253 Climate Protection Program .................................................................................................. 257 Federal Stationary Source Regulations ................................................................................. 267 Federal Support for Air Quality Management ...................................................................... 273 Federal Support for Air Toxics Program .............................................................................. 282 Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs ............................................................................ 284 Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund ................................................................................ 288 Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation............................................................................. 291 Indoor Air: Radon Program ................................................................................................. 292 Reduce Risks from Indoor Air .............................................................................................. 295 Radiation: Protection ........................................................................................................... 298 Radiation: Response Preparedness ...................................................................................... 301 Program Area: Brownfields ..................................................................................................... 304 Brownfields ........................................................................................................................... 305 Program Area: Compliance ..................................................................................................... 309 Compliance Assistance and Centers ..................................................................................... 310 Program Project Description: .................................................................................................. 310 Compliance Incentives .......................................................................................................... 312 Compliance Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 314 Program Area: Enforcement ................................................................................................... 322 Civil Enforcement ................................................................................................................. 323 Criminal Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 329 Enforcement Training ........................................................................................................... 333 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 335 NEPA Implementation .......................................................................................................... 339 Program Area: Geographic Programs................................................................................... 342 Great Lakes Restoration ........................................................................................................ 343
241
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay ............................................................................... 358 Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay ............................................................................. 368 Geographic Program: Puget Sound ....................................................................................... 372 Geographic Program: South Florida ..................................................................................... 375 Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin ..................................................................... 379 Geographic Program: Long Island Sound............................................................................ 381 Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................. 385 Geographic Program: Lake Champlain ............................................................................... 391 Geographic Program: Other ................................................................................................. 394 Program Area: Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 400 Homeland Security: Communication and Information ........................................................ 401 Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection ........................................................ 404 Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery .............................................. 407 Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure ................................. 409 Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach................................................................ 411 Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination ....................................... 412 Environmental Education...................................................................................................... 415 Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations ........................................................ 418 Exchange Network ................................................................................................................ 422 Small Business Ombudsman................................................................................................. 427 Small Minority Business Assistance..................................................................................... 430 State and Local Prevention and Preparedness ...................................................................... 433 TRI / Right to Know ............................................................................................................. 436 Tribal - Capacity Building .................................................................................................... 439 Program Area: International Programs ................................................................................. 444 US Mexico Border ................................................................................................................ 445 International Sources of Pollution ........................................................................................ 449 Trade and Governance .......................................................................................................... 454 Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security ................................................................. 459 Information Security ............................................................................................................. 460 IT / Data Management .......................................................................................................... 463 Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review ........................................ 471 Administrative Law .............................................................................................................. 472 Alternative Dispute Resolution ............................................................................................. 474
242
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance ....................................................................................... 476 Legal Advice: Environmental Program ................................................................................ 480 Legal Advice: Support Program ........................................................................................... 483 Regional Science and Technology ........................................................................................ 485 Integrated Environmental Strategies ..................................................................................... 488 Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis ............................................................... 494 Science Advisory Board ....................................................................................................... 500 Program Area: Operations and Administration.................................................................... 502 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 503 Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance ........................................................................... 508 Acquisition Management ...................................................................................................... 511 Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management .................................................................. 514 Human Resources Management ........................................................................................... 517 Program Area: Pesticides Licensing ....................................................................................... 521 Endocrine Disruptors ............................................................................................................ 522 Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk ........................................................ 526 Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk ..................................................... 532 Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability ........................................................ 538 Science Policy and Biotechnology........................................................................................ 542 Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ................................... 544 RCRA: Waste Management ................................................................................................. 545 RCRA: Corrective Action .................................................................................................... 550 RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling .......................................................................... 554 Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention ............................................................. 558 Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction .................................................. 559 Pollution Prevention Program ............................................................................................... 570 Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management .................................................................. 580 Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program ............................................................... 584 Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) ............................................... 592 LUST / UST .......................................................................................................................... 593 Program Area: Water: Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 596 National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways ................................................................... 597 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 602 Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection ................................................................ 607
243
Beach / Fish Programs .......................................................................................................... 608 Drinking Water Programs ..................................................................................................... 613 Program Area: Water Quality Protection .............................................................................. 622 Marine Pollution ................................................................................................................... 623 Surface Water Protection ...................................................................................................... 629
244
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Environmental Program & Management Budget Authority Total Workyears FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
$2,993,779.0 10,925.3
$2,988,874.6 10,793.6
$2,993,779.0 10,925.3
$2,876,634.0 10,851.9
($117,145.0) -73.4
Bill Language: Environmental Programs and Management For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who are not members; administrative costs of the brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002; and not to exceed $19,000 for official reception and representation expenses of which $10,000 is for hosting the annual meeting of the Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in the United States during FY2012, $2,876,634,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading, at least $3,000,000 is for strengthening the Agency's acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities: Provided further, That such funds may be transferred by the Administrator to any other account of the Agency to carry out the purposes provided herein and that such transferred funds shall be available for the same time period as the account to which transferred: Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso, such transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso, such funds shall be available for training, recruitment, retention, and hiring members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.): Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso, such funds shall be available for information technology in support of acquisition workforce effectiveness or for management solutions to improve acquisition management. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
245
Program Projects in EPM (Dollars in Thousands)

Program Project
Clean Air and Climate Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Climate Protection Program Energy STAR Methane to markets Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry Climate Protection Program (other activities) Subtotal, Climate Protection Program Federal Stationary Source Regulations Federal Support for Air Quality Management Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
$20,791.0
$20,664.3
$20,791.0
$20,842.0
$51.0
$52,606.0 $4,569.0 $16,685.0 $39,184.0 $113,044.0 $27,158.0 $99,619.0 $24,446.0 $5,934.0 $9,840.0 $300,832.0
$42,138.0 $5,272.8 $15,990.7 $46,324.6 $109,726.1 $26,195.8 $103,224.6 $23,468.8 $6,159.4 $9,840.0 $299,279.0
$52,606.0 $4,569.0 $16,685.0 $39,184.0 $113,044.0 $27,158.0 $99,619.0 $24,446.0 $5,934.0 $9,840.0 $300,832.0
$55,628.0 $5,616.0 $17,646.0 $32,529.0 $111,419.0 $34,096.0 $133,822.0 $0.0 $5,612.0 $9,495.0 $315,286.0
$3,022.0 $1,047.0 $961.0 ($6,655.0) ($1,625.0) $6,938.0 $34,203.0 ($24,446.0) ($322.0) ($345.0) $14,454.0
Indoor Air and Radiation Indoor Air: Radon Program Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Radiation: Protection Radiation: Response Preparedness Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation $5,866.0 $20,759.0 $11,295.0 $3,077.0 $40,997.0 $5,408.1 $19,253.0 $11,433.3 $2,827.9 $38,922.3 $5,866.0 $20,759.0 $11,295.0 $3,077.0 $40,997.0 $3,901.0 $17,198.0 $9,629.0 $3,042.0 $33,770.0 ($1,965.0) ($3,561.0) ($1,666.0) ($35.0) ($7,227.0)
Brownfields Brownfields Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers Compliance Incentives Compliance Monitoring $25,622.0 $9,560.0 $99,400.0 $23,628.3 $8,792.6 $97,937.7 $25,622.0 $9,560.0 $99,400.0 $0.0 $0.0 $119,648.0 ($25,622.0) ($9,560.0) $20,248.0 $24,152.0 $24,465.3 $24,152.0 $26,397.0 $2,245.0
246
Program Project
Subtotal, Compliance
FY 2010 Enacted
$134,582.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$130,358.6
$134,582.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$119,648.0

($14,934.0)
Enforcement Civil Enforcement Criminal Enforcement Enforcement Training Environmental Justice NEPA Implementation Subtotal, Enforcement $146,636.0 $49,637.0 $3,278.0 $7,090.0 $18,258.0 $224,899.0 $145,896.6 $49,043.2 $3,220.0 $9,567.4 $18,313.4 $226,040.6 $146,636.0 $49,637.0 $3,278.0 $7,090.0 $18,258.0 $224,899.0 $191,404.0 $51,345.0 $0.0 $7,397.0 $18,072.0 $268,218.0 $44,768.0 $1,708.0 ($3,278.0) $307.0 ($186.0) $43,319.0
Geographic Programs Great Lakes Restoration Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay Geographic Program: Great Lakes Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay Geographic Program: Puget Sound Geographic Program: South Florida Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin Geographic Program: Long Island Sound Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico Geographic Program: Lake Champlain Geographic Program: Other Lake Pontchartrain Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Geographic Program: Other (other activities) Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other Subtotal, Geographic Programs $1,500.0 $996.0 $1,500.0 $955.0 ($545.0) $475,000.0 $50,000.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $50,000.0 $2,168.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $6,000.0 $4,000.0 $430,818.2 $53,192.7 $1,752.3 $10,087.1 $40,040.4 $2,321.5 $0.0 $6,141.9 $7,671.7 $486.9 $475,000.0 $50,000.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $50,000.0 $2,168.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $6,000.0 $4,000.0 $350,000.0 $67,350.0 $0.0 $4,847.0 $19,289.0 $2,061.0 $6,000.0 $2,962.0 $4,464.0 $1,399.0 ($125,000.0) $17,350.0 $0.0 ($2,153.0) ($30,711.0) ($107.0) $6,000.0 ($4,038.0) ($1,536.0) ($2,601.0)
$2,448.0 $3,325.0 $7,273.0 $608,441.0
$1,648.9 $1,901.0 $4,545.9 $557,058.6
$2,448.0 $3,325.0 $7,273.0 $608,441.0
$2,384.0 $1,296.0 $4,635.0 $463,007.0
($64.0) ($2,029.0) ($2,638.0) ($145,434.0)
Homeland Security Homeland Security: Communication and Information Homeland Security: Critical $6,926.0 $7,206.3 $6,926.0 $4,257.0 ($2,669.0)
247
Program Project
Infrastructure Protection Decontamination Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Subtotal, Homeland Security
FY 2010 Enacted
$99.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$156.1
$99.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($99.0)
$6,737.0
$6,649.0
$6,737.0
$1,065.0
($5,672.0)
$6,836.0
$6,805.1
$6,836.0
$1,065.0
($5,771.0)
$3,423.0
$1,573.3
$3,423.0
$0.0
($3,423.0)
$0.0
$2,690.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,423.0 $6,369.0 $23,554.0
$4,264.2 $6,300.3 $24,575.9
$3,423.0 $6,369.0 $23,554.0
$0.0 $5,978.0 $11,300.0
($3,423.0) ($391.0) ($12,254.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination Environmental Education Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations Exchange Network Small Business Ombudsman Small Minority Business Assistance State and Local Prevention and Preparedness TRI / Right to Know Tribal - Capacity Building Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach $7,100.0 $9,038.0 $51,944.0 $17,024.0 $3,028.0 $2,350.0 $13,303.0 $14,933.0 $12,080.0 $130,800.0 $5,715.8 $7,396.6 $52,787.0 $17,918.5 $3,488.5 $2,133.1 $13,426.7 $15,230.9 $13,040.9 $131,138.0 $7,100.0 $9,038.0 $51,944.0 $17,024.0 $3,028.0 $2,350.0 $13,303.0 $14,933.0 $12,080.0 $130,800.0 $10,795.0 $9,885.0 $52,268.0 $20,883.0 $2,953.0 $2,280.0 $14,613.0 $16,463.0 $15,070.0 $145,210.0 $3,695.0 $847.0 $324.0 $3,859.0 ($75.0) ($70.0) $1,310.0 $1,530.0 $2,990.0 $14,410.0
International Programs US Mexico Border International Sources of Pollution Trade and Governance Subtotal, International Programs $4,969.0 $8,628.0 $6,227.0 $19,824.0 $4,997.8 $8,514.5 $6,359.8 $19,872.1 $4,969.0 $8,628.0 $6,227.0 $19,824.0 $4,912.0 $8,302.0 $6,233.0 $19,447.0 ($57.0) ($326.0) $6.0 ($377.0)
248
Program Project
IT / Data Management / Security Information Security IT / Data Management Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$5,912.0 $97,410.0 $103,322.0
$5,881.7 $98,258.9 $104,140.6
$5,912.0 $97,410.0 $103,322.0
$6,837.0 $88,576.0 $95,413.0
$925.0 ($8,834.0) ($7,909.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Administrative Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance Legal Advice: Environmental Program Legal Advice: Support Program Regional Science and Technology Integrated Environmental Strategies Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis Science Advisory Board Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review $5,275.0 $1,147.0 $12,224.0 $42,662.0 $14,419.0 $3,271.0 $18,917.0 $19,404.0 $6,278.0 $123,597.0 $5,424.8 $1,313.8 $12,413.1 $42,826.7 $14,727.9 $3,146.2 $18,366.6 $19,041.3 $6,157.2 $123,417.6 $5,275.0 $1,147.0 $12,224.0 $42,662.0 $14,419.0 $3,271.0 $18,917.0 $19,404.0 $6,278.0 $123,597.0 $5,386.0 $1,329.0 $11,685.0 $45,352.0 $15,873.0 $3,283.0 $17,509.0 $22,326.0 $5,867.0 $128,610.0 $111.0 $182.0 ($539.0) $2,690.0 $1,454.0 $12.0 ($1,408.0) $2,922.0 ($411.0) $5,013.0
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Acquisition Management Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Human Resources Management Recovery Act Mangement and Oversight Subtotal, Operations and Administration $157,040.0 $13,514.0 $27,997.0 $116,687.0 $315,238.0 $82,834.0 $32,404.0 $25,487.0 $42,447.0 $0.0 $498,410.0 $161,817.5 $2,539.3 $27,326.6 $118,555.4 $310,238.8 $86,883.5 $33,272.6 $24,311.6 $43,526.7 $22,237.5 $520,470.7 $157,040.0 $13,514.0 $27,997.0 $116,687.0 $315,238.0 $82,834.0 $32,404.0 $25,487.0 $42,447.0 $0.0 $498,410.0 $170,807.0 $11,221.0 $29,266.0 $113,671.0 $324,965.0 $77,548.0 $34,119.0 $26,223.0 $44,680.0 $0.0 $507,535.0 $13,767.0 ($2,293.0) $1,269.0 ($3,016.0) $9,727.0 ($5,286.0) $1,715.0 $736.0 $2,233.0 $0.0 $9,125.0
249
Program Project
Pesticides Licensing Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Science Policy and Biotechnology Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$62,944.0 $42,203.0 $13,145.0 $1,840.0 $120,132.0
$62,696.4 $41,584.5 $13,508.9 $1,349.5 $119,139.3
$62,944.0 $42,203.0 $13,145.0 $1,840.0 $120,132.0
$58,304.0 $37,913.0 $12,550.0 $1,756.0 $110,523.0
($4,640.0) ($4,290.0) ($595.0) ($84.0) ($9,609.0)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA: Waste Management eManifest RCRA: Waste Management (other activities) Subtotal, RCRA: Waste Management RCRA: Corrective Action RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0
$68,842.0 $68,842.0 $40,029.0 $14,379.0 $123,250.0
$71,171.2 $71,171.2 $39,366.0 $13,063.3 $123,600.5
$68,842.0 $68,842.0 $40,029.0 $14,379.0 $123,250.0
$64,854.0 $66,854.0 $40,266.0 $9,751.0 $116,871.0
($3,988.0) ($1,988.0) $237.0 ($4,628.0) ($6,379.0)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Endocrine Disruptors Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Pollution Prevention Program Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention $8,625.0 $54,886.0 $18,050.0 $6,025.0 $14,329.0 $101,915.0 $8,513.2 $53,458.7 $18,014.5 $7,193.0 $13,429.3 $100,608.7 $8,625.0 $54,886.0 $18,050.0 $6,025.0 $14,329.0 $101,915.0 $8,268.0 $70,939.0 $15,653.0 $6,105.0 $14,332.0 $115,297.0 ($357.0) $16,053.0 ($2,397.0) $80.0 $3.0 $13,382.0
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) LUST / UST Water: Ecosystems $12,424.0 $12,833.9 $12,424.0 $12,866.0 $442.0
250
Program Project
Great Lakes Legacy Act National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways Wetlands Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0 $32,567.0 $25,940.0 $58,507.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$33,030.3 $29,796.8 $27,130.2 $89,957.3
$0.0 $32,567.0 $25,940.0 $58,507.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $27,058.0 $27,368.0 $54,426.0

$0.0 ($5,509.0) $1,428.0 ($4,081.0)
Water: Human Health Protection Beach / Fish Programs Drinking Water Programs Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection $2,944.0 $102,224.0 $105,168.0 $2,981.4 $99,394.2 $102,375.6 $2,944.0 $102,224.0 $105,168.0 $2,708.0 $104,616.0 $107,324.0 ($236.0) $2,392.0 $2,156.0
Water Quality Protection Marine Pollution Surface Water Protection Subtotal, Water Quality Protection $13,397.0 $208,626.0 $222,023.0 $9,783.7 $201,136.3 $210,920.0 $13,397.0 $208,626.0 $222,023.0 $13,417.0 $212,069.0 $225,486.0 $20.0 $3,443.0 $3,463.0
Congressional Priorities Congressionally Mandated Projects Subtotal, Congressionally Mandated Projects TOTAL, EPA $16,950.0 $16,950.0 $2,993,779.0 $29,700.0 $29,700.0 $2,988,874.6 $16,950.0 $16,950.0 $2,993,779.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,876,634.0 ($16,950.0) ($16,950.0) ($117,145.0)
251
Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
252
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $20,664.3

$9,329.3 $29,993.6 83.4

$9,963.0 $30,754.0 88.6

$9,797.0 $30,639.0 86.7
FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $51.0

($166.0) ($115.0) -1.9
$20,791.0
$9,963.0 $30,754.0 88.6
Program Project Description: The Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, requires major reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the U.S. electric power generation industry. The program continues to be recognized as a model for flexible and effective air pollution regulation, both in this country and abroad. The SO2 program uses a market-based approach with tradable units called allowances (one allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of SO2 in a given or later year). The authorizing legislation sets a permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted annually by affected electric generation units (EGUs) in the contiguous U.S. The program was phased in, with the final SO2 cap beginning in 2010 set at 8.95 million tons, a level at approximately one-half the amount these sources emitted in 1980. Both the SO2 and NOx program components require accurate and verifiable measurement of emissions. The program also is responsible for implementing U.S. commitments under the US-Canada Air Quality Agreement of 1991 to reduce and maintain lower SO2 and NOx emissions. EPAs Acid Rain Program provides affected sources flexibility to select their own methods of compliance so the required emission reductions are achieved at the lowest cost (both to industry and government). For additional information on the Acid Rain Program, please visit http://www.epa.gov/acidrain. In 2009, total SO2 emissions from 3,572 affected EGUs were 5.7 million tons, over 3 million tons below the statutory annual permanent cap.1 Total NOx emissions were 2.0 million tons, a drop of 1.0 million tons from 2008. Despite this significant achievement, EPA health studies and ecological assessments, analyses by the Interagency National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP),2 and data from long-term monitoring networks all indicate that further reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions, beyond those specified in Title IV, are necessary to allow
1
US EPA, Acid Rain and Related Programs: Acid Rain and Related Programs: 2009 Highlights,, December 2010 (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkwts/progress/ARP09_4.html). Pages 1-4. 2 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. 2005. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/docs/NAPAP.pdf Pages 65-73.
253
sensitive forests and aquatic ecosystems to recover from acidification. The programs environmental objective to improve affected ecosystems cannot be attained without more reductions in SO2 and NOx, the key pollutants involved in the formation of acid rain. These assessments also show that significant additional reductions in these emissions are needed for many areas in the U.S. to achieve and maintain health-based protective air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. The NAPAP Report to Congress estimates these additional reductions need to be 40-80 percent.3 At the request of the states, EPA administered the NOx Budget Program (NBP), a regional capand-trade program for reducing NOx emissions and transported ozone in the eastern U.S., for over a decade. The NBP was established initially in the late 1990s, under a Memorandum of Understanding among nine states and Washington D.C., in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). These states recognized the efficiencies and economies of scale associated with centrally-administered systems for allowance trading, emissions reporting, and trueup/compliance determination, so they sought EPAs expertise to establish and operate these systems for their market-based program. The NBP expanded under the NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call, which operated from 2003 2008. Twelve (12) states from the Midwest and Southeast were added and the number of affected sources doubled. Affected sources included boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units from a diverse set of industries as well as utility EGUs. In 2009, the NBP transitioned under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the CAIR seasonal NOx program for control of transported ozone pollution and summer NOx emissions. Approximately 600 units in six additional states, which were not subject to NBP, reported emissions data for compliance with the seasonal CAIR NOx program and participated in the EPA-administered regional allowance trading program. Ozone season NOx emissions fell in every state in the program. Units in the seasonal program reduced their overall NOx emissions from 689,000 tons in 2008 to 495,000 tons in 2009. A 22 percent improvement in emission rate coupled with an 11 percent drop in heat input accounted for this reduction. States and sources in the CAIR seasonal NOx program that contribute to ozone pollution in downwind states will be transitioning in 2012 into the seasonal NOx program under the Transport Rule for ozone control.4 The National Academy of Sciences5 commended EPA on its Acid Rain Accountability Program, which relies on the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) for monitoring deposition, ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations, and other air quality indicators and uses the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) and Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) Programs for assessing how water bodies and aquatic ecosystems are responding to reductions in sulfur and nitrogen emissions. The Acid Rain Accountability Program issues comprehensive annual reports on compliance and environmental results from implementation of the Acid Rain and CAIR trading programs. These reports track progress in not only reducing SO2 and NOx emissions from the affected sources, but also assess the impacts of these reductions
3
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. 2005. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/docs/NAPAP.pdf Page 73. 4 Please visit http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html for additional information on the CAIR seasonal NOx program. 5 National Academy of Sciences Report: Air Quality Management in the United States. 2004. www.nap.edu/catalog/10728.html
254
on acid deposition, air quality (e.g., ozone levels), surface water acidity, forest health, and other environmental indicators. Reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx continues to be a crucial component of EPA's strategy for cleaner air. Particulate matter can be formed from direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or smoke), but also can be formed through chemical reactions in the air. Emissions of SO2 and NOx can be chemically transformed into sulfates and nitrates (acid rain particulate), which are very tiny particles that can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles. When inhaled, these fine particles can cause serious respiratory problems, particularly for individuals who suffer from asthma or are in sensitive populations. Numerous studies have even linked these exposures with premature mortality from heart and lung diseases. These same small particles also are a main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of the country, particularly damaging in national parks known for their scenic views. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the program is projected to measure, quality assure, and track emissions for SO2 and/or NOx from Continuous Emissions Monitoring systems (CEMs) or equivalent direct measurement methods at over 4,600 EGUs. In addition, the program will conduct audits and certify emission monitors. Allowance transfers are recorded in electronic tracking systems and the allowances held are reconciled against emissions for all affected sources to ensure compliance. Nitrogen dioxide emissions also contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone, when inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause serious respiratory problems. Achieving and maintaining EPA's national air quality standards is an important step towards ensuring the air is safe to breathe. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with states, tribes, and local government partners toward this goal. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(A01) Maintain annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from electric power generation sources nationwide at or below 6 million tons
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
8,450,000
Data Avail 12/2011
8,450,000
6,000,000
Tons
EPA tracks the annual emissions of SO2 from utility electric power generation sources nationwide to assess the effectiveness of the Acid Rain and related programs with annual performance targets.
255
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$252.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$114.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$66.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$21.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-1.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
256
Climate Protection Program Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $109,726.1

$20,126.8 $129,852.9 243.8

$19,797.0 $132,841.0 226.0

$16,345.0 $127,764.0 258.4

($3,452.0) ($5,077.0) 32.4
$113,044.0
$19,797.0 $132,841.0 226.0
Program Project Description: EPAs Climate Protection Program promotes efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through voluntary programs, and supports the Administrations priority of taking action on climate change. It also provides technical assistance and online reporting tools for regulated facilities to report annual greenhouse gas emissions in support of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPAs voluntary public-private partnership programs are designed to capitalize on the costeffective opportunities that consumers, businesses, and organizations have to invest in greenhouse gas reducing technologies, policies, and practices. These investments avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, mobile sources, and various other sources. EPAs Climate Protection Program has achieved real reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated greenhouse gases including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). EPAs climate change programs promote energy efficiency and emissions reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Actions taken today will continue to deliver environmental and economic benefits for many years to come, since the investments made by EPA partners as a result of EPA programs often have lifetimes of ten years or more. For every dollar spent by EPA on its voluntary climate change partnership programs, EPA estimates that the programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by up to 1.0 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.67 tons of CO2), delivered more than $75 in energy bill savings, and facilitated more than $15 in private sector investment.6 This is based upon cumulative reductions since 1995. EPA manages a number of voluntary efforts, such as the ENERGY STAR program, SmartWay Transport Partnership, clean energy partnerships, and multiple programs on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, all of which remove barriers in the marketplace in order to deploy cost-effective
6
Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/2009%20CPPD%20Annual%20Report.pdf
257
technologies faster. EPA programs do not provide financial subsidies. Instead, they work by overcoming widely acknowledged barriers to energy efficiency and deployment of GHG reduction measures such as: lack of clear, reliable information on technology opportunities; lack of awareness of energy efficient products, services, and transportation choices; and the need for additional incentives for manufacturers to invest in efficiency research and development. EPA started the ENERGY STAR program in 1992. The program achieves significant and growing greenhouse gas reductions by dismantling identifiable and pervasive market barriers stifling the adoption of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies and practices in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) joined with EPA and assumed specific ENERGY STAR program responsibilities for several product categories. A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on September 30, 2009 by EPA and the DOE. The MOU clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of EPA and DOE and strengthens coordination between the two agencies. It builds upon the agencies respective areas of expertise and puts EPA in charge of the ENERGY STAR brand. EPA now manages the specification process for all product categories (more than 60) and continues to implement the new and existing homes programs. For commercial buildings, EPA is the brand manager when ENERGY STAR is applied to whole buildings, including marketing, outreach, monitoring and verification and performance levels. DOE supports ENERGY STAR with product testing and verification, including referring any products that fail its tests to EPA for enforcement action, and manages building test procedures, establishment of a commercial building asset rating and a master database of buildings, among other responsibilities. The ENERGY STAR program continues to yield significant results. In 2009 alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, prevented more than 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E), saving $17 billion on their annual utility bills. ENERGY STAR is on track to avoid 190 MMTCO2E of greenhouse gases in 2012. 7 EPA also manages the implementation of the Global Methane Initiative (GMI), formerly called the Methane to Markets program, a U.S. led, international public-private partnership that brings together 38 Partner governments and over 1,000 public and private sector organizations to advance methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. GMI builds on the success of EPAs domestic methane programs and focuses on advancing project development at agriculture operations, coal mines, landfills, and oil and gas systems. In 2012, EPA will be working with its partners to strengthen and expand the Initiative to include new resource commitments from developed countries, explore opportunities to reduce emissions from new sources, such as wastewater treatment, and to develop country action plans to help direct and coordinate international efforts. As of 2011, the US is supporting over 300 projects around the world and has leveraged over $387 million in public and private sector investments. These projects are expected to reduce emissions by 63 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2E) annually.8 EPAs SmartWay Partnership Program works with transportation technology and freight industry partners (shippers, carriers, logistics companies) to accelerate the deployment of fuel saving, low emission technologies and to promote GHG reductions across the global supply chain. The
7 8
Additional information at: www.energystar.gov Additional information at: www.epa.gov/globalmethane and www.methanetomarkets.org
258
SmartWay program started in February 2004 with 15 partners, and in June 2010, it passed the 2,700 partner mark. Since 2002, our SmartWay partners have saved 1.5 billion gallons of diesel fuel, nearly 14.7 million metric tons of CO2, 215,000 tons of NOx, and over 8,000 tons of PM. SmartWay partners have saved over $3.6 billion in fuel costs. SmartWay is the only voluntary program working across the entire freight system to comprehensively address GHG emissions and air pollution. Numerous states, countries, international organizations and private companies now rely on SmartWays supply chain tools, testing protocols and public-private partnership approach for their freight transport efficiency programs. California has used SmartWay verified technologies and testing protocols for their GHG programs and numerous states have used SmartWays model idle-reduction ordinances. Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union are currently using or in the process of adopting all or many of the critical elements of the SmartWay program. The SmartWay program has developed a unique partnership with the major class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers, which culminated in the joint development of a SmartWay branded tractortrailer that achieves a 20 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. This partnership also has provided critical information for EPAs heavy duty diesel regulatory program. All major class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers now offer at least one SmartWay model, and the SmartWay branded vehicle has already achieved a 5 percent market penetration. EPA manages a number of other partnership programs that tailor their approach to specific trades or organizations in the arena of climate change. The Clean Energy-Environment State and Local Program provides assistance to local and state governments for improving their facilities, and leading energy efficiency-related GHG reduction efforts. EPAs Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership promotes cost-effective CHP projects, while its Green Power Partnership supports the procurement of green power. In addition to EPAs voluntary climate change programs, EPA provides analytical and technical support for Congress and Administration policymakers related to national climate change and energy policy, including support for analysis of international issues. EPAs climate change analysis builds on the understanding of the emission and sequestration of greenhouse gases, for all greenhouse gases and from all sectors of the economy; and the economic, technical and policy issues related to wider deployment of key technologies (e.g., energy efficiency, transportation, non-CO2 greenhouse gases, carbon capture and storage). EPAs economic analyses cover key questions such as: which technologies could be expected to be most effective under alternative policy scenarios and the implications of alternative policy approaches on the U.S. economy and global competitiveness. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA will continue to implement its government/industry partnership efforts to achieve greenhouse gas reductions. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these
259
efforts are projected to reduce other forms of pollution, including criteria and toxic air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and mercury by accelerating the adoption of energy efficient products and practices. EPA will have completed the phase out of the Climate Leaders program at the end of FY 2011. In FY 2012, EPA will still support the General Services Administration's pilot to assist small federal suppliers in developing their GHG inventories. EPA will conduct technical trainings, review inventories submitted by pilot participants and maintain the list of participants on the EPA website. EPA will continue to implement the ENERGY STAR program across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors consistent with the EPA/DOE MOU: o Accelerating the rate that product specifications are updated in terms of stringency. For product categories with rapidly evolving models (e.g., consumer electronics, office equipment), specifications will be updated about every two years and, where appropriate, will include out-year specification criteria so that industry can anticipate upcoming revisions. For all other product categories, EPA will consistently monitor market share and launch revisions, as appropriate. o Pursuing comprehensive enhancements for ENERGY STAR product qualification and verification. The process began in 2010 and FY 2012 will be the first full year of implementation. Enhancements include: All ENERGY STAR qualified products will be certified as meeting program requirements by an accredited third-party certification body. Certification will include qualification testing before product labeling as well as post-market verification testing to confirm that products continue to meet program requirements. All product testing will be conducted in EPA-recognized laboratories that have demonstrated technical competence, strong quality management processes, and impartiality towards test results. EPA will continue to solicit applications from accreditation bodies, laboratories, and certification bodies that wish to participate in the program. Requirements for EPA recognition of these organizations will build upon international standards, including provisions that they demonstrate impartiality.
o Reviewing ENERGY STAR product categories to ensure that they are still appropriate; process began in 2010 and will be complete in 2011. o Enhancing the use of the ENERGY STAR label on products by adding products to the program.
260
o Strengthening the ENERGY STAR New Homes program by implementing the next version of the ENERGY STAR specification (version 3) by 2012 to provide a business advantage for builders in a soft market and great benefits to homeowners including additional installation checklists for HVAC equipment, insulation and water management to achieve better quality control of comfort and energy savings benefits. In addition, EPA will be working with DOE to consolidate the existing homes program at DOE. o Expanding ENERGY STAR programs that improve the installation of products such as heating and cooling equipment whose efficiency is greatly affected by installation practices. o Expanding efforts to promote improvement of commercial buildings and industrial facilities through EPAs ENERGY STAR tools, resource, and outreach campaigns. o Engaging regional, state, and utility energy efficiency programs and smaller trade associations in the new ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry as a primary method of reaching diffuse industries and small and medium enterprises while continuing with the ENERGY STAR Industrial Focuses. o Expanding building performance with ENERGY STAR to offer consistent whole building assessments to utilities and service providers. The FY 2012 Budget Request for the ENERGY STAR program totals $55.6 million. EPA will continue the SmartWay Transport Partnership to increase energy efficiency and lower emissions of freight transportation through verification, promotion, and low-cost financing of advanced technologies including anti-idling technologies, lower rolling resistance tires, improved aerodynamic truck designs, and improved freight logistics. SmartWay also will expand its efforts to: o develop GHG accounting protocols for heavy-duty diesel trucks and explore opportunities to evolve protocols for the multimodal freight supply chain network; o promote SmartWay certified light duty and heavy duty vehicles that meet SmartWays criteria for environmentally superior performance; o expand our SmartWay partner recruiting efforts while streamlining partner management processes; o update, as needed, federal guidance on low GHG-emitting vehicles for implementation of Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) Section 141 Federal vehicle purchase requirements; o continue to provide expertise and serve as a technical test bed in support of the Agencys future policy direction for greenhouse gas emissions; and
261
o promote the adoption of SmartWay methods and tools internationally through stakeholder development, information sharing, and collaboration on pilot projects. The FY 2012 Budget Request for the SmartWay Transport Partnership program totals $2.7 million. Continue the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) and enhance public-private sector cooperation to reduce global methane emissions and deliver clean energy to markets. EPA will be supporting the development and implementation of methane recovery and use projects at landfills, agricultural waste operations, coal mines, wastewater, and natural gas and oil facilities in key developing countries and countries with economies in transition. EPA support will involve identifying and addressing technical, institutional, legal, regulatory and other barriers to project development and will be targeted to leverage investments and assistance provided by the private sector and other partners through the GMIs country action plans. The FY 2012 Budget Request for the Global Methane Initiative totals $5.7 million. Continue policy and technical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies-in-transition to monitor, report, and verify greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration through cost-effective measures and assist in the fulfillment of the U.S. obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Continue to address several critical air and climate-related issues related to commercial scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, implementing the recommendations of the Presidents Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. These issues and related activities include, but are not limited to: creating a strong regulatory framework for all stages of CCS projects; addressing issues for the long-term stewardship at sequestration sites; evaluating technical and economic implications of applying carbon dioxide capture to currently regulated industry sectors, including the potential for increases or decreases in emissions of other criteria pollutants resulting from CCS retrofits; and collaborating with other agencies to address issues pertaining to public understanding and acceptance of the technology. Continue to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Established in October 2009, this program has a total of 31 sectors of which 11 were added in 2010. The Agency expects efforts by both headquarters and regional offices to implement this program for approximately 13,000 reporters. The first annual reports from the largest GHG emitting facilities (~10,000 reporters), covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA on March 31, 2011. Reports for the sectors added in 2010 (~3,000 reporters) will be due in March 2012. In order to prepare for this, focus areas in FY 2012 for the GHG Reporting Rule will include: o expanding the database management systems for the new sectors and updating it as necessary for the existing reporters;
262
o verifying reported data, through a combination of electronic reviews and on-site audits and developing and deploying verification protocols for new sectors; o providing guidance and training to reporters from the newly added sectors and using the results of verification to focus the training and outreach to existing reporters to ensure that they report in an accurate and timely manner; and o developing the data publication tools to share the reported data with the public, within the Federal Government, with state and local governments, and with reporting entities to support improved understanding of both emission levels and opportunities for GHG reductions. First publication of the data will occur on June 15, 2011. In FY 2012, the budget request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is $17.7 million. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings sector.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
143
Data Avail 12/2011
156.9
168.7
MMTCO2e
Measure Type
Measure
(G06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
15.8
Data Avail 12/2011
26.4
41.4
MMTCO2e
Measure Type
Measure
(G16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the industry sector.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
304
Data Avail 12/2011
346.2
372.9
MMTCO2e
263
Measure Type
Measure
(G17) Percentage of registered facilities that submit required and complete GHG data by the annual reporting deadline of March 31.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
Percent
There are over 20 climate change programs that work with the private sector to cost effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate energy efficiency improvements. Each sector (buildings, industry and transportation) has performance and efficiency measures to track the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are reduced as a result of the programs efforts. Work under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program supports the Agencys Priority Goal, addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. For a detailed description of the EPAs Priority Goals (implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit www.Performance.gov. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$2,270.0/ -20.7 FTE) This decrease in FTE for other climate change programs represents an adjustment to the FY 2010 base budget for both the ENERGY STAR program and other climate change programs of -13.2 FTE as well as a shift of -7.5 FTE to support the Global Methane Initiative. (+$3,022.0/ +24.2 FTE) This increase in FTE for the ENERGY STAR program represents an adjustment to the FY 2010 base budget for both the ENERGY STAR program and the other climate change programs of +13.2 FTE from within the program project, as well as a request for an additional +11.0 FTE to expand the ENERGY STAR program across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The total increase includes an additional $3,148.0 in payroll and $43.0 in travel. (+$1,047.0/ +7.5 FTE) This increase in FTE reflects a shift in resources from other climate change program activities to support the Global Methane Initiative (formerly the Methane to Markets program). The request includes $1,037.0 in additional payroll funding. (+$2,461.0/ +20.0 FTE) These resources are requested to support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, including 20.0 FTE with associated payroll of $2,797.0. Of the 20 FTE, 10 FTE will handle the general reporting and verification workload across the many industry sectors and emission sources and 10 FTE will work with states and follow-up on specific issues. Funding will decrease by $336.0k as we complete some initial systems work.
264
(-$1,500.0) This reflects funding that was transferred from the EPM appropriation to the STAG appropriation to support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GGRP). The STAG funds will be used by states to facilitate the collection, review and use of greenhouse gas emissions data collected under EPA's GGRP and linked state-based reporting programs. (-$5,000.0) This reflects a reduction in analytical assistance, such as economic modeling of proposed climate and energy legislation and policy scenarios. (-$1,515.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,086.0) This reduction reflects the phase out of the Climate Leaders program at the end of FY 2011. (+$2,000.0/ +2.0 FTE) This increase reflects the work to implement the recommendations of the Presidents Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. Total funding includes $280.0 in payroll costs and $7.0 in travel funding. Funds will support efforts to identify, analyze and address key gaps to near-term and long-term demonstration and deployment of CCS technologies. Funds will support development and implementation of a comprehensive public outreach strategy. (+$882.0) This increase reflects increased extramural support for outreach and communication for EPAs voluntary climate change programs. (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$100.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$66.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (+$500.0) This reflects resources for web tools and technology infrastructure to support activities across the program.
265
Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108; Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. Sections 6602, 6603, 6604 and 6605; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Section 102; Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), 15 U.S.C. 2901 Section 1103; Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA), 15 U.S.C. Section 3701a; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Section 104; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.- Section 8001; EPA, 42 U.S.C. 16104 et seq.
266
Federal Stationary Source Regulations Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $26,195.8

$26,195.8 100.6

$27,158.0 105.8

$34,096.0 135.7

$6,938.0 29.9
$27,158.0
$27,158.0 105.8
Program Project Description: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common pollutants and for setting emission standards for sources of these criteria pollutants. These national standards form the foundation for air quality management and establish goals that protect public health and the environment. The CAA established two types of NAAQS: primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics and the elderly; and secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The six pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS include: particulate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead. This program also includes activities directed toward reducing air emissions of toxic pollutants from stationary sources. Specifically, this program provides for the development of control technology-based standards for major sources (i.e., Maximum Achievable Control Technology MACT standards) and area sources, the development of standards of performance and emissions guidelines for waste combustion sources, the assessment and regulation of residual risk remaining after implementation of the control technology-based standards, the periodic review and revision of the control technology-based standards, and associated national guidance and outreach. The program also includes issuing, reviewing, and periodically revising, as necessary, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for criteria and certain listed pollutants, setting standards to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from consumer and commercial products, and establishing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) through issuance and periodic review and revision of control technique guidelines (CTG). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Activities described within Federal Stationary Source Regulations support the Improving Air Quality and Addressing Climate Change objectives in the Strategic Plan.
267
Addressing Climate Change In 2012, EPA will develop NSPS for sources of greenhouse gases for utilities and refineries, consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Using emission inventory data, EPA will determine feasible emission control within a reasonable timeframe and where significant emission reductions could be achieved cost-effectively. The regulatory development will include developing emission estimates, evaluating costs of control, and to the extent possible, quantifying economic, environmental, and energy impacts. The NSPS will address carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions in conjunction with the revision of NSPS for other regulated pollutants. Improving Air Quality In 2012, EPA will continue reviewing criteria pollutant standards in accordance with an aggressive multi-year schedule. The Agency has recently accelerated the schedule for completing NAAQS reviews in order to meet the five-year deadline in the CAA for reviewing the standards for each pollutant. Conducting seven concurrent reviews under this aggressive schedule requires substantial investment in highly trained staff and the allocation of significant analytical resources toward the NAAQS review process. Each review involves extensive scientific peer review by EPA scientific and technical experts, the design and conduct of complex risk and exposure analyses, a complete policy assessment, and consultation with external scientific experts at each stage of the review process. In addition to reviewing existing standards, work is currently underway to achieve and maintain compliance with the ozone standard to be established in 2011, the ozone standards established in 1997, and 1979; the 1997 PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the 2006 PM2.5 standard; the 2008 lead standard; the 2010 NO2 standard; the 1971 CO standard; and the 2010 SO2 standard. In addition, planning has begun for implementation requirements relating to revisions to the NAAQS for CO and PM, and the secondary NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, which are all under review. Between 2010 and 2012, EPA faces an agenda of 310 stationary source rules due for review and promulgation, 50 of which are on a court-ordered deadline or in litigation. Currently, 131 of these rules are in some stage of development within EPA. Additional litigation over pending or already-missed deadlines is expected. Since 1990, EPA has published 96 MACT standards covering 187 pollutants emitted from 174 industrial categories. However, a number of these rules have been found deficient by the courts, necessitating substantial revisions and mandating significant additional effort in the future by EPA for stationary source standards. Air toxics are pollutants known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, reproductive effects or other serious health problems. Based on the latest National Air Toxics Assessment, EPA estimates that approximately 220 excess cancer cases per year may result from the inhalation of air toxics from outdoor sources, and of this total 40 to 110 cases can be attributable, directly or indirectly, to HAP emissions from stationary sources regulated by EPA. To reduce or eliminate the unacceptable health risks and cumulative exposures to air toxics from multiple sources in affected communities and to fulfill its statutory and court-ordered obligations, EPA will continue to pursue opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for
268
stationary sources in more integrated ways in 2012. For example, where the CAA requires that the Agency take multiple regulatory actions that affect the same industry, EPA will consider aligning the timing of these rulemaking actions to take advantage of synergies between the multiple rules, where feasible. Coordinating such actions allows us to meet multiple CAA objectives for controlling both criteria and hazardous air pollutants while considering cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of controls. Reductions in emissions from prioritized sectors such as: petroleum refining; utilities; and oil and gas will reduce emissions of air toxics, help ozone nonattainment areas, and enhance our climate change efforts. Additional controls at these sources also will reduce emissions near affected communities, including low income and minority communities. EPA also will address programmatic elements, including court-vacated rules that apply across many industrial sources, such as exemptions for start-up, shutdown and malfunction and the collection and application of the best available data. EPA has reviewed existing regulations to identify potential emissions monitoring deficiencies and the Agency has embarked upon a course to correct those, including the application of new, advanced monitoring technologies. Additional resources will enable the Agency to propose new regulations that would allow facilities to report compliance data electronically.
Current State of the Air Toxics Program

+300 rules need to be under development by FY 2012 50 are under legal deadline Almost 200 will be past their statutory deadline by FY 2012 +100 need to be re-issued or amended to adhere to court opinions
Significant resources are needed to fulfill legal and statutory deadline obligations to complete certain MACT and waste incineration standards, to issue residual risk and technology review standards for MACT categories, to review and revise NSPS, and to issue control technique guidelines for control of VOCs. EPA will engage in rulemaking efforts regarding Petroleum Refineries NSPS; Petroleum Refineries MACT I and II; Uniform Standards and the GHG NSPS. To address standards that are part of the residual risk litigation settlement, EPA also will accomplish significant progress in issuing standards for the following categories: Aerospace; Secondary Aluminum; Primary
269
Aluminum; Wool Fiberglass; Polymers and Resins IV; Pesticides Production; Polyether Production; Ferroalloys Production; Secondary Lead Smelting; Pulp and Paper; Mineral Wool; Wood Furniture; Polyether Polyols; and, Primary Lead Smelting. In addition to existing CAA and court-ordered mandates, EPA is required to periodically review and revise both the list of air toxics subject to regulation and the list of source categories for which standards must be developed. Available information strongly indicates that this requirement will add significantly to EPAs already-substantial regulatory burden over time. For example, if during the course of a regulatory review EPA acquires information demonstrating the existence of a number of potentially significant unregulated emission points, the Agency would potentially develop standards for additional source categories. Regulatory Trends for Stationary Source Air Toxics 2000-2013:
The figure above represents the number of stationary source rules that the Agency has issued and rules that are due through 2013. In the chart above: NSPS refers to New Source Performance Standards, CTG/183(e) are national volatile organic compound (VOC) rules or control technology guidelines. Area sources are sources that emit less than 10 tons annually of a single hazardous air pollutant or less than 25 tons annually of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and MACT/129 refers to standards for larger emitters of HAPs or solid waste combustion units.
270

(001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicityweighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
36
Data Avail 12/2011
36
37
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicityweighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
59
Data Avail 12/2011
59
59
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$7,551.0/ +15.0 FTE) This reflects increased resources, including 15.0 FTE and associated payroll, to support development of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to address Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) as required by the Clean Air Act. This includes associated payroll of $1,982.0. (+$837.0/ +6.2 FTE) This reflects increased resources to develop rulemaking that would modify how facilities report compliance data, including 6.2 FTE with associated payroll of $818.0. (+$1,419.0/ +10.5 FTE) This reflects increased resources, including 10.5 FTE with associated payroll of $1387.0 and travel of $32.0, to support development of regulations that are needed to meet court-ordered deadlines, including MACT standards that have been found deficient by the courts. (-$2,293.0) This reflects a reduction to contract support and general program expenses. (+$127.0/ -1.8 FTE) This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE, and a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$195.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
271
totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$508.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
272
Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $103,224.6

$12,480.6 $115,705.2 707.3

$11,443.0 $111,062.0 714.7

$7,650.0 $141,472.0 850.6

($3,793.0) $30,410.0 135.9
$99,619.0
$11,443.0 $111,062.0 714.7
Program Project Description: This Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program assists state, tribal, and local air pollution control agencies in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), establish standards for reducing air toxics, and sustain the visibility protection program. EPA develops federal measures and regional strategies that help to reduce emissions from stationary and mobile sources; however, states and tribes have the primary responsibility for developing clean air measures necessary to meet the NAAQS and protect visibility. EPA partners with states, tribes, and local governments to create a comprehensive compliance program to ensure that multisource and multi-pollutant reduction targets and air quality improvement objectives, including consideration of environmental justice issues, are met and sustained. For each of the six criteria pollutants, EPA tracks two kinds of air pollution trends: air pollutant concentrations based on actual measurements in the ambient (outside) air at selected monitoring sites throughout the country, and emissions based on engineering estimates or measurements of the total tons of pollutants released into the air each year. EPA works with state and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of source controls in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and assists in identifying the most cost-effective control options available, including consideration of multi-pollutant reductions and innovative strategies. This Federal Support Program includes working with other federal agencies to ensure a coordinated approach, and working with other countries to address pollution sources outside U.S. borders that pose risks to public health and the environment within the U.S. This program also supports the development of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air pollutants. Toxic air pollutants are known to cause or suspected of causing increased risk of cancer and other serious health effects. This Federal Support Program assists state, tribal, and local air pollution control agencies in reducing air toxic emissions through modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, and strategies. EPA also supports programs that reduce inhalation risk and deposition to water bodies and ecosystems (e.g., the Great Waters program), facilitate international cooperation to reduce transboundary and intercontinental air toxics pollution,
273
develop and update the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), develop risk assessment methodologies for toxic air pollutants, and provide training for air pollution professionals. In addition, the program includes activities for the implementation of federal air toxics standards and for the triennial National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Improving Air Quality Particulate Matter (PM) is linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths per year and repeated exposure to ozone can cause acute respiratory problems and lead to permanent lung damage. Elevated levels of lead in children have been associated with IQ loss, poor academic achievement, and delinquent behavior, while effects in adults include increased blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, and decreased kidney function. Implementing the PM and reconsidered ozone NAAQS are among the Agencys highest priorities. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to support these standards by taking federal oversight actions and by developing regulations and policies to ensure continued health protection during the transition between the pre-existing and new standards. EPA will provide technical and policy assistance to states developing or revising attainment SIPs and will designate areas as attainment or nonattainment. While EPA proceeds with the proposed transport rule to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Agency will continue implementing Phase I of the existing CAIR to ensure that PM2.5 and ozone reductions are maximized and to support attainment of these standards. EPA will work with states to develop information needed to designate areas for the revised lead, SO2 and NO2 standards. EPA also will provide technical and policy assistance to states developing regional haze implementation plans. EPA will continue to review and act on SIP submissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA continues to implement recommendations of the National Research Council, including: (1) developing a more integrated multiple pollutant management framework that incorporates criteria and toxic air pollutants, (2) incorporating ecosystem impacts, community effects, and future air quality and climate interactions, and (3) assessing the progress of air programs through an accountability framework. EPA will continue to implement, as appropriate, key reform recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committees Subcommittee on Air Quality Management, including working with selected state and local agencies on alternative approaches to air quality planning. In FY 2012, EPA will provide assistance to state, local, and tribal agencies in implementing national programs and assessing their effectiveness. EPA uses a broad suite of analytical tools such as source characterization analyses, emission factors and inventories, statistical analyses, source apportionment techniques, quality assurance protocols and audits, improved source testing and monitoring techniques, urban and regional-scale numerical grid air quality models, and augmented cost/benefit tools to assess control strategies (please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn for further details). EPA will maintain these tools (e.g., integrated multiple pollutant emissions inventory, air quality modeling platforms, etc.) to provide the technical underpinnings for more
274
efficient and comprehensive air quality management and for integration with climate change activities. In addition, EPA will continue to implement the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy to maintain, where possible, multiple pollutant monitoring sites to support the development and evaluation of multiple pollutant air management strategies. This includes changes, where the Agency deems necessary, to effectively implement revised NAAQS monitoring requirements for ozone, lead, SO2, NO2, and carbon monoxide (CO). EPA will continue development of emissions measurement methods for condensable PM2.5 for cross-industry application to ensure that accurate and consistent measurement methods can be employed in the NAAQS implementation program. EPA also will continue to assist other federal agencies and state and local governments in implementing the conformity regulations. The regulations require federal agencies, taking actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas, to determine that the emissions caused by their actions will conform to the SIP. EPA will continue to participate in global and continental air quality management efforts addressing transboundary air pollution. Additionally, EPA will continue participating in negotiations under international treaties (i.e., the U.S.-Canada Agreement, Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution, and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants), and leading and participating in partnerships (e.g., the Global Mercury Programme) to address fine particles, ozone, mercury, and persistent organic pollutants; assessing trends and impacts on U.S. air quality using sophisticated models; and building the capacity to reduce transboundary air pollution in key EPA Regional Offices and various nations (e.g., India, China, Mexico, etc.). EPA will continue to operate and maintain the Air Quality System (AQS), which houses the nations air quality data and allows for data and technology exchange/transfer. EPA will modify the AQS, as necessary, to reflect new ambient monitoring regulations and to ensure that it complies with critical programmatic needs and with EPAs architecture and data quality requirements. The AQS Data Mart will continue to provide access to the scientific community and others to obtain air quality data via the Internet.9 EPA also will continue to operate and maintain AirNow, which provides real-time air quality data and forecasts nationwide. Further, EPA will operate and maintain the Emissions Inventory System (EIS), a system used to quality assure and store current and historical emissions inventory data, and used to generate the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is used by EPA, states, and others to analyze the public health risks from air toxics and to develop strategies to manage those risks and support multipollutant analysis covering air toxics, NAAQS pollutants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The EIS will be used for the first time to generate the 2008 NEI.10 EPA will continue to support permitting authorities on the timely issuance of renewal permits and to respond to veto petitions under the Title V operating permits program. EPA also will continue to address monitoring issues in underlying federal and state rules and to take appropriate action to more broadly improve the Title V program. Please see
10
Please see http://epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ for more details. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html for additional information.
275
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/ for further details. EPA will perform monitoring support associated with permit issuance and National Environmental Policy Act evaluation. EPA will perform analyses aimed at developing New Source Review (NSR) regulations to more effectively address sources of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, and EPA will continue to work with state and tribal governments to implement revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements and NSR rules, including updates to delegation agreements (for delegated states) and review of implementation plan revisions (for SIP-approved states and TIP-approved Tribes with approved Tribal Implementation Plans). EPA also will continue to review and respond to reconsideration requests and (working with DOJ) legal challenges related to NSR program revisions, take any actions necessary to respond to court decisions, and work with states and industries on NSR applicability issues. Emphasis will be given to assisting tribes in implementing the NSR tribal rule and help them develop the capacity to assume delegation of the rule or to effectively participate in reviews of permits issued by EPA in Indian Country. To improve the NAAQS federal program, EPA will continue, within current statutory and resource limitations, to address deficiencies in designations and implementation. For example, EPA has been working to synchronize the issuance of implementation guidance with the final revised NAAQS. Our goal is to provide this guidance early in the process to assist States in implementing standards. The Agency will continue consulting with States to determine additional methods to improve the implementation process that are within current statutory limitations. EPA will continue to develop measures of permit program efficiency. EPA will continue to work with state and local agencies to implement the National Air Toxics Monitoring Network. The network has two main parts: the National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS) and Local Scale Monitoring (LSM) projects. The NATTS, designed to capture the impacts of widespread pollutants, is comprised of 27 permanent monitoring sites, and the LSMs are comprised of scores of short-term monitoring projects, each designed to address specific local issues. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html for additional information. EPA continues working on improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and get a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution. Also, EPA will continue updating analytical efforts designed to provide nationwide information on ambient levels of criteria and toxic air pollutants. In addition to meeting CAA requirements, EPA will continue development of its multi-pollutant and sector based efforts by constructing and organizing initiatives around industrial sectors. The focus of these efforts is to address an individual sectors emissions comprehensively and to prioritize regulatory efforts on the pollutants of greatest concern. EPA will continue to look at all pollutants in an industrial sector and identify ways to take advantage of the co-benefits of pollution control. In developing sector and multi-pollutant approaches, EPA seeks innovative solutions that address the differing nature of the various sectors. One of EPAs top priorities is to eliminate unacceptable health risks and cumulative exposures to air toxics from multiple sources in affected communities, and to enable the Agency to fulfill its CAA and court-ordered obligations. The CAA requires that the technological bases for all MACT standards be reviewed and updated as necessary every 8 years. In FY 2012, EPA will
276
continue to conduct risk assessments to determine whether the MACT rules appropriately protect public health. Between 2010 and 2012, there are 310 stationary source (e,g. air toxics) rules due for review and promulgation, 50 of which are already on court-ordered deadlines or in litigation; 131 of these rules are in some stage of development at the present time. To develop effective standards that will survive legal challenges, EPA needs accurate information about actual emissions, their composition, specific emission points and transport into communities. EPA will continue to enhance analytical capabilities to develop effective regulations including: analyzing the economic impacts of regulations and policies; developing and refining existing emission test methods for measuring pollutants from smokestacks and other industrial sources; developing and refining existing source sampling measurement techniques to determine rates of emissions from stationary sources; and conducting dispersion modeling that characterizes the atmospheric processes that disperse a pollutant emitted by a source. EPAs current assessments indicate that while many air toxics are widespread, areas of concentrated emissions such as communities with concentrated industrial and mobile source activity (near ports or distribution areas) often have greater cumulative exposure. Working with litigants and informed by analysis of air quality health risk data, EPA is working to prioritize key air toxics regulations that can be completed expeditiously and that will address significant risks to public health. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide information and training to states and communities through documents, websites, and workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments and identifying risk reduction strategies for air toxics. This effort allows state, local, and tribal governments; industry; public interest groups; and local citizens to work together to determine if actions are needed, and if so, what should be done. As part of the Agencys Air Toxics Initiative, EPA is requesting funding in FY 2012 to improve the Agencys air toxic monitoring capabilities (on both source-specific and ambient bases), and improve dissemination of information between and amongst the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. To make these improvements EPA proposes to: expand analyses using tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA) and National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) to include demographics and cumulative, aggregate environmental risks to different communities and population subgroups (e.g., children, the elderly); enhance quantitative benefits assessment tools such as BenMAP to include analytic capabilities for air toxics; improve emission inventory estimates for toxic air pollutants using the data collected through source and ambient monitoring; and manage information (e.g. regulatory requirements, compliance status, pollutant release information, permitting status) for regulated entities electronically in a single location by modernizing the Air Facility System (AFS) database. This system would accommodate data from and coordinate with other agency data systems (such as NATA, NEI, TRI, RSEI) and provide streamlined access to federal and state regulators. In addition, EPA is requesting resources in FY 2012 to develop tools for electronic compliance reporting as part of the Regaining Ground Initiative. EPA anticipates that these investments will increase the Agencys ability to meet aggressive court ordered schedules to complete rulemaking activities, especially in the Risk Technology Review program. This
277
investment will also assist the Agency in its work in FY 2012 to complete or develop an additional 150 rules that are under legal or statutory deadlines for FY 2013. Addressing Climate Change During FY 2012, EPA will issue additional policy and guidance on GHG-related issues for the Title V operating permits and PSD programs. Furthermore, EPA will continue to issue permits directly to sources in areas where states, local agencies, or tribes do not issue permits. In addition, EPA will oversee the activities of state and local permitting programs as they continue to transition to GHG coverage. Adding GHGs to the permitting programs has increased the number of covered sources; EPA estimates that 550 new sources will be subject to Title V operating permits and 900 more actions will fall under PSD.11 In FY 2012, EPA regional offices will continue to issue increased numbers of PSD and Title V permits because of the new requirements for GHG emissions control. Additionally, the regional offices will issue GHG PSD permits in states where EPA has issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). They also will review increased numbers of state, local, and tribal issued permits and review changes to state, local, and Tribal PSD and Title V programs that incorporate GHG provisions. EPA also will address complex national policy questions that are likely to arise as these new requirements are implemented. EPA will consider the results of a range of international assessments issued in 2011 and address the climate impacts of short-lived climate forcers. These traditional air pollutants, for example, black carbon (a constituent of particulate matter) and ozone are impacting the climate and reducing their emissions can reap immediate climate and public health benefits. In the context of the revised ozone and PM NAAQS, and contingent on the outcome of the 2011 Black Carbon Report to Congress and other assessments, EPA will identify the most significant domestic and international sources of black carbon and ozone precursor emissions. Based on these findings and enhanced analytical capabilities, EPA will consider the best steps for addressing these emissions. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(M94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
78
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
78
78
Percent
11
http://www.epa.gov/NSR/documents/20100413piecharts.pdf
278
Measure Type
Measure
(M95) Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
Data Avail 12/2011
100
100
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(M96) Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
99
99
99
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(M9) Cumulative reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
11
Data Avail 12/2011
12
12
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(M91) Cumulative reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Data Avail 12/2011
15
15
Percent
279
Measure Type
Measure
(MM9) 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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
26
Data Avail 12/2011
29
32
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(MM8) Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to Efficiency process State Implementation Plan revisions, weighted by complexity.
2.9
Data Avail 2011
2.9
3.1
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2,269.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$24,446.0 / +140.4 FTE) This represents the incoming transfer of resources, including 140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0 and travel of $345.0, from the Federal Support for Air Toxics Program. The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program has been consolidated with this program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. (+$4,864.0 / + 25.0 FTE) This represents an increase for Clean Air Act Permitting activities, including 25.0 FTE with associated payroll of $3,241.0 and travel of $69.0. These resources and FTE will support expanded PSD and Title V permit review by the Regional Offices and sector- and source-specific guidance from headquarters, including guidance on significant national policy issues. (-$485.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$343.0 / + 1.0 FTE) This represents an increase as part of EPAs Regaining Ground Initiative, including 1.0 FTE with associated payroll of $143.0. These resources will be utilized to develop tools for electronic compliance reporting.
280
(+$3,146.0 / + 8.8 FTE) This represents an increase as part of EPAs Air Toxics Initiative, including 8.8 FTE with associated payroll of $1,227.0. Funding will be used for improving EPAs air toxic facility fence line and remote monitoring capabilities, national assessments and improving dissemination of information between and amongst the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. Specific improvements include: expanding analyses using tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA) and National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA); enhancing quantitative benefits assessment tools, such as BenMAP, to include analytic capabilities for air toxics; improving emission inventory estimates for air toxic pollutants using the data collected through source and ambient monitoring; and managing all information for all regulated entities electronically in a single location by modernizing the Air Facility System (AFS) database. (+$2,931.0 / + 6.5 FTE) As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative, this reflects an increase to support the Agencys efforts to improve existing ambient monitoring networks to improve community wide characterizations of the impacts of air toxics and related pollutants and to expand analytical tools to include demographics and cumulative, environmental risks to different communities and population subgroups, including 6.5 FTE and associated payroll of $904.0. These resources and FTE will support expanded analyses and information access by enhancing tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA), National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA), BenMAP, and Air Facility System (AFS). (-$557.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$299.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN) and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (-$3,053.0/ -9.2 FTE) This reflects a reduction to regional resources. This reduction, includes $1,169.0 in payroll associated with the reduced FTE as well as a reduction of $36.0 in travel. The reduction will mean reduced support to states as they implement new and revised NAAQS and toxics standards. This also will reduce support to states as they develop revised and updated clean air plans. (-8.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
281
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $23,468.8

$2,381.7 $25,850.5 138.8

$2,398.0 $26,844.0 145.8

$0.0 $0.0 0.0

($2,398.0) ($26,844.0) -145.8
$24,446.0
$2,398.0 $26,844.0 145.8
Program Project Description: The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program assists state, tribal, and local air pollution control agencies and communities with modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategies, and program development of community-based toxics programs, including the assessment of air toxics outside schools. EPA also provides support for programs that reduce inhalation risk or deposition to water bodies and ecosystems, international cooperation to reduce transboundary and intercontinental air toxic pollution, National Emissions Inventory development and updates, risk assessment methodologies for toxic air pollutants, Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics activities, and training of air pollution professionals. In addition, the program includes activities for implementation of federal air toxics standards and the triennial National Air Toxics Assessments. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: All activities in this program will be assumed by the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program to support the conversion to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management. Performance Targets: There are no FY 2012 performance targets associated with this program project because the funds are transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$24,446.0 \ -140.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities, including 140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0, to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program in support of a sector-based multipollutant approach to air quality management.
282
Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
283
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Restore the Ozone Layer (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,159.4

$6,159.4 28.0

$5,934.0 23.8

$5,612.0 23.7

($322.0) -0.1
$5,934.0
$5,934.0 23.8
Program Project Description: The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth by shielding the Earths surface from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years has shown that ozone-depleting substances (ODS) used around the world destroy the stratospheric ozone layer and contribute to climate change.12 Overexposure to increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone layer depletion is expected to raise the incidence of skin cancer and other illnesses. 13 Skin cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the U.S. One American dies almost every hour from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.14 Increased UV levels have been associated with other human and non-human effects, including immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops. EPA estimates that in the U.S. alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of nonfatal and fatal skin cancers, as well as millions of cataracts, between 1990 and 2165.15 Cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide, and in the U.S. a significant source of cost to the Medicare budget. EPAs estimates regarding the U.S. health benefits from the ODS phaseout are based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be achieved, allowing the ozone layer to recover later this century. According to current atmospheric research, the ozone layer is not expected to recover until mid-century at the earliest, due to the long lifetimes of ODS in the stratosphere.16 EPAs Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program implements the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Act) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), continuing the control and reduction of ODS in the U.S. and lowering health risks to the American public. Since ODS and many of their substitutes are also potent
12 13
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007. Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2006 Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007. 14 American Cancer Society. Skin Cancer Facts. Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/SunandUVExposure/skin-cancer-facts. 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPA Report to Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999. 16 WMO, 2007.
284
greenhouse gases, appropriate control and reduction of these substances also provide significant benefits for climate protection. The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption of ODS and requires controls on their use, including banning certain emissive uses, requiring labeling to inform consumer choices, and requiring sound servicing practices for the use of ODS in various products (e.g., air conditioning and refrigeration). The Act also prohibits venting ODS or their substitutes, including other F-gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is committed to ensuring that our domestic program is at least as stringent as international obligations, and to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically. With 196 Parties and virtually universal participation, the Montreal Protocol is the most successful international environmental treaty in existence.17 With U.S. leadership, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed in 2007 to a more aggressive phaseout for ozonedepleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). This adjustment to the Montreal Protocol requires dramatic HCFC reductions during the period 2010-2040, equaling a 47 percent reduction in overall emissions compared to previous commitments under the Protocol. The Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program also works with the supermarket industry through the GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership.18 An EPA partnership with the supermarket industry and other stakeholders, GreenChill promotes advanced technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ODS and greenhouse gases. The program now includes more than 5,500 stores in 48 states. In 2008, partners reduced their aggregate total emissions by 8.5 percent. EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) Program19 is a partnership that protects the ozone layer and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through the recovery of ODS from old refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. RAD partners dispose of more than 1 million refrigerant-containing appliances annually, reducing ODS emissions by over 550 ODPweighted tons. While the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program continues to heal the ozone layer and garner climate co-benefits, EPA also works to improve public health by sharing information to help the public make informed decisions about health and the environment. Because people will live under a compromised ozone layer until the middle of this century, the SunWise Program20 educates children about the importance of UV protection. SunWise has grown from 25 schools to over 26,000 since 1999. It is now relied on by public and private schools in every U.S. state, and in several states, SunWise partner schools amount to a quarter of the number of schools in the state. According to a study published in Pediatrics,21 every federal dollar invested in SunWise results in a $2-$4 savings in health care.
17
See: http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Key_Achievements-E.pdf, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Montreal_Protocol_on_Substances_that_Deplete_the_Ozone_Layer, http://ozone.unep.org/highlights.shtml (Nov 2, 2009 entry) 18 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill 19 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad 20 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/sunwise 21 Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):e1074-84. Economic evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise Program: Sun Protection Education for Young Children. Kyle JW, Hammitt JK, Lim HW, Geller AC, Hall-Jordan LH, Maibach EW, De Fabo EC, Wagner MC.
285
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In carrying out the requirements of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for control and reduction of ODS. EPA will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling ODS production, import, and emission. In FY 2012, EPA will focus its work to ensure that ODS production and import caps under the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act continue to be met. The Clean Air Act requires reductions and a schedule for phasing out the production and import of ODS. These requirements correspond to the domestic consumption cap for class II HCFCs, as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. As of January 1, 2010, ODS production and imports were capped at 3,810 ODP-weighted metric tons, which is 25% of the U.S. baseline under the Montreal Protocol. Each ODS is weighted based on its ODP, a measure of the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone layer. Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap for HCFC consumption was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989, plus the ODPweighted level of HCFCs in 1989.22 In 2015, U.S. production and import will be reduced further, to 10% of the U.S. baseline, and in 2020, all production and import will be phased out except for exempted amounts. Given that the ODS cap was lowered in 2010, EPA is responding to an increased number of ODS substitute applications, many of which represent lower-GHG options. Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,23 EPA reviews alternatives to ODS to assist the markets transition to alternatives that are safer, especially for the climate system. The purpose of the program is to allow a safe, smooth transition away from ODS by identifying substitutes that offer lower overall risks to human health and the environment. As necessary, EPA restricts use of alternatives for given applications that are more harmful to human health and the environment on an overall basis. In FY 2012, EPA will consider the suite of available substitutes for each of approximately 50 end uses (e.g., domestic refrigeration, motor vehicle air conditioning) in eight industrial sectors and with the listing of new alternatives, review previous decisions as necessary. Also, EPA will continue to work with federal and international agencies to halt the illegal import of ODS and foster the smooth transition to non-ozone-depleting alternatives in various sectors. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(S01) Remaining US Consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer,
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
<3,811
<3,811
<3,811
ODP tons
22 23
Consumption equals production plus import minus export. For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
286
Measure Type
Measure
measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$49.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$197.0) In a time of fiscal constraint, EPA plans to reduce funding for the SunWise program website. As a result, schools will have to rely on a Sunwise website that is not updated as often. This website offers internet-based materials for use, additional related printed curriculum and information on sun safety. (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$72.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$4.0) This increase in funding will support the review of ODS alternatives. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990, Title I, Parts A and D (42 U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661 f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
287
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund Program Area: Clean Air and Climate Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Restore the Ozone Layer (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,840.0

$9,840.0 0.0

$9,840.0 0.0

$9,495.0 0.0

($345.0) 0.0
$9,840.0
$9,840.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The ozone layer in the stratosphere protects life on Earth by preventing harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from reaching the Earths surface. Scientific evidence amassed over more than 30 years has shown that ozone-depleting substances (ODS) used around the world destroy the stratospheric ozone layer and contribute to climate change.24 Increased levels of UV radiation, due to ozone depletion, have contributed to increased incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other health effects.25 Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for nearly half of all cancers.26 Increased UV levels also have been associated with other human and nonhuman effects, including immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.27 EPA estimates that in the U.S. alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of nonfatal and fatal skin cancers28 as well as millions of cataracts between 1990 and 2165.29 According to current research, the ozone layer is expected to recover later this century. This long recovery period is due to the long atmospheric lifetime of ODS.30 These estimates are based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be achieved through full participation by all countries (both industrialized and developing), allowing the ozone layer to recover. If developing countries go back to using ODS, at even 70 percent of historic rates, within 20 years the environmental gains to date would be negated, as would billions of dollars spent. Ending the
24 25
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007. Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2006 Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007. 26 American Cancer Society. Skin Cancer Facts. Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/SunandUVExposure/skin-cancer-facts. 27 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 2006 Assessment. Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. 28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPA Report to Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999. Also: 29 Protecting the Ozone Layer Protects Eyesight A Report on Cataract Incidence in the United States Using the Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework Model. Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/AHEFCataractReport.pdf 30 WMO, 2007.
288
production and use of ODS not only saves the ozone layer, but it also reduces the climate impact of these potent greenhouse gases. Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), the U.S. and other developed countries contribute to the Multilateral Fund to support projects and activities in developing countries to eliminate the production and use of ODS. The Montreal Protocol is the first multilateral treaty to have universal participation with ratification by all 196 countries. The U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Fund, which is split between EPA and the Department of State, is 22 percent of the total based on the U.N. scale of assessment. The Multilateral Fund draws heavily on U.S. expertise and technologies, and the permanent seat of the U.S. on the Executive Committee ensures cost-effective assistance. Negotiated text supporting the 2007 adjustment to the Protocol commits donor countries, including the U.S., to stable and sufficient funding to the Multilateral Fund. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed, in the 2007 adjustment, to a more aggressive phaseout for ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which involves dramatic HCFC reductions during the period from 2010-2040, equaling a 47 percent reduction in overall emissions. Most of these reductions will occur in developing countries. Because most ODS are strong greenhouse gases (GHGs), this faster phaseout also will result in large reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPAs contributions to the Multilateral Fund in FY 2012 will help continue support for costeffective projects designed to build capacity and eliminate ODS production and consumption in over 60 developing countries. Today, the Multilateral Fund supports over 6,000 activities in 148 countries that, when fully implemented, will prevent annual emissions of more than 451,000 metric tons of ODS. Additional projects will be submitted, considered and approved in accordance with Multilateral Fund guidelines. Performance Targets: Performance measures associated with this program are included in the section Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Program under Environmental Programs and Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. The Clean Air Act requires reductions and a schedule for phasing out the production and import of ODS. These requirements correspond to the domestic consumption cap for class II HCFCs, as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ODS is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone layerthis is the ozone depletion potential (ODP). Since January 1, 2010, the U.S. is required to meet a consumption cap of 3,810 ODP-weighted metric tons. Further incremental reductions are required through 2020 until all ODS production and import are phased out, except for exempted amounts.
289
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$370.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$25.0 ) This increase will support the Multilateral Fund. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990, Title 1, Parts A and D (42 U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
290
291
Indoor Air: Radon Program Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $5,408.1

$485.6 $5,893.7 33.1

$453.0 $6,319.0 39.4

$210.0 $4,111.0 23.1

($243.0) ($2,208.0) -16.3
$5,866.0
$453.0 $6,319.0 39.4
Program Project Description: Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. The law directs EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise the public of steps they can take to reduce exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute training centers to ensure a supply of competent radon service providers, establish radon contractor proficiency programs, and assist states with program development through the administration of a grants program. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer mortality among non-smokers, accounting for about 21,000 deaths per year. EPAs non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes actions to reduce the publics health risk from indoor radon. EPA and the Surgeon General recommend that people do a simple home test and, if levels above EPAs guidelines are confirmed, reduce those levels by home mitigation using inexpensive and proven techniques. EPA also recommends that new homes be built using radon-resistant features in areas where there is elevated radon. This voluntary program has succeeded in promoting partnerships between national organizations, the private sector, and state, local, and tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk reduction. On the basis of that success, EPA plans to streamline the program to rely more heavily on these partners to achieve radon risk reduction. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will: Continue to partner with national and private sector organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal government organizations to reduce radon exposure; Work with states, tribes, and localities to improve their radon programs to increase risk reduction;
292
Continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business in the marketplace; and Improve scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on radon in conjunction with partners. The number of homes in the U.S. with radon levels above the action level is currently estimated at 1 in 15 homes, and continued action is needed. In FY 2012, EPA will accelerate efforts to reduce radon exposure. The program will continue to focus on radon risk reduction in homes and schools. EPA will use information dissemination, social marketing techniques, and partnerships with influential public health and environmental organizations to drive action at the national level. EPA will continue to promote public action to test homes for indoor radon, fix homes when levels are high, and build homes with radon-resistant features. EPA also will continue its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action. As part of this outreach, EPA communicates risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences that demonstrate the substantial risks associated with radon exposure. The Indoor Air Program is not regulatory. Instead, EPA works toward its goal by conducting research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary education and outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements and improving transparency by making state radon grantee performance data available to the public via a website or other easily accessible means. The majority of federal resources directed to radon risk reduction are allotted to states under the State Indoor Radon Grants Program, which is described elsewhere in this volume. With its programmatic resources, EPA engages in public outreach and education activities designed to increase the public health effectiveness of state and private efforts. This includes support for national public information campaigns that attract millions of dollars in donated air time, identification and dissemination of best practices from the highest achieving states for transfer across the nation, public support for local and state adoption of radon prevention standards in building codes, coordination of national voluntary standards (e.g., mitigation and construction protocols) for adoption by states and the radon industry, and numerous other activities strategically selected to promote individual action to test and mitigate homes and promote radon resistant new construction.31 In FY 2012, EPA plans to streamline the program, curtailing activity in lower priority outreach, education, guidance and technical assistance. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(R50) Percent of existing homes with an operating mitigation system (HOMS) compared to the
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
12.5
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
12
13.3
Percent
31
http://www.epa.gov/radon
293
Measure Type
Measure
estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Measure
(R51) Percent of all new single-family homes (SFH) in high radon potential areas built with radon reducing features.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
33
Data Avail 12/2011
34.5
36
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,921.0/-14.8 FTE) To accommodate the lower funding level, EPA will reduce resources for lower priority regional efforts to address public health risks posed by exposures by indoor radon. These efforts include regional support for outreach, education, guidance, and technical assistance. This reduction includes associated payroll of $1,906.0. With the remaining available resources, EPA will continue to partner with national and private sector organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal government organizations to reduce radon exposure; work with states, tribes, and localities to improve their radon programs to increase risk reduction; continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business in the marketplace; and improve scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on radon in conjunction with partners. (-$44.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990; Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the SARA of 1986; TSCA, Section 6, Titles II and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671); and IRAA, Section 306.
294
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $19,253.0

$808.0 $20,061.0 63.4

$762.0 $21,521.0 63.8

$370.0 $17,568.0 54.3

($392.0) ($3,953.0) -9.5
$20,759.0
$762.0 $21,521.0 63.8
Program Project Description: Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to conduct and coordinate research on indoor air quality, develop and disseminate information on the subject, and coordinate efforts at the federal, state, and local levels. In this non-regulatory, voluntary program, EPA works through partnerships, with nongovernmental organizations and federal partners, as well as professional organizations, to educate and encourage individuals, schools, industry, the health care community, and others to take action to reduce health risks from poor indoor air quality. For many reasons, including peoples decisions to smoke in their own homes, air inside homes, schools, and workplaces can be more polluted than outdoor air in the largest and most industrialized cities.32 People typically spend close to 90 percent of their time indoors and may be more at risk from indoor than outdoor air pollution.33 Additionally, EPA uses technology transfer to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of buildings, including schools, homes, and workplaces, to promote healthier indoor air. EPA provides technical assistance that directly supports states, local governments, and public health organizations. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPAs Indoor Air Program will continue to support the Administrators priorities. EPA will continue to promote comprehensive asthma care that integrates management of environmental asthma triggers and health care services. EPA will continue to promote community adoption of comprehensive asthma care programs through the Communities in
32
U.S. EPA. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Summary and Analysis Volume I. EPA 600-687-002a. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 33 U.S. EPA. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA 40-6-89-001C. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
295
Action for Asthma-Friendly Environments Campaign, EPA will place a particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable populations, including children, low-income, and minority populations disproportionately impacted by poor asthma outcomes. The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top Administrators priority, especially with regard to children. EPA will continue to work in partnership and collaboration with other federal agencies, the health care community, and state and local organizations to promote smoke-free homes and cars, emphasizing protection for young children through collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Head Start. EPA also will continue to promote a suite of best practice guidance for a range of building types, including guidance for the control and management of moisture and mold and comprehensive best practice guidance for IAQ during each phase of the building cycle. Additional guidance will focus on best maintenance practices for indoor environmental quality and ensuring good IAQ in concert with increased energy efficiency in buildings. Internationally, EPA will continue the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air to provide technology transfer to developing countries so that individuals and organizations within those countries have the tools to address human health risk due to indoor smoke from cooking and heating fires. Since 2003, the Indoor Air Program has documented nearly three million households across the globe, nearly 20 million people, who have adopted clean and efficient cooking and heating technologies through the Partnerships programs. In a time of fiscal constraint, the reduced FY 2012 resources will require EPA to decrease overall partnership/outreach support with non-governmental organizations, federal partners, and professional organizations. Additionally, to accommodate the lower funding level in FY 2012 EPA plans to reduce or eliminate lower priority activities, including the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Homes/Buildings Program. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(R17) Additional health care professionals trained annually on the environmental management of asthma triggers.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
2,000
Data Avail 12/2011
2,000
3,000
Professionals
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(R16) Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign.
FY 2010 Target
>30
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
>30
FY 2012 Target
>30
Units
Percent
296
Measure Type
Measure
(R22) Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
1,000
Data Avail 12/2011
1,000
1,000
Schools
EPA will strive to meet its long-term strategic goal for 2015 that 7.6 million people with asthma will be taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers. EPAs goal is to motivate an additional 400,000 people with asthma to take these actions in 2012, bringing the total number to approximately 6.5 million people with asthma who are taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers. As another component of reducing exposure to environmental triggers for children with asthma, EPA will work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted populations and the overall population. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (-$3,456.0/ -8.0 FTE) In a time of fiscal constraint, the reduced FY 2012 resources will require EPA to decrease overall partnership/outreach support with non-governmental organizations, federal partners, and professional organizations. Additionally, to accommodate the lower funding level in FY 2012 EPA plans to reduce or eliminate lower priority activities, including the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Homes/Buildings Program. Of the total decrease, $1,092.0 is for associated payroll. EPA will focus its healthy homes/buildings program on reducing exposures and health risks from environmental asthma triggers. (-$105.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
297
Science & Technology Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $11,433.3

$1,962.1 $2,586.2 $15,981.6 84.2

$2,095.0 $2,495.0 $15,885.0 88.6

$2,096.0 $2,487.0 $14,212.0 76.1

$1.0 ($8.0) ($1,673.0) -12.5
$11,295.0
$2,095.0 $2,495.0 $15,885.0 88.6
Program Project Description: Congress designated EPA as the primary federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure to radiation. EPA has important general and specific duties depending on the enabling legislation (e.g., Atomic Energy Act, Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Clean Air Act, etc). EPAs Radiation Protection Program carries out this responsibility through its federal guidance and regulations/standards development activities. EPA provides oversight of operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA also regulates radioactive air emissions and ensures that the Agency has appropriate methods to manage radioactive releases and exposures under Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, which governs EPAs authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants. Other EPA responsibilities include radiation clean-up and waste management guidance, radiation pollution prevention, and guidance on radiation protection standards and practices to federal agencies. The Agencys radiation science is recognized nationally and internationally; it is the foundation that EPA, other federal agencies and states use to develop radiation risk management policy, guidance, and rulemakings. The Agency works closely with other national and international radiation protection organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Commission on Radiation Protection, and the Organization of Economic and Cooperative Developments Nuclear Energy Agency to advance scientific understanding of radiation risks. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement its regulatory oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) activities at the WIPP facility, as mandated by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992. EPA also will continue its oversight work to ensure the
298
permanent and safe disposal, consistent with EPA standards,34 of all radioactive waste shipped to WIPP. This includes conducting inspections of waste generator facilities and evaluating DOEs compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations every five years. EPA will continue limited work on the revision to the Uranium Milling and Tailings Radiation Control Act regulation (40 CFR 192), last reviewed in 1995, and the related Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart W (40 CFR 61) update. EPA, in partnership with other federal agencies, will continue to promote the management of radiation risks in a consistent and safe manner at water treatment facilities, and during cleanups at Superfund, DOE, Department of Defense (DOD), state, local and other federal sites. EPA will continue to conduct limited radiation risk assessments and provide guidance and technical tools when available. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(R37) Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP. (R36) Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an emergency.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
70
Data Avail 2011
70
75
Days
Output
0.7
Data Avail 2011
0.7
0.8
Days
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,655.0 / - 11.0 FTE) This reflects a significant reduction in both headquarters and regional staff to address the nations risks of radiation exposure, necessary in this time of fiscal constraint. To accommodate the reduction, EPAplans to terminate important but lower priority work on updating EPA radiation science issued through Federal Guidance publications that federal and state agencies use when conducting radiation risk assessments. Of this reduction, $1,605.0 is a reduction in payroll due to the reduced FTE. This reduction may also mean that EPA will take longer to promulgate regulations due to limited resources for analysis and outreach and stakeholder input. This cut also may substantially reduce the programs timeliness in responding to radioactive waste policy and technical issues. Other lower priority activities that may be affected are the Agencys tribal and environmental justice efforts on radiation issues,
34
Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.html
299
particularly those aimed at Navajo uranium contamination; risk assessment support to the states and regions; and EPAs radiation outreach and public information abilities. (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiencies Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; CAA Amendments of 1990; CERCLA as amended by the SARA of 1986; Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; NWPA of 1982; PHSA as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; SDWA; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
300
Radiation: Response Preparedness Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $2,827.9

$4,242.7 $7,070.6 41.0

$4,176.0 $7,253.0 42.3

$4,082.0 $7,124.0 42.3

($94.0) ($129.0) 0.0
$3,077.0
$4,176.0 $7,253.0 42.3
Program Project Description: EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological emergency response under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA maintains its own Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), is a member of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC), 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. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPAs RERT, a component of the Agencys emergency response structure, will continue to ensure that it maintains and improves the level of readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the NRF and NCP. EPA will design training and exercises to enhance the RERTs ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities, as well as analyze them for improvements needed for overall radiation response preparedness. 35 Through personnel and asset training and exercises, EPA will continue to enhance and maintain its state of readiness for radiological emergencies. EPA will continue to coordinate with its interagency partners, under the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, to revise federal radiation emergency response plans and develop radiological emergency response protocols and standards. The Agency will continue to develop guidance addressing lessons learned from incidents and exercises to ensure more effective coordination of EPA support with that of other federal and state response agencies. EPA will continue to develop and maintain Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for use by federal,
35
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/
301
state, and local responders. Additionally, EPA will provide training on the use of the PAGs to users through workshops and radiological emergency response exercises. EPA will continue to participate in planning and implementing international and federal table-top and field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). EPA also will continue 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 development of their own preparedness programs. EPA will continue development and implementation of field-based measurement methods, procedures and quality systems to support expedited assessment and characterization of outdoor and indoor areas impacted with radiological contamination. Application of these field-based methods and procedures will support rapid assessment and triage of impacted areas (including buildings, indoor environments, infrastructure) and development of cleanup strategies. EPAs Special Teams will design and establish an instrument quality program for field-based radiological measurements. EPAs Special Teams also will develop procedures for ensuring protection of responders by minimizing exposure and keeping dose as low as reasonably achievable. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(R35) Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
90
Data Avail 12/2011
90
90
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$7.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$6.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
302
(-$11.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. Statutory Authority: Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA); Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and EAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II).
303
Program Area: Brownfields
304
Brownfields Program Area: Brownfields Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $24,465.3

$24,465.3 125.2

$24,152.0 125.9

$26,397.0 144.9

$2,245.0 19.0
$24,152.0
$24,152.0 125.9
Program Project Description: The Brownfields program is designed to help states, tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders involved in environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment to work together to plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields. Brownfield sites are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Revitalizing these once productive properties helps communities by removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for land, helping to limit urban sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling economic development, and maintaining or improving quality of life. This program comprises the administrative component of the Brownfields program, supporting human resources, travel, training, technical assistance, and research activities. EPAs work is focused on removing barriers and creating incentives for brownfields redevelopment. EPAs Brownfields program funds research efforts, clarifies liability issues, enters into federal, state, tribal, and local partnerships, conducts outreach activities, and creates related job training and workforce development programs. The program provides financial assistance for: (1) hazardous substances training for organizations representing the interests of states and tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields law; and (2) technical outreach support to address environmental justice issues and support Brownfields research. EPAs enforcement program develops guidance and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liabilities, thereby providing greater certainty and comfort for parties seeking to reuse these properties. The enforcement program also can provide direct support to parties seeking to reuse contaminated properties in order to facilitate transactions through consultations and the use of enforcement tools. The Brownfields Program also includes smart growth and sustainable design that address Brownfield issues. The smart growth activities include: (1) working with state and local governments and other stakeholders to create an improved economic and institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment; (2) removing barriers and creating incentives for Brownfields redevelopment by changing standards that affect the viability of Brownfields redevelopment; and
305
(3) creating cross-cutting solutions that improve the economic, regulatory, and institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Brownfields program fosters federal, state, local, and public-private partnerships to return properties to productive economic use in communities. This approach emphasizes environmental health and protection that also achieves economic development and job creation through the redevelopment of Brownfields properties, particularly in underserved and disadvantaged communities. As part of the Americas Great Outdoor Initiative, EPA is participating on interagency teams in the development of a broad range of policy options to better align and leverage federal programs and investments, make regulatory and voluntary efforts more complementary, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of programs to connect Americans with the great outdoors. EPA is leading teams focused on promoting outdoor recreation on public and private lands in urban parks, greenways, beaches, trails, and waterways, and educating and engaging Americans in our natural, cultural, and historical resources. In addition to supporting the operations and management of the Brownfields program, funds in FY 2012 will provide financial assistance for training on hazardous waste to organizations representing the interests of state and tribal co-implementers of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA), otherwise known as the 2002 Brownfields Amendments. The program also offers outreach support for the Administrators Priority of Promoting Environmental Justice issues affecting tribal and native Alaskan villages or other disadvantaged communities that need to address perceived or real hazardous substance contamination at sites in their neighborhood or community. EPA Brownfields grants are in the form of cooperative agreements, and require considerable Agency staff involvement to ensure that sites are properly assessed and cleaned up consistent with the applicable requirements (e.g., Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)). Current Agency guidelines recommend an average of no more than 11 cooperative agreements per project officer. Despite workload increases in many areas of the country (including areas with many disadvantaged communities and cities in transition), the average project officer works on as many as 30 grants. This greatly compromises the ability to effectively and efficiently manage these grants for the benefit of the affected communities. Since EPAs Brownfields program manages a significant workload of assessment, cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), job training and area-wide planning cooperative agreements, the FY 2012 request includes 19.2 additional FTE. These FTE would help provide needed support in the planning, expeditious award, and performance management of Brownfields cooperative agreements. The additional FTE will also be used for project officers who will more effectively and efficiently negotiate and award cooperative agreements as part of current workload as well as manage the agreements throughout their full life-cycle, providing the necessary technical
306
assistance the recipient communities need throughout the implementation of the project to ensure successful outcomes. As project officers, these FTE will also facilitate initial coordination within EPA and with other Agencies in two ways: 1) Facilitate initial coordination with EPA enforcement, air and water quality programs (as appropriate) to target environmental improvements identified during the area-wide planning process. Through area-wide planning, local communities will be able to assess and address a single large or multiple Brownfield sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning to enable redevelopment on a broader scale. For example, these improvements could come from air quality or water infrastructure investments -planned or underway -- within or near the pilot project area, or from a supplemental environmental project identified by EPA's enforcement office (if information is publicly available). The FTE also will consult air and water media offices as needed to advise on development techniques that improve environmental outcomes, such as approaches which reduce air emissions (CO2, NOx, HC, CO), energy use from vehicular energy consumption (e.g., reduce vehicle miles traveled), land consumption, stormwater run-off, and pollutant loadings. 2) Work with other federal, state and/or tribal agencies (as appropriate) in an effort to provide additional information in support of developing the area-wide plan for the brownfields-impacted area, such as planned neighborhood investments or services needed. By identifying opportunities for cross-program coordination and possible integration, EPA will be able to deliver more comprehensive technical assistance to the pilot communities. The National Brownfields Conference is the largest and most comprehensive conference in the nation focused on environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment issues. Due to increased contributions and support from external partners, EPA is reducing its funding for this conference by a total of $905 thousand in FY 2012. EPA will provide technical assistance to communities that were awarded funding to combine smart growth policies with Brownfields redevelopment. EPA also will conduct further research on incentives for cleanup that encourage Brownfields redevelopment, pilot additional techniques to accomplish redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and research needs, and highlight best practices that can be copied in other communities. In FY 2012, EPAs Brownfields program request includes nearly $1.3 million for the smart growth program. The smart growth program addresses critical issues for Brownfields redevelopment, including land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards, accountability to uniform systems of information for land use controls, and other factors that influence the economic viability of Brownfields redevelopment. The best practices, tools, and lessons learned from the smart growth program will directly inform and assist EPAs efforts to increase area-wide planning for assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
307
In FY 2012, EPA is requesting $497 thousand for EPAs enforcement program. EPAs enforcement program will work collaboratively with our partners on innovative approaches to help achieve the Agencys land reuse priorities. EPAs enforcement program will develop guidance and tools to provide greater certainty and comfort regarding potential liability concerns for parties seeking to reuse these properties. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports performance results in the STAG: Brownfields Program Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$798.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$2,706.0/ +19.2 FTE) This reflects an increase in Regional project offices to provided additional support in the planning, expeditious award, and performance management of Brownfields cooperative agreements, including the proposed expansion of area wide planning grants. The additional resources include 19.2 FTE and associated payroll of $2,630.0. (-$905.0/ -1.0 FTE) This reflects a decrease in resources supporting the National Brownfields conference due to enhanced administrative efficiencies. The reduced resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $137.0. (-$273.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$81.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act , as amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Sections 101, 107 and 128 and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Section 8001.
308
Program Area: Compliance
309
Compliance Assistance and Centers Program Area: Compliance Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $23,628.3

$756.8 $263.7 $24,648.8 165.3

$797.0 $269.0 $26,688.0 173.7

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0

($797.0) ($269.0) ($26,688.0) -173.7
$25,622.0
$797.0 $269.0 $26,688.0 173.7
Program Project Description: EPAs Compliance Assistance and Centers program provides information to millions of regulated entities, federal agencies, particularly small businesses and local governments, to help them understand and meet their environmental obligations. This information lets regulated entities know of their legal obligations under federal environmental laws. Compliance assistance resources include comprehensive Web sites, compliance guides, emission calculators, and training materials aimed at specific business communities or industry sectors. Also, on-site compliance assistance and information is sometimes provided by EPA inspectors during an inspection. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Compliance Assistance and Centers program was streamlined and merged with the Compliance Monitoring and Civil Enforcement programs in FY 2011. EPA merged the historical tool-based program project activities for compliance assistance and incentives into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. Achieving compliance with environmental laws requires a focus on outcomes using a mix of assistance, incentives, and enforcement actions, often in combination to achieve environmental and public health protections. The changes support the Agencys emphasis on pragmatic and more nimble approach to enforcement - using the right tools at the right level of government to achieve compliance and deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and criminal. Performance Targets: The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs, where these resources have been realigned.
310
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$24,906.0/ -162.5 FTE) This reduction reflects the Agencys proposal to integrate the tool-based program project activities for Compliance Assistance into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. Reduced resources include $21,906.0 associated payroll for 162.5 FTE. (-$716.0/ -4.6 FTE) This is a reduction to Compliance Assistance Centers and tool development, reflecting a greater reliance on electronic means for disseminating assistance information. This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. The reduced resources include $620.0 associated payroll for 4.6 FTE. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
311
Compliance Incentives Program Area: Compliance Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $8,792.6

$14.4 $8,807.0 55.7

$0.0 $9,560.0 62.5

$0.0 $0.0 0.0

$0.0 ($9,560.0) -62.5
$9,560.0
$0.0 $9,560.0 62.5
Program Project Description: EPAs Compliance Incentives program encourages regulated entities to monitor and quickly correct environmental violations, reduce pollution, and make improvements in regulated entities environmental management practices. EPA uses a variety of approaches to encourage entities to self-disclose environmental violations under various environmental statues. EPAs Audit Policy encourages internal audits of environmental compliance and subsequent correction of selfdiscovered violations, providing a uniform enforcement response toward disclosures of violations and accelerating compliance. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Compliance Incentives program, which encourages internal audits of environmental compliance and subsequent correction of self-discovered violations, was shifted to the Civil Enforcement program as part of the enforcement and compliance assurance programs realignment effort. In FY 2011, EPA merged the historical tool-based program activities for Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance Incentives into the Civil Enforcement program. Achieving compliance with environmental laws requires a focus on outcomes using a mix of assistance, incentives, and enforcement actions, often in combination to achieve environmental and public health protections. The changes support the Agencys pragmatic and flexible approach to enforcement - using the right tools at the right level of government to achieve compliance and deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and criminal. Performance Targets: The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs, where these resources have been realigned and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
312
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$9,560.0/ -62.5 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the integration of enforcement tool-based activities by realigning the Compliance Incentives program into the Civil Enforcement program. The reduced resources include $8,672.0 associated payroll for 62.5 FTE. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR.
313
Compliance Monitoring Program Area: Compliance Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
Inland Oil Spill Programs Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $97,937.7

$0.0 $1,181.8 $99,119.5 593.0

$0.0 $1,216.0 $100,616.0 612.3

$138.0 $1,222.0 $121,008.0 617.6

$138.0 $6.0 $20,392.0 5.3
$99,400.0
$0.0 $1,216.0 $100,616.0 612.3
Program Project Description: The Compliance Monitoring programs overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nations environmental laws and protect human health and the environment through a program of inspections and other compliance monitoring activities. Compliance monitoring comprises all activities to determine whether regulated entities are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions and settlement agreements. In addition, compliance monitoring activities are conducted to determine whether conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment. Compliance monitoring activities include data collection, analysis and review, on-site compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, and reviews of facility records and monitoring reports. EPAs Compliance Monitoring program includes the management of compliance and enforcement data and information systems, and the use of the data to manage the compliance and enforcement program.36 The program also responds to information requests, tips, and complaints from the public. The Agency uses multi-media approaches - such as cross-media inspections, sector initiatives, and risk-based targeting - to take a more holistic approach to protecting ecosystems and to solving the more intractable environmental problems. EPAs Compliance Monitoring activities target areas that pose significant risks to human health or the environment, display patterns of non-compliance, or involve disproportionately exposed populations. In addition, as a part of this program, the Agency reviews and responds to 100 percent of the notices for movement of hazardous waste across U.S. international borders. The Agency ensures that these wastes are properly handled in accordance with international agreements and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.37 EPA coordinates with, provides support to, and oversees the performance of states, local agencies and tribal governments that conduct compliance monitoring activities. The Agencys Compliance
36 37
For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring /index.html. For more information about the Import/Export program, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/international/importexport.html.
314
Monitoring program also provides technical assistance and training to federal, state and tribal inspectors. EPAs efforts complement state and tribal programs to ensure compliance with laws throughout the United States. EPA works with states and tribes to identify where these compliance inspections, evaluations, and investigations will have the greatest impact on achieving environmental results. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, as part of EPAs Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative, the Agency is proposing to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the compliance monitoring program with an emphasis on electronic reporting (e-reporting), enhanced data systems to collect, synthesize and disseminate monitoring data, and deployment of state of the art monitoring equipment to the field. The old model relied heavily on individual facility based inspections conducted by EPA and states to assess and compel compliance. EPA is concerned over the level of non-compliance with environmental laws. Data that the Agency has although not comprehensive paints a picture of noncompliance that is troubling. It is increasingly difficult and expensive, for businesses as well as the Agency, to ensure compliance by using individual site inspections, paper reporting, and other outdated tools and old approaches. As a result, the old model must be revisited as the universe of regulated sources is outstripping the resources available to state and federal inspectors. Electronic reporting combined with deployment of state of the art monitoring equipment will substantially enhance the Agencys ability to identify the most serious violations, detect pollution problems earlier, and assure compliance all while increasing efficiency. The Agency is proposing in this new model the following changes to its compliance monitoring program: Rulemaking improvements. The Agency will review compliance reporting requirements contained in existing rules to identify opportunities for conversion to a national electronic reporting format. As part of the process of developing new rules, EPA will work to identify opportunities where objective, self-monitoring and/or self-certification, public accountability, and electronic reporting elements might be appropriate. Funding is requested in a number of programs to support the transition to electronic reporting in EPAs programmatic databases. Obtaining new monitoring technology. EPA will invest in modern monitoring technology such as: portable emission detectors, thermal imaging cameras, flow meters, and remote (fence line) monitoring equipment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance monitoring program. These innovative technologies will increase the ability of EPA and states to detect violations across programs and focus our efforts on the most significant problems. Using a market based approach for electronic reporting from regulated entities. EPA will create an open platform electronic reporting file data exchange standard, modeled after that used by the IRS to collect tax data. The intent is to unleash the expertise of the private sector marketplace to create new electronic reporting tools. These private sector
315
electronic reporting tools would be based on EPA data standards and would replace the largely paper-based reporting systems that evolved over the past 30 years. Further, in those programs where EPA has already built electronic reporting tools, the private sector may, enhance these tools to better support industry needs, enabling EPA to largely eliminate the need to continue to fund the operation and maintenance of these tools. Expand the capability of EPA and state data systems. EPA will expand its capability to receive, analyze, and make publicly available information on the compliance status of facilities and their impact on public health and the environment. The Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative will improve efficiency. At the same time, prioritizing the focus of the Agencys work promotes the effectiveness of the program. In February 2010, the EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program announced three overarching goals to guide its work: 1) aggressively go after pollution problems that matter to communities; 2) reset our relationship with states; and 3) improve transparency. At the same time, the program announced the selection of new National Enforcement Initiatives for the FY 2011-2013 period, replacing the prior set of National Enforcement Priorities.38 The new National Initiatives include: Municipal Infrastructure keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of our nations waters; Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and ground waters; Air Toxics cutting toxic air pollution from facilities out of compliance with the Clean Air Act; Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal-fired utility, cement, glass and acid sectors; Mining and Mineral Processing Initiative protecting and cleaning up our communities from toxic and hazardous waste; and Energy Extraction Sector assuring compliance with environmental laws. In FY 2012, the Compliance Monitoring program will continue to identify the most serious violations in these National Initiatives so that appropriate enforcement actions can be initiated to remedy the violations and achieve the stated goals.
38
EPA previously used the term National Enforcement Priorities to refer to these initiatives. EPA changed the terminology to National Enforcement Initiatives to describe this work more accurately and to make clear that these areas of focus do not include all the priority problems or compliance and enforcement work EPA is doing.
316
To ensure the quality of compliance monitoring activities, EPA is continuing to develop national policies, update inspection manuals, provide required training for inspectors and issue inspector credentials. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to conduct training to ensure that the inspectors/investigators are: 1) knowledgeable of environmental requirements and policies; 2) technically proficient in conducting compliance inspections/evaluations and taking samples; and 3) skilled at interviewing potential witnesses and documenting inspection/evaluation results. Compliance monitoring activities include oversight of and support to states and tribes, as well as authorizing states/tribes employees to conduct inspections and evaluations on EPAs behalf. EPA works across the Agency and with states and tribes to build capacity, share tools and approaches, and develop networks of professionals that can share and help build expertise. EPA monitors the quality of laboratory data that is required to be reported to the Agency by the regulated community. In FY 2012, the Agency will work to improve its efficiency by integrating technology and e-reporting into the inspection and evaluation process. Adopting 21st century tools provides an opportunity to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data collection and entry endows the program with uniformity in the inspection and evaluation process and increases the speed for submitting inspection and evaluation reports. Compliance monitoring includes the use of data systems to run its compliance and enforcement programs under the various statutes and programs that EPA enforces. In FY 2012, the Agencys focus will be on enhancing its data systems to support electronic reporting, providing more comprehensive, accessible data to the public, and allowing for improved integration of environmental information with health data and other pertinent data sources from other federal agencies and private sources. The Agency will continue its multi-year project to modernize its national enforcement and compliance data system, the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which supports both compliance monitoring and civil enforcement. ICIS is in the second of three phases of development: Phase I of ICIS established a multi-media Federal enforcement and compliance database in FY 2002. Phase II of ICIS is the modernization of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which supports EPA and state management of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. As of February 2011, 34 states, 2 tribes, 8 territories and the District of Columbia are using ICIS. In FY 2012, one additional state will move to ICIS, with the last 15 states moving to ICIS in FY 2013, completing Phase II. Phase III of ICIS expands the system to include the unique requirements of the Clean Air Act stationary sources compliance and enforcement program through the modernization of the Air Facility System (AFS). In FY 2012, EPA will continue to incorporate work done in FY 2011 on system design, detailed business requirements and alternatives analyses into ICIS-CAA system development. More specifically, in FY 2012, EPA will continue work on the AFS modernization by implementing a pilot Air Toxics module in ICIS to manage information for these sources. This information will be integrated with existing ICIS capabilities for tracking inspections, compliance status and enforcement actions. In addition, the AFS information will be added to our targeting tools and made
317
publicly available through the Agencys Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) web site39, with easy-to-use tools added to assist the public in understanding and using the data. EPA is committed to making meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible to the public using 21st century technologies. EPA will continue to increase the transparency of EPAs monitoring and enforcement program by making multi-media compliance monitoring information available to the public through the ECHO Internet website during FY 2012. This site, and its powerful companion tool that serves more than 400 government entities, the Online Targeting and Information System (OTIS), provides communities and regulators with compliance status information, averaging approximately 187,500 queries per month in FY 2010. The Compliance Monitoring program will help advance additional Administrators priorities. In FY 2012, EPA will continue its focus on improving the health of children by assessing how noncompliance contributes to significant health risks in schools, and target compliance and enforcement actions to reduce risks to children. In addition, the enforcement program will continue implementing the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 13508 through the Chesapeake Bay program. The Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin initiatives will support the Agencys priority to restore these water bodies by providing information about wet weather sources of pollution. This also will ensure that these efforts result in an increase in knowledge, use, transparency and public access to data about wet weather sources through: 1) building an ereporting module for getting non-major compliance monitoring data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot with states in the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin; 2) building and deploying targeting tools to help identify the most significant sources of non-compliance and discharges of pollutants most responsible for the impairment of these important water bodies; and 3) making all non-enforcement confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use and understand the data. The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 directed the Agency to create the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) to provide environmental enforcement and compliance training nationwide to all levels of government. In FY 2012, NETI will continue to operate in its new streamlined structure to promote and support enforcement training across the Agency, taking advantage of web-based tools. EPA will continue to review all notices for trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and for export of Cathode Ray Tubes to ensure compliance with domestic regulations and international agreements. While the vast majority of the hazardous waste trade occurs with Canada, the United States also has international trade agreements with Mexico, Malaysia, Costa Rica and the Philippines, and is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which issued a Council Decision controlling trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste applicable to all member countries. In FY 2010, EPA responded to 1,820 notices representing 560 import notices and 1,260 export notices. The Agency will continue to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by inspecting underground storage tanks covering a wide range of industries including gas stations, chemical
39
For more information, refer to: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/
318
companies and federal facilities. The program also will focus on monitoring compliance with gasoline rules. Work under this program project supports the Agencys Priority Goal addressing water quality. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(409) Conduct 21,000 federal inspections and evaluations.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
21,000
Units
Outcome
Inspections/Evaluations
Measure Type
Measure
(412) Review the overall compliance status of 100 percent of the open consent decrees.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
100
Percent
Results will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2012, and will be reported in the FY 2012 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2014 Congressional Justification. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2,620.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-17.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$2,346.0/ +10.2 FTE) This internal redirection reflects the Agencys efforts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating accounts and resources. Specifically, the Agencys FY 2012 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget reflects changes in how the Agency will accomplish its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes, and the programs evolving role vis-a-vis the states. The additional resources are realigned from the Compliance Assistance and Centers program and include $1,346.0 associated payroll transferred from the Compliance Incentive program
319
(+$1,906.0/ +8.0 FTE) This redirection transfers resources from the Enforcement Training program for the National Enforcement Training Institutes (NETI) support for web-based training, cooperative agreements for the four Regional State Environmental Environment Associations, and EPAs legal intern program. The additional resources include $1,056 associated payroll for 8.0 FTE. (+$9,631.0/ +2.0 FTE) This increase supports the Agencys efforts to modernize compliance monitoring and reporting as part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative. The initiative promotes efficiency and effectiveness in the compliance monitoring program with an emphasis on electronic reporting, enhanced data systems to collect, synthesize, and disseminate monitoring data, and deployment of state of the art monitoring equipment to the field to increase compliance with the nations environmental laws. The additional resources include $264.0 associated payroll for 2.0 FTE. (+$1,540.0/ +1.0 FTE) This increase will allow EPA to begin modernizing the Air Facilities System (AFS) by building an Air Toxics module in ICIS to manage information for these sources. This information will be integrated with existing capabilities to track inspections, compliance status, and enforcement action and added to our targeting tools. The information will be made public through the Agencys ECHO web site, with easy-touse tools added to assist the public in understanding and using the data. The additional resources include $132.0 associated payroll for 1.0 FTE. (+$2,000.0) This increase supports the design and development of ICIS-NPDES to enable the electronic (batch) transfer of NPDES data from full batch states system to ICISNPDES via the Environmental Exchange Network. In addition EPA will provide assistance to the full batch states to help them modify their own state systems to electronically flow data to ICIS-NPDES via the Environmental Exchange Network. (+$600.0) This increase is part of the Agencys Mississippi River Basin Initiative. The Compliance Monitoring program will do the following: 1) build an electronic reporting module for getting non-major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot with states in the Mississippi River Basin; 2) build and deploy targeting tools to identify the most significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants responsible for the impairment of this water body; and, 3) make all non-enforcement confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the publics ability to use and understand the data. (+$145.0/ +1.1 FTE) This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agencys priorities. Specifically, this change reflects a regional realignment of resources to enhance improvements in NPDES data quality and the ability of the states data systems to interface effectively with ICIS. The additional resources include $145.0 associated payroll for 1.1 FTE. (-$425.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
320
continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$115.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR.
321
322
Civil Enforcement Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $145,896.6

$0.0 $2,082.8 $147,979.4 980.8

$0.0 $1,998.0 $148,634.0 988.5

$832.0 $2,902.0 $195,138.0 1,219.0

$832.0 $904.0 $46,504.0 230.5
$146,636.0
$0.0 $1,998.0 $148,634.0 988.5
Program Project Description: The Civil Enforcement programs overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nations environmental laws to protect human health and the environment. Effective enforcement is essential to deter violations and 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 focus on violations that threaten communities, ensure a level economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance, and deter future violations. The Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws. EPAs 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 which 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 initiatives. The enforcement program coordinates the selection of these initiatives with programs and regional offices 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 nations environmental laws. This includes assistance to regulated entities to ensure fair notice and to make clear how to comply with regulations; compliance monitoring (i.e., monitoring compliance status, identifying violations through on-site 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 using 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
323
manner that protects public health and the environment. EPA also works directly with tribal governments to build their capacity to implement environmental enforcement programs. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA leadership has focused attention on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities exist, in terms of scale and potential risk. In FY 2012, the Agency is proposing the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative that will begin to harness the tools of modern technology to make EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program more efficient and effective. EPA is concerned over the level of non-compliance with environmental laws. Data that the Agency has although not comprehensive paints a picture of noncompliance that is troubling. It is increasingly difficult and expensive, for businesses as well as the Agency, to ensure compliance by using individual site inspections, paper reporting, and other outdated tools and old approaches. EPA must start using 21st century electronic reporting (e-reporting), monitoring tools, and market-based approaches to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our limited resources in protecting human health and the environment and ensuring a level playing field for American businesses. Under this initiative in FY 2012, EPA will review compliance reporting requirements contained in existing rules to identify opportunities for conversion to a national electronic reporting format. As part of the process of developing new rules, EPA will identify opportunities to use objective self-monitoring, self-certification or third party certification, public accountability, advanced monitoring, and electronic reporting requirements. Electronic reporting replacing paper based reporting is likely to be a common feature of most new rules, although the appropriate approach and tools used for particular rules will vary. EPA also needs to use more modern monitoring technology (e.g., portable emission detectors, thermal imaging cameras, flow meters, and remote (e.g. fence line) monitoring equipment) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance monitoring program. Using modern monitoring tools will allow EPA and state inspectors to do more efficient and effective inspections and compliance verification. Modern monitoring will increase EPAs ability to detect violations across all programs and target enforcement resources towards the biggest problems. Maximizing the use of advanced data and monitoring tools will allow EPA to focus its limited inspection and enforcement resources in those areas where they are most effective or most necessary such as: complex industrial operations that require physical inspection, repeat violators, cases involving significant harm to human health or the environment, or potential criminal violations. In FY 2010, through its efforts in the core program and national initiatives, EPA achieved pollution reduction commitments totaling 1.5 billion pounds. In FY 2011-2013, the Agency will continue to focus on complex and challenging national pollution, problems including Clean Water Act wet weather discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) requirements and Air Toxics regulations, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations at mineral processing facilities, as well as assessing and addressing emerging problems in the energy extraction sector. Information on initiatives, regulatory requirements, enforcement alerts and
324
EPA results will be made available to the public and the regulated community on EPAs web sites.40 EPAs response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill will continue in FY 2012, as our civil enforcement resources provide primary support for the U.S. Department of Justices civil action against BP, Anadarko, and others responsible for the Deepwater Horizon incident. The Department of Justice filed its complaint on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal plaintiffs in December 2010, and EPA expects to be actively participating in this litigation, discovery, and response to court orders throughout FY 2012 and has requested additional resources to support this work. EPA will collaborate with states, tribes and communities to reduce air toxics pollution, especially pollution affecting vulnerable communities. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to support the air toxics initiative by targeting air monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities in communities. Through targeting air monitoring, inspections and enforcement activities the program will reduce toxic emissions for critical areas. EPAs RCRA Corrective Action enforcement program supports the goal set by the Agency and its state partners of attaining remedy construction at 95 percent of 3,747 RCRA facilities by the year 2020. In 2010, EPA issued the National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action to promote and communicate nationally consistent enforcement and compliance assurance principles, practices and tools to help achieve this goal. In FY 2012, EPA will continue targeted enforcement under this strategy and will work with its state partners to assess the contribution of enforcement in achieving the 2020 goal. The Civil Enforcement program encompasses the full range of environmental issues water, air, waste, and others - at federal sites as well. The Federal Facilities Enforcement program will continue to expeditiously pursue enforcement actions at Federal facilities where significant violations are discovered, with a specific focus expected on noncompliance with stormwater, underground storage tank, and RCRA waste requirements. The program will also continue its partnership in FedCenter, the federal facility environmental stewardship and compliance assistance center cosponsored by a dozen federal agencies. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires increased use of renewable fuels. In FY 2012, the Civil Enforcement program will help the regulated community understand their statutory obligations under the EISA; inspect renewable fuel production facilities; monitor compliance with renewable fuel requirements; monitor and enforce the credit trading program; and, undertake administrative and judicial enforcement actions against violators. Other base activities will continue in FY 2012, and reliable information on compliance and program performance remains critical. EPAs Civil Enforcement program will continue to rely heavily on the Integrated Compliance Information System to manage its compliance and enforcement activities by tracking the status of all civil judicial and administrative enforcement actions, as well as compliance and enforcement results.
40
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/index.html
325
The Civil Enforcement program also will support the Environmental Justice program by focusing enforcement actions on industries that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in communities that may be disproportionately exposed to risks and harm from the environment, including minority and/or low-income areas. EPA works to protect these and other burdened communities from adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs consistent with environmental and civil rights laws. Work under this program project supports the EPAs Priority Goal, addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix A). Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 480 million estimated pounds of air pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
480
410
480
480
Million Pounds
Measure Type
Measure
(402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 320 million estimated pounds of water pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
320
1,000
320
320
Million Pounds
Measure Type
Measure
(404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 3.8 million estimated pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
3.8
8.3
3.8
3.8
Million Pounds
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 6,500 million estimated pounds of
FY 2010 Target
6,500
FY 2010 Actual
11,800
FY 2011 CR Target
6,500
FY 2012 Target
6,500
Units
Million Pounds
326
Measure Type
Measure
hazardous waste through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(410) Initiate 3,900 civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
3,900
Units
Cases
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(411) Conclude 3,800 civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
3,800
Units
Cases
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$4,765.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-7.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$32,120.0/ +214.8 FTE) This increase reflects the Agencys efforts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating accounts and resources, redirecting 152.3 FTE from the Compliance Assistance and Centers program and 62.5 FTE from the Compliance Incentives program. The Agencys FY 2012 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget reflects changes in how the Agency will accomplish its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes, and the programs evolving role vis-a-vis the states. The additional resources include $29,232.0 associated payroll for 214.8 FTE. (+$2,000.0/ +13.3 FTE) This reflects an increase in the Civil Enforcement program to support Compliance Assistance and Incentives activities. The additional resources include $1,862.0 associated payroll. (-$1,106.0/ -7.9 FTE) This decrease reflects 7.4 FTE transferred to the Criminal Enforcement to accurately reflect the current legal support the regions are providing to the Criminal Enforcement program and 0.5 FTE to NEPA Implementation program to
327
review Environmental Impact Statements. associated payroll for 7.9 FTE.
The reduced resources include $1,106.0
(+$4,567.0/ +2.0 FTE) This increase supports the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative efforts to increase compliance with the nations environmental laws. The investment will modernize the Agencys approach to enforcement by ensuring new and existing rules require electronic reporting and revamping data systems to collect, synthesize and disseminate monitoring data, and deploying monitoring equipment to the field to increase support for the civil enforcement program. The additional resources include $280.0 associated payroll for 2.0 FTE (+$2,160.0/ +6.5 FTE) This increase supports the enforcement component of an Agencywide effort to reduce air toxics pollution within at-risk communities and around schools and other places where children may be exposed. These resources will be used to assess compliance with existing air toxics emission rules and pursue enforcement actions, as appropriate. The additional resources include $910.0 associated payroll for 6.5 FTE. (+$1,029.0/+3.2 FTE) This increase is provided for Deepwater Horizon litigation support, discovery management, and the continuing civil investigation against existing and potential additional defendants. This litigation support is not being provided by the Department of Justice. The additional resources include $448.0 associated payroll for 3.2 FTE. (-$76.0) This decrease will reduce litigation and case support for lower priority cases. (-$377.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$269.0) This decrease reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$45.0) This decrease reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to Information Security program. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPAUS/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; CERCLA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; PPA; UMTRLWA; EPAct.
328
Criminal Enforcement Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $49,043.2

$8,417.3 $57,460.5 284.3

$8,066.0 $57,703.0 291.8

$8,252.0 $59,597.0 296.1

$186.0 $1,894.0 4.3
$49,637.0
$8,066.0 $57,703.0 291.8
Program Project Description: EPAs Criminal Enforcement program investigates the most serious and complex environmental crimes committed by individual and corporate defendants. The program protects human health and the environment by providing federal, state and local prosecutors with the investigative, forensic and technical evidence needed to successfully prosecute violations of environmental statutes and associated violations of Title 18 of the United States Code such as fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Successful prosecutions deter other potential violators, eliminate the incentive for companies to pay to pollute, and help ensure that businesses that follow the rules do not face unfair competition from those that break the rules. Criminal enforcement also sends a strong deterrence message in communities where residents have suffered disproportionate pollution impacts, in part due to criminal actions. These efforts support environmental crimes prosecutions primarily by the Department of Justices Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys, but occasionally by state, tribal and local prosecutors. Special Agents (criminal investigators) evaluate leads; interview witnesses and suspects; and review documents and data from environmental, inspection, and other databases and files. Investigators remain involved during prosecutions, testifying in court, assisting in securing plea agreements, or planning sentencing conditions that will require defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop environmental management systems to enhance performance. EPA Special Agents also participate in task forces with other federal law enforcement agencies, as well as state and local law officials, and participate in specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA and other locations. These joint efforts and training help build state, local, and tribal environmental enforcement expertise, which enables them to protect their communities and offer valuable leads to EPAs program.41
41
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
329
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to identify and investigate cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impacts while balancing its overall case load across all pollution statutes. The program has completed its three year hiring strategy to increase the number of Special Agents to 200 by the end of FY 2010. The Criminal Enforcement program continues to tier significant cases based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury, human exposure, remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic pollutants, continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation, recidivist violator). The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination with the Civil Enforcement program to ensure that the EPA enforcement program as a whole responds to violations as effectively as possible. The Criminal Enforcement program will work with the Civil Enforcement program to identify national enforcement initiative cases and violations of national EPA priorities that would most effectively be addressed through criminal prosecution. This coordinated approach is accomplished by employing an effective regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate civil or criminal enforcement responses for a particular violation and by taking criminal enforcement actions against long-term or repeat significant non-compliers, where appropriate. Focusing on parallel proceedings and other mechanisms that allow the Agency to use the most appropriate tools to address environmental violations and crimes will also facilitate coordination. EPAs Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of federal laws and regulations, as balanced with the flexibility to respond to region-specific environmental problems. In FY 2012, criminal enforcement will continue to implement management oversight controls and national policies to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by evaluating all investigations from the national perspective, overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with program priorities, conducting regular docket reviews (detailed review of all open investigations in each EPA Regional office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement priorities, and by developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and revising policies and programs. In FY 2012, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS). Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used to systematically compile a profile of criminal cases, including the extent to which the cases support Agencywide, program-specific or regional enforcement priorities. The program also will seek to deter environmental crime by increasing the volume and quality of leads reported to EPA by the public through the tips and complaints link on EPAs website and continue to use the fugitive website42. The fugitive website enlists the public and law enforcement agencies to help apprehend defendants who have fled the country or are in hiding to avoid prosecution for alleged environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which they have been found guilty. Since the
42
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/
330
site was established in FY 2009, five fugitives have been captured, and two more surrendered to law enforcement authorities. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(418) Increase the percentage of criminal cases having the most significant health, environmental, and deterrence impacts to 43 percent.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
43
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(419) Maintain a 75 percent rate for criminal cases with individual defendants.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
75
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(420) Increase the percentage of criminal cases with charges filed to 40 percent.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
40
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(421) Maintain a 85 percent conviction rate for criminal defendants.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
85
Units
Percent
The four new criminal enforcement GPRA measures (cases with charges filed, criminal defendants convicted or pled guilty, percentage of cases with an individual defendant, and the percentage of cases with the most significant environmental, health and deterrent impacts) will be reported in the FY 2012 Annual Performance Report. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,610.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
331
(-5.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$1,036.0/ +7.4 FTE) This increase reflects a transfer from Civil Enforcement to Criminal Enforcement to accurately reflect the current legal support the regions are providing to the criminal enforcement program. The additional resources include $1,036.0 associated payroll for 7.4 FTE. (+$1,158.0/ +3.0 FTE) This increase in resources, which includes $526.0 associated payroll, support the Agencys efforts to address the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill litigation. This litigation support is not being provided by the Department of Justice. (-$1,597.0/ -1.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a reduced level of resources for the Criminal Enforcement program, which includes $168.0 associated payroll for 1.0 FTE. (-$96.0) The decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$403.0) This reflects a reduction in support for law enforcement telecommunications and IT capabilities. Statutory Authority: RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Powers of Environmental Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
332
Enforcement Training Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $3,220.0

$756.5 $3,976.5 18.4

$899.0 $4,177.0 20.8

$0.0 $0.0 0.0

($899.0) ($4,177.0) -20.8
$3,278.0
$899.0 $4,177.0 20.8
Program Project Description: EPA is required by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 to provide environmental compliance and enforcement training nationwide through the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI). The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized enforcement courses, through NETI43, that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry out the Agencys enforcement and compliance goals. Courses are provided to lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of government. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Enforcement Training program was consolidated into the Compliance Monitoring program which houses other training activities. NETI activities and associated resources were moved to the Compliance Monitoring program to serve as: 1) the central coordination point for training that is planned and conducted by EPA offices; 2) the grant management for cooperative agreements that provide training in the compliance and enforcement areas to state programs; 3) the Legal Intern program; and 4) the lead source in conducting webbased enforcement training. Performance Targets: Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,906.0/ -8.0 FTE) This reduction transfers the remaining Enforcement Training activities to the Compliance Monitoring program. The reduced resources include $1,056.0 associated payroll for 8.0 FTE.
43
For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
333
(-$1,372.0/ -7.6 FTE) This reduction streamlines NETI by reducing support for classroom training and increasing web-based training. The reduced resources include $1,103.0 associated payroll for 7.6 FTE. Statutory Authority: PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
334
Environmental Justice Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,567.4

$891.0 $10,458.4 32.6

$795.0 $7,885.0 32.9

$600.0 $7,997.0 32.2

($195.0) $112.0 -0.7
$7,090.0
$795.0 $7,885.0 32.9
Program Project Description: EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by communities disproportionately impacted by pollution and supporting community efforts to build healthy, sustainable green neighborhoods. The EPAs Environmental Justice (EJ) program facilitates EPA efforts to engage communities in key decision-making processes and to integrate environmental justice considerations in EPA programs, policies, and activities.44 The Agency conducts and supports work to open its doors to historically underrepresented groups, such as minority, low-income, and tribal populations. EPA also promotes the active engagement of community groups, other federal agencies, states, local governments and tribal governments to recognize, support, and advance environmental protection and public health for vulnerable communities. The EJ program provides financial and technical assistance to empower low income or minority communities to protect themselves from environmental harm. The EJ program partners with other Agency programs to create scientific analytical methods, a legal foundation, and public engagement practices that enable the incorporation of environmental justice considerations in EPAs regulatory and policy decisions. Finally, the EJ program supports Agency efforts to strengthen internal mechanisms to integrate environmental justice including communication, training, performance management, and accountability measures. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA will implement Environmental Justice activities consistent with the vision outlined in the Agencys FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. EPA will work to reduce exposures for those at greatest risk and ensure that environmental justice is integral to all Agency activities. The EJ program will work with Regional and program offices to implement the Agencys annual action plan for the Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy for Environmental Justice and Childrens Health. The EJ program also will continue to work with Regional and program offices to maintain an
44
For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html
335
inventory of successful efforts that track and report progress in achieving results in communities disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards. In FY 2012, EPAs EJ program will intensify its efforts to incorporate environmental justice considerations in the rulemaking process. An ongoing challenge for EPA has been to develop rules that implement existing statutory authority while working to reduce disproportionate pollutant burdens and cumulative impacts from multiple sources. In FY 2012, the EJ program will work with Regional and program offices to apply effective methods suitable for decisionmaking involving disproportionate environmental health impacts on minority, low-income, and tribal populations. As part of this effort, EPA is working on technical guidance to support the integration of environmental justice considerations in analysis that support EPAs actions. In FY 2012, EPAs EJ program will continue to lead the integration of environmental justice considerations into EPAs planning and performance measurement processes. The EJ program will continue to develop guidance that will support Agency efforts to identify disproportionately impacted minority, low income, and tribal populations, establish commitments to address them, and measure and report progress. In FY 2012, the EJ program will continue to enhance its capabilities of on-line tools to support the integration of environmental justice considerations into the daily work of the Agency. The EJ program will maintain EJView, a mapping and public access tool that enables public access to environmental, public health, demographic, EPA grant and other environmental justice project information. EJView will enable the public to examine environmental conditions in their communities, track progress of grant-funded initiatives to address environmental justice issues, and access other information about projects and issues of interest to their local communities. In FY 2012, the EPA EJ program will work with other federal agencies to continue building strong relationships with historically underrepresented communities. EPA will focus its efforts to ensure the integration of environmental justice principles in environmental decision-making. The EJ program will convene two full meetings of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), the Agencys Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee on environmental justice issues. These meetings will be augmented by meetings of issue-specific workgroups and public teleconferences. The NEJAC is an important vehicle for ensuring transparency and meaningful public involvement. Not only is the NEJAC charged with providing advice to EPA on broad policy issue areas, it will be called upon to organize community input regarding specific Agency actions such as the development of tools, monitoring plans and community-based initiatives. Finally, the EJ program will support the integration of environmental justice issues into the deliberations of other EPA FACA committees. In addition to planned FACA activities in FY 2012, the EJ program will work to promote the integration of environmental justice principles in the programs, policies and activities of other federal agencies. Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA will continue to convene the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Environmental Justice and will use this mechanism to provide and foster training and technical assistance to other federal agencies on the integration of environmental justice in their programs. Moreover, the EJ program will use the IWG to identify
336
collaborative opportunities to support the achievement of healthy and sustainable community goals. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to manage its Environmental Justice Small Grants program, which assists community-based organizations and other groups in developing solutions to local environmental issues. Since its inception in 1994, the EJ program has awarded nearly $38 million to more than 1,200 community-based organizations and other groups to support efforts to address local environmental and/or health issues. In FY 2012, the EJ program will continue to assist program offices and other environmental organizations and government agencies in the delivery of customized training to increase the capacity of their personnel to effectively address issues of environmental justice. This training includes both in-person presentations and online training. Specific topics will include but not be limited to environmental justice integration principles, incorporating environmental justice in regulatory analysis, and discussions of pertinent statutory authorities. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives that benefit disproportionately burdened minority, low-income, and tribal populations. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$151.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$5.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (-$36.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$7.0) This change reflects a modest increase in contracts and grants to support the Agencys Environmental Justice program. (+$206.0) This reflects a redirection from Superfund to EPM dollars (no net gain in program budget).
337
(-$26.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; NEPA; Pollution Prevention Act.
338
NEPA Implementation Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $18,313.4

$18,313.4 119.4

$18,258.0 117.7

$18,072.0 115.2

($186.0) -2.5
$18,258.0
$18,258.0 117.7
Program Project Description: As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the NEPA Implementation program reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) that evaluate the anticipated environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions. The review includes assessing options for avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts while making the comments available to the public and allowing for public input. The program manages the Agencys official filing activity for all federal EISs, in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council on Environmental Quality. The program also manages the review of Environmental Impact Assessments of non-governmental activities in Antarctica, in accordance with the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act (ASTCA). In addition, the program fosters cooperation with other federal agencies to ensure compliance with applicable environmental statutes, promotes better integration of pollution prevention and ecological risk assessment elements into their programs, and provides technical assistance in developing projects that prevent adverse environmental impacts. The program encourages other federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations into their decision making as they perform environmental analyses (both EISs and Environmental Assessments) under NEPA. The Agency targets high impact federal program areas, such as energy/transportationrelated projects and water resources projects. The program also develops agency policy and technical guidance on issues related to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and relevant Executive Orders (EOs).45 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies to streamline, modernize, and improve the NEPA process, by encouraging early involvement in the project scoping process; promoting methods and training for engaging federal, state, local and tribal partners to develop collaboration skills and successful collaborative agreements applicable to various stages of the
45
For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa
339
NEPA process; developing training for the public on NEPA requirements and effective public involvement; and integrating the NEPA process with environmental management systems. The program will continue to use the web-based NEPAssist environmental assessment tool, which assists federal, state, local agencies and tribes with their NEPA responsibilities. Work also will focus on a number of key areas such as reviewing and commenting on on-shore and off-shore liquid natural gas facilities, coal bed methane development and other energyrelated projects; nuclear power/hydro-power plant licensing/re-licensing; highway and airport expansion; military expansion in Guam; flood control and port development; and management of national forests and public lands. In FY 2012, EPA will continue work related to the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan, including the Cumulative Impact Assessment of Mountaintop Removal Valley Fill Mining operations. In addition, EPA will continue its successful collaboration efforts with federal land management agencies in the west to ensure the growing number of oil and natural gas development projects in that area do not cause significant adverse air quality impacts. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased EPAs involvement with other federal agencies (including scoping and collaboration efforts) on federal projects that required environmental review by EPA pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and NEPA. As of December 31, 2010, appropriate NEPA reviews have been completed on nearly all (99.7%) of EPAs ARRA projects/actions; EPA expects to be finished before FY 2012. The NEPA Implementation program also guides EPAs own compliance with NEPA, other applicable statutes and EOs and related environmental justice requirements. The NEPA program will continue to ensure environmental justice concerns are properly addressed in all actions where EPA must comply with NEPA. In FY 2012, at least 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment or EIS requirements are expected to result in no significant environmental impact. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the strategic objective to improve compliance under Goal 5. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$435.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$276.0/ -0.7 FTE) This change is a realignment of Mountain Top Mining resources under NEPA to Mountain Top Mining efforts in other programs. These resources are associated with Environmental Impact Statements for policies and approaches to Appalachian coal mining. These resources include $94.0 associated payroll for 0.7 FTE.
340
(+$67.0/ +0.5 FTE) This increase reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities to support the Agencys energy-related NEPA reviews. The additional resources include $67.0 associated payroll for 0.5 FTE. (-$55.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$284.0) This reflects a decrease in resources for NEPA related activities. (-$9.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (-$64.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; EO 12898.
341
Program Area: Geographic Programs
342
Great Lakes Restoration Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $430,818.2

$430,818.2 86.3

$475,000.0 83.1

$350,000.0 84.1

($125,000.0) 1.0
$475,000.0
$475,000.0 83.1
Program Project Description: To restore and protect this national treasure, the Obama Administration developed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Led by EPA, the GLRI invests in the regions environmental and public health through a coordinated interagency process. As outlined in the GLRI Action Plan46, this unprecedented program focuses on five major restoration priorities: (1) mitigating toxic substances and restoring Areas of Concern; (2) reducing the impact of invasive species; (3) improving near-shore health and reducing non-point source pollution; (4) improving habitat and reducing species loss; and (5) improving the information, engagement, and accountability in the program overall. The GLRI provides the level of investment and the interagency coordination required to successfully address these five issues across the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 20 percent of the worlds surface freshwater and accounting for 95 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States. The watershed includes 2 nations, 8 U.S. states, a Canadian province, more than 40 tribes, and more than one-tenth of the U.S. population. The goal of the Agencys Great Lakes Program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA leads the Interagency Task Force in the implementation of a FY 2010 to FY 2014 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan (Action Plan), avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts. Given todays fiscal constraints, such collaboration is even more critical in maintaining progress on environmental priorities. Pursuant to the Initiative, EPA works with its partners to select the best combination of programs and projects for Great Lakes protection and restoration, using principles and criteria such as: Ability to achieve strategic and measurable environmental outcomes;
46
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/ http://greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/glri_actionplan.pdf
343
Feasibility for prompt implementation, for achieving visible results soon, and the ability to leverage resources; and Opportunities for interagency/interorganizational coordination and collaboration. GLRI funds are used to strategically implement both federal projects and projects with states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Projects and activities pursuant to the Initiative will be at multiple scales (local, lake-wide, and basin-wide). (For EPA, this means that these funds will not be directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed under the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.) GLRI funds are distributed by the EPA and are meant to supplement base funding for federal agencies Great Lakes activities. The other principal agencies involved in the GLRI are: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD-Army), Department of Interior (DOI), and Department of Transportation (DOT). In addition to the GLRI, agencies have robust base Great Lakes programs that support ecosystem restoration. Funding will be distributed directly by EPA and through the transfer of funds to other federal agencies for subsequent use and distribution. Grants will generally be issued competitively. Agencies are expected to maintain their base level47 of Great Lakes activities and to identify new activities and projects that will support the Initiatives environmental outcomes. EPA uses adaptive management to make necessary Initiative program adjustments at appropriate times to maximize results. Priority-setting, coordination, and oversight are done through efforts of the Interagency Task Force. Transparency and accountability are priorities of the Initiative. EPA also will ensure appropriate coordination with Canada as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In its third year, the GLRI will support programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem through direct program implementation by EPA and Interagency Task Force members. This will be accomplished by issuing grants and other agreements to states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Guided by the GLRI Action Plan, agencies are shifting efforts for a stronger emphasis on implementation actions and results in the Initiatives focus areas. Programs and projects expected to be initiated in FY 2012 will be selected via a planning process conducted through the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. This process includes competitive grant programs to implement the Initiative by funding states, tribes, and other partners. Interagency Task Force members will issue requests for proposals as soon as possible so some grants could be undertaken during the 2012 field season. Key activities expected to advance environmental progress within each of the Initiatives focus areas are described below.
47
As a starting point for identifying their base, Agencies were asked to use the March 2008 OMB Great Lakes Restoration Crosscut Report to Congress.
344
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern: Persistent toxic substances, such as mercury and PCBs, are still present in the Great Lakes at levels that warrant fish consumption advisories in all five lakes. Thirty U.S. and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) remain degraded with an estimated 38.9 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments (as of September 2010). Ongoing sources of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes include releases from contaminated bottom sediments, industrial and municipal point sources; nonpoint sources including atmospheric deposition, agricultural and urban runoff, contaminated groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals within the lakes. Chemicals of emerging concern may pose ecosystem health threats and must be better understood with respect to their hazards and routes of exposure, so that effective responses can be implemented in a timely fashion.
Principal actions proposed to protect the Great Lakes from toxic substances, clean up contaminated sediments, and restore AOCs include: AOC Restoration. EPA will issue grants to states and other stakeholders to fund projects in the AOCs to restore beneficial use impairments (BUI) (26 BUIs out of a universe of 261 are expected to have been restored through FY 2012). Through the Great Lakes Legacy Act, three to five sediment remediation projects will commence and will be supplemented with
345
strategic navigational channel dredging by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), habitat enhancements by US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and Brownfield restoration and green infrastructure developments by the US Forest Service (USFS). FY 2012 funding of Legacy Act projects is expected over time to result in remediation of over 400 hundred thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediments and contribute to delisting of 1-2 AOCs.
Cumulative Volume of Sediment Remediated via the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program (As of January 2011)
2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 Volume (cubic yards) 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008 2009 2010 Calendar Year
2011
2012
Collections. EPA will assist states, tribes, and local governments in the removal of PCB ballasts from schools. EPA will report results of collections of e-waste and pharmaceutical waste in the Great Lakes basin. Human Health/Safe Fish Consumption. EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will continue to work with states and tribes to enhance and improve existing state/tribal fish consumption advisory programs. Long-term results are expected to include measurable declines in mercury blood levels. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). EPA will award contracts to support EPA and state efforts to develop and implement toxic TMDLs within the Great Lakes Basin. The TMDLs will define the extent of toxic contamination, including mercury, PCBs, dioxin and mirex throughout the basin. EPA will continue to support Michigan and New Yorks efforts to define the extent of mercury, PCB, dioxin, and/or mirex pollution, and its potential sources, in up to 200 impaired Great Lakes subwatersheds. Long-term results are expected to include TMDLs addressing up to 200 impaired watersheds, which identify pollutant loading capacities to guide pollutant reduction efforts in support of plans for restoring polluted watersheds.
346
Early Warning System to Detect New Toxic Threats. To inform management interventions in a timely fashion, federal agencies, including EPA, NOAA, USFWS, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the National Park Service (NPS) will continue to implement an early warning system to detect new toxic threats to the Great Lakes utilizing enhanced monitoring programs for Great Lakes fish, birds, mussels, and human biomonitoring, as well as sediments, tributary source loads, and air deposition studies. Agencies also will assess toxicant effects on food web dynamics and ecological health for key aquatic communities such as lake sturgeon and benthic invertebrates. Invasive Species.
Progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly undermined by the effects of non-native invasive species. Over 180 non-native species now exist in the Great Lakes. The most invasive of these propagate and spread, ultimately degrading habitat, out-competing native species, and short-circuiting food webs. New invasive species (such as the Asian Carp, which is poised to invade the system) can be introduced into the Great Lakes region through various pathways, including: commercial shipping, canals and waterways, trade of live organisms, and activities of recreational and resource users. The Great Lakes are the aquatic gateway to most of the interior United States. Once invasive species establish a foothold in the Great Lakes, they are virtually impossible to eradicate and have the potential to spread to much of the rest of the country; controlling species in the Great Lakes will slow or eliminate the spread to other regions. Thus, invasive species must be controlled to maintain the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and to reduce risk to the interior U.S. It is expected that in FY 2012 much of the necessary Asian carp work will be carried out through agencies base budgets. Principal actions proposed to prevent new introductions of non-native invasive species in the Great Lakes basin and stop the further spread of invasives within and out of the Great Lakes basin include:
347
Prevention. The Department of Transportations Maritime Administration (DOT-MARAD) the U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA will fund the further development of up to three ballast water treatment systems for use in freshwater ecosystems by supporting the use of laboratory, landbased, and ship-board testing and coordination with the maritime industry. Refinement of sampling methodologies for treated ballast water also will continue. USFWS will deploy portable boat washing units to limit the spread of invasive species by recreational boaters. Early Detection and Control. EPA and USFWS will continue the targeted implementation of monitoring surveys that will detect new invaders in Great Lakes locations and develop the case studies needed for the development of a basinwide early detection program. USFWS will support on-the-ground implementation of Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans for each Great Lake state, including three rapid response exercises/actions to demonstrate and test multi-agency response capabilities. USDA-National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) will work directly with agricultural producers to implement conservation practices that reduce terrestrial invasive species on approximately 800 acres. USFS will help municipalities and tribes anticipate and address the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) will advance sea lamprey control methods using pheromones and telemetry, ensuring that such implementation would not reduce existing sea lamprey control efforts. ACE will enhance the use of barriers to further reduce Sea Lamprey populations. Competitive grant funding from EPA will support agencies, local communities, and organizations actions to implement on-the-ground control efforts on approximately 1,800 additional acres in FY 2012, and enhance the development of new control technologies.
What is the Nearshore? The aquatic nearshore can be considered to begin at the shoreline and extend offshore to the depth at which the warm surface waters typically reach the bottom in early fall, generally 20m - 30m deep, and terrestrial nearshore areas range from narrow beaches to inland features influenced by Great Lakes processes.
348
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution. Great Lakes nearshore water quality has become degraded, as evidenced by eutrophication resulting from excessive nutrients; harmful algal blooms; the green algae Cladophora washing ashore to make unsightly, odiferous rotting mats on beaches; outbreaks of avian botulism; and advisories at swimming beaches. The environmental stressors causing these problems include excessive nutrient loadings from both point and nonpoint sources; bacteria and other pathogens responsible for beach closures and outbreaks of botulism; shoreline development and hardening, which disrupt habitat and alter nutrient and contaminant runoff; and agricultural practices that increase nutrient and sediment loadings. Nonpoint sources are now the primary contributors of many pollutants, but control strategies to date have been inadequate to deliver the degree of stream and lake restoration necessary for the protection and maintenance of the Great Lakes. However, implementation of agricultural or other watershed best management practices can have multiple benefits, including simultaneous reductions in runoff of soils, nutrients, and pesticides. Principal actions proposed to reduce nonpoint source pollution to levels that do not impair nearshore Great Lakes waters, and to restore and preserve the health of Great Lakes nearshore areas, include: Identify and Remediate Sources of Impairments to Nearshore Waters. To contribute to the reduction or elimination of the number and severity of incidences of ecosystem disruptions, including Cladophera growth, harmful algal blooms (HABs), botulism, and other issues associated with eutrophication, NRCS, USFS, USACE, National Park Service (NPS), USGS, NOAA, and EPA will collaborate to: understand linkages between nearshore impairments and their causal agents; enhance or implement practices to reduce the causal agents, including the export of nutrients and soils to the nearshore waters; establish and implement total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for phosphorus and other non-toxic pollutants; and evaluate tributary transport of sediments and nutrients. Improve Public Health Protection at Beaches. To assist local health officials in better protecting beach-goers, NOAA, USGS, and EPA will collaborate with state, local and tribal governments to: remediate identified sources of pollution or bacteria at beaches; increase the effectiveness of monitoring for pathogens; model environmental conditions likely to result in elevated levels of bacteria; and enhance communications to the public about daily swimming conditions. Place-Based Watershed Restoration. NRCS, USFS, USACE, NPS, and EPA, in close collaboration with state programs, will address high priority watersheds, including Fox River, Saginaw River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and the Genessee River, to: strategically target where on-the-ground actions can be most effective; provide supplemental funding to enhance existing conservation programs and management procedures; implement actions to control nonpoint source runoff, erosion and sedimentation or to otherwise improve conditions on a watershed scale; protect forest ecosystem services; and foster green infrastructure projects, especially for stormwater management.
349
Generate Critical Information for Protecting Nearshore Health. EPA, NPS, USFS, USGS, and NOAA will collaborate to: assess the status and trends of nearshore water conditions, tributaries and groundwater; implement indicators of land use change, agricultural lands, and aquatic nearshore conditions; identify endpoints or interim target levels that reflect watershed stressors; facilitate green operation of marinas and evaluate potential contributions to nearshore impairments; and develop education and outreach programs to increase awareness and understanding of various Great Lakes issues.
Habitat and Wildlife. A multitude of threats affect the health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife. Habitat destruction and degradation due to development; competition from invasive species; the alteration of natural lake level fluctuations and flow regimes from dams and other control structures; toxic compounds from urban development, poor land management practices and non-point sources; and, habitat fragmentation have impacted habitat and wildlife. This has led to an altered food web, a loss of biodiversity, and poorly functioning ecosystems. The principal actions proposed to protect and restore Great Lakes habitat and wildlife include: Protecting and Restoring Native Species and Habitats. Agencies will share data and management priorities as well as implement protection and restoration actions to enhance native species and habitats. Federal agencies (USACE, Bureau of Indian Affairs--BIA, EPA, Federal Highway Administration-FHWA, FWS, GLFC, NOAA, NPS, NRCS, USFS, USGS,
350
USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-APHIS) will continue to implement projects directly and through grants and other agreements to reduce sedimentation and nutrient inputs, restore natural hydrological regimes, improve water quality, and protect and restore habitats including Great Lakes islands, beaches, sand dunes, and other coastal and upland habitats. Long term results will include restoration and protection of 7,500 acres of wetlands and associated uplands and coastal, upland, and island habitats; improved ecosystem processes and functions; and, enhanced critical habitat for native species. Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Resiliency. USFS, FWS, USGS, USACE, and NPS will begin implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to remove large woody debris in floodplains and streams, replace barrier culverts to restore fish passage and stream/river connectivity, and restore forested edges in riparian areas. Long term results will include benefits to populations of keystone species such as lake sturgeon, brook trout and migratory birds; removal of 50 fish passage barriers; and restoration of 500 stream miles for fish passage and stabilization of stream banks. Managing Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. FWS, USFS, and USGS will begin implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to benefit rare, threatened and endangered Great Lakes species, focusing on actions identified in species recovery and management plans. Long term results are expected to include progress toward restoration of populations of targeted species and fisheries. BIA will issue grants and partnership agreements to tribal organizations for projects to protect and restore tribal wetlands and culturally significant species such as wild rice. Tracking Progress on Coastal Wetlands Restoration. EPA, with partners, will collect data for birds, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, plants, wetland extent and type, and water chemistry in 20 percent of US coastal wetlands and provide summary information to decision makers as part of a second year of coastal wetland monitoring. A cooperative agreement with a consortium of 12 universities, states, and agencies is producing the first comprehensive baseline of the health of U.S. Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships. Oversight and coordination are critical to the success of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as are a comprehensive and efficient accountability system and establishment of well-defined metrics to track progress. Also critical are activities to fill gaps in baselines, measure and monitor key indicators of ecosystem function, evaluate restoration progress, and provide decision makers with the information they need. This information needs to be based on best available science, and compiled and communicated. Outreach, education, and partnerships are also crucial in the effort to restore the Great Lakes. All of these elements are needed for informed decisions and wise investments for results. Principal efforts in order to enhance information for decision making include: Implement Great Lakes Restoration Accountability System. EPA will implement and refine the transparency and accountability system for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, including easy access to information and linkages to planning, budgeting, grant offering, and results.
351
Implement Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). With and through the LaMPs, partner agencies will implement LaMP programs and projects, using public forums to assist with the transfer and dissemination of information. Measure and Evaluate the Health of the Great Lakes Ecosystem using the Best Available Science. Through direct program implementation, grants and other agreements, federal agencies will enhance existing programs that measure and assess the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes, including the connecting channels. EPA in coordination with other federal and state agencies will establish and implement a statistically valid assessment, using a probability-based design, of Great Lakes water resources, including the nearshore environment that coincides with intensive coordinated science and monitoring efforts for the lakes. EPA and USGS will continue to advance development and implementation of science-based indicators to better assess and provide a better measure of accountability of actions to improve the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA will continue to implement the Coordinated Science and Monitoring Initiative with Environment Canada to address lake-specific science and monitoring needs in Lake Huron in 2012, followed by Lakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan, and Superior in consecutive years. EPA and USGS will take steps to improve infrastructure for uniform data quality management and real time information access. NOAA, USEPA, USGS, USFWS, NPS, and DOT will implement a coordinated interagency approach for increasing ecosystem resiliency pertaining to climate change impacts. NOAA, USGS, and EPA will also work closely together to enhance ecosystem and watershed predictive capabilities providing the necessary link between science and management. Support Great Lakes Restoration Education. EPA and NOAA will support Great Lakes education and outreach, including the incorporation of Great Lakes protection and stewardship criteria into education curricula. EPA and NOAA will foster additional engagement and communication of stewardship principles. Support Partnerships. EPA will lead and support coordination and collaboration among Great Lakes partners to ensure that Initiative actions, projects, and programs are efficient, effective, and supportive of the US- Canada GLWQA. The Department of State will support the GLWQA through binational studies on cooperative efforts with Canadian partners on issues of binational importance. Partnerships will be advanced and resources and capabilities leveraged through existing collaborative efforts such as the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and its Regional Working Group, the US-Canada Binational Executive Committee, the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, the US-Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Lakewide Management Plans, the Coordinated Science Monitoring Initiative and Great Lakes Fisheries management. EPA has led the Interagency Task Force in development of provisional funding allocations for member agencies. Final funding allocations will be informed by experience with FY 2010 and FY 2011 funding and the need for adjustments to Great Lakes priorities. One factor in the need for adjustments will be the extent to which the priority of keeping Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes has been incorporated in agency base budgets. EPA, following consultation with members
352
of the Interagency Task Force, will select the programs and projects for funding. Provisional allocations for the respective focus areas are:
Summary of Proposed FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012 Provisional Allocations by Focus Areas (Dollars in Thousands) Focus Area
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern Invasive Species Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Communication, and Partnerships Evaluation,
FY10 $146,946 $60,265 $97,331 $105,262 $65,196 $475,000
FY11 $101,364 $43,303 $54,402 $60,377 $40,554 $300,000
FY12 $117,000 $56,000 $72,000 $70,000 $35,000 $350,000

(626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
AOCs
Measure Type
Measure
(629) Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
10
Number Responses/Plans
Measure Type
Measure
(635) Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
15,000
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
15,000
20,000
Acres
353
Measure Type
Measure
(433) Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic systems (using a 40point scale.)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
No Target Established
23.4
23.9
Scale
Measure Type
Measure
(606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
8
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
6.3
7.3
8.7
Cubic Yards (million)
Measure Type
Measure
(620) Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
10
43
37
40
Percent Decline
Measure Type
Measure
(625) Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
26
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
20
12
31
BUIs Removed
Measure Type
Measure
(630) Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
0
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
0.5
Average Loadings
354
Measure Type
Measure
from tributaries draining targeted watersheds.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
200
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
200
FY 2012 Target
200
Units
Dollars/Cubic Yard
(623) Cost per cubic yard of contaminated Efficiency sediments remediated (cumulative).
Measure Type
Measure
(637) Percent of days of the beach season that the Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
94
Percent Days
Measure Type
Measure
(627) Number of nonnative invasive species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
1.0
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
1.1
1.0
Number of Species
Measure Type
Measure
(628) Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
1,500
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
1,000
2,600
Number of Acres
355
Measure Type
Measure
(632) Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
2% increase
2% increase
8% increase
Percent (Acres)
Measure Type
Measure
(633) Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and non-endangered species self-sustaining in the wild (cumulative.)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
33%; 48/147
33%; 48/147
35%; 51/147
Number of Species
Measure Type
Measure
(634) Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
5,000
5,000
7,500
Acres
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(636) Number of species delisted due to recovery.
FY 2010 Target
0
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
0
FY 2012 Target
1
Units
Species
EPA will track and report on progress under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan through annual reporting on the 28 measures in the Action Plan. EPA also will report on the following subset of those measures, including reporting progress in each of the focus areas of the Initiative, through the federal planning and budget process. Much has been accomplished under the GLRI since the targets were set, including issuing Interagency Agreements with all key federal agencies; addressing the Asian Carp emergency in the Great Lakes; issuing and starting numerous projects; and issuing a Request for Proposals by which over $160 million in grants were selected. GLRI Action Plan targets were ambitious, yet
356
achievable. However, reaching the GLRI Action Plan targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 is dependent upon many moving pieces falling into place. There have been several contributing factors to delays in hitting Action Plan targets, including applicants for Legacy Act projects have not secured the matching funds required by statute, so fewer new Legacy Act projects commenced than anticipated; However, EPA is working to address these challenges. To accelerate AOC remediation, EPA will work to generate match funding from industry. EPA will continue to coordinate with Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs to explore betterment opportunities, and to seek to dovetail regulatory and enforcement actions with Legacy Act projects. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$143.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$124,760.0) Decreased funding allows EPA and partner agencies to address the most important Great Lakes priorities in difficult economic times; however, there will be impacts to each of the GLRI Focus Areas. Funding will be targeted to minimize the impact of the reduction to on-the-ground and in-the-water actions, such as restoration of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern, including Great Lakes Legacy Act projects; nearshore work and habitat restoration in support of delistings of AOCs; and development and implementation of ballast water treatment and other efforts to prevent invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. (+1.0 FTE) The FTE increase will support management and oversight of grants and contracts necessary for implementation of the program. (-$97.0) This reflects a reduction in travel. Statutory Authority: 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great Lakes Legacy Act); CWA; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; USCanada Agreements; WRDA; 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 GLWQA; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy. EPA is again proposing the statutory language pertaining to administrative provisions which was included in the FY 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Among other things, the language would give EPA independent statutory interagency agreement authority and implementing grant authority in support of the Initiative and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and additional sediment remediation authority. Continuation of this authority is important to the success of the Initiative. Agencies are expected to use numerous other statutory authorities, intrinsic to their programs, in support of the Initiative.
357
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $53,192.7

$53,192.7 42.3

$50,000.0 48.9

$67,350.0 51.5

$17,350.0 2.6
$50,000.0
$50,000.0 48.9
Program Project Description: In May 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13508 to focus work to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The purpose of the Executive Order is to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the nations largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed. It also declared the Bay a national treasure while simultaneously acknowledging that the past 25 years had not seen sufficient progress in restoring the health of the Bay and its watershed. The Executive Order also tasked a team of federal agencies to draft a way forward for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake watershed. This teamthe Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bayis chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior representatives from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation. The FLC developed the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which was released in May 2010. The Strategy is organized around four Goal Areas of work: 1) Restore Water Quality; 2) Restore Habitat; 3) Sustain Fish and Wildlife; and 4) Conserve Land and Increase Public Access, as well as four Supporting Strategies: 1) Expand citizen stewardship; 2) Develop environmental markets; 3) Respond to climate change; and 4) Strengthen science. The goals laid out in the Strategy represent objectives to be accomplished through 2025 by the federal government, working closely with state, local, and nongovernmental partners. The Administration is committed to implementing the Strategy and restoring this magnificent ecosystem. Actions for which EPA is primarily responsible under the EO strategy include, but are not limited to: Providing expectations for and directing the development of watershed implementation plans by the six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia (D.C.);
358
Establishing evaluation protocols for the watershed implementation plans for achieving loading reduction targets under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to achieve progress toward water quality goals; Maintaining a Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for the Bay watershed placing a stronger emphasis on compliance with existing laws; Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to the Chesapeake Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, new or expanding sources of nutrient and/or sediment, and other pollutant sources as EPA deems necessary; Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to accelerate the adoption of conservation practices by agricultural interests in the Bay watershed; and Working with federal partners to expand the understanding of the toxic contaminant problem in the Bay and its watershed and developing contaminant reduction outcomes and strategies. In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council pledged to put in place by 2025 all practices necessary to restore the Bays water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and chlorophyll. Part of this new strategy to accelerate the pace of Bay restoration and become more accountable included the setting of specific two-year milestones for each jurisdiction to reduce pollution to the Bay and its rivers. These milestones will contain contingencies and be subject to ongoing EPA oversight and backstopping actions where they fall short. On December 29, 2009, EPA sent a letter to the Chesapeake Bay states that outlined the details of a new accountability framework and the potential federal actions for inadequate plans or failure to meet the performance milestones established. The federal actions letter48 noted that EPA may exercise its discretionary authority to take any or all of the following actions as necessary: Expand the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to currently unregulated sources; Object to NPDES permits and increase program oversight; Require net improvement offsets; Establish finer scale wasteload and load allocations in the Bay TMDL; Require additional reductions of loadings from point sources; Increase and target federal enforcement and compliance assurance in the watershed;
48
For additional information, please see http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/bay_letter_1209.pdf
359
Condition or redirect EPA grants based on demonstrated progress; and Promulgate local nutrient water quality standards. On December 29, 2010, EPA established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a historic and comprehensive pollution diet with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweeping actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and the regions streams, creeks and rivers. The TMDL is required under federal law and responds to consent decrees in Virginia and Washington D.C. dating back to the late 1990s. It is also a keystone commitment of the EO strategy. The TMDL the largest ever developed by EPA includes pollution limits to meet water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal rivers. The TMDL is designed to ensure that all pollution control measures to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with 60 percent of the actions completed by 2017. The TMDL is supported by rigorous accountability measures to ensure cleanup commitments are met, including short-and long-term benchmarks, a tracking and accounting system for jurisdiction activities, and federal contingency actions that can be employed if necessary to spur progress. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA is requesting $67.3 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) which includes work under Executive Order 13508. Work under EO 13508 can be categorized according to the Goal Areas and Supporting Strategies identified in the EO Strategy. Most of EPAs direct efforts center around the first goal and more detail is provided in the subsequent narratives. 1. Restore Clean Water: EPA implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to meet water quality standards; EPA funding of Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program and Implementation Grants; EPA, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research and partnerships to address toxic pollutant contamination in the Bay; and EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) partnership to develop suites of conservation practices to improve water quality and targeting of technical and financial assistance in high-priority watersheds. 2. Recover Habitat: EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation
360
Service (NRCS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) work to strengthen science support for habitat restoration; USFWS, NOAA, USGS; NRCS, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and National Park Service (NPS) partnership to restore and enhance wetlands and to conduct supporting research; USDA, USFS, and USFWS partnership to restore riparian forest buffers; and USFWS, NOAA, and NRCS work to restore historical fish migratory routes. 3. Sustain Fish and Wildlife: NOAA and USACE work to restore native oyster habitat and populations; NOAA work to rebuild the blue crab population target; USFWS, USFS, and NOAA work to restore brook trout, black duck, and other species; and NOAA, USACE, USFWS, USGS, states, and local organizations partners to strengthen science support to sustain fish and wildlife. 4. Conserve Land and Increase Public Access: DOI, USDA, NOAA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), states, and local agencies collaboration on the launch of a Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative; NPS, USFWS, USDA, NOAA, USGS, DOT, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) work on coordinated conservation actions; and Watershed-wide GIS-based land conservation targeting system. The schedule for this work will be established in annual action plans released by the FLC, the first of which was released in September 2010. The success of this work will be documented in annual progress reports released by the FLC, the first of which will be released in early 2012. EO 13508 requires publication of the annual action plans and progress reports by the FLC. Highlights of EPAs Actions to Restore Clean Water EPAs focus in FY 2012 will be to continue to improve the rate of progress in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by meeting the Presidents expectations as described in EO 13508, using the Agencys existing statutory authority, implementing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, developing
361
more rigorous regulations, providing states with the tools necessary for effective regulatory implementation, creating better tools for scientific analysis and accountability, and supporting regulatory compliance and enforcement. The requested FY 2012 funding will allow EPA to continue to provide state implementation and enforcement grants worth a total of $25.3 million and to implement key initiatives under EO 13508, including: updating the TMDL and Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as envisioned in Phase II; implementing the TMDL; assisting states in their Phase II watershed plans and conducting evaluations of them for reasonable assurance; maintaining enhanced oversight of state permitting and compliance actions for the various sectors; developing new regulations for animal feeding operations and stormwater discharges; developing a publicly accessible TMDL tracking and accountability system; deploying technology to integrate discrete Bay data systems and to present the data in an accessible accountability system called ChesapeakeStat; implementing a Bay-specific enforcement and compliance initiative; and moving forward on the Bays challenges related to toxic contaminants. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership is using independent program performance evaluation to critically review components of the CBP and support enhanced adaptive management efforts. EPA also will join the states in establishing two-year milestones for the outcomes outlined in the EO strategy. The first set of two-year milestones is expected to be released in FY 2012. A centerpiece of EPAs FY 2012 activities is the implementation of the nations largest and most complex TMDL for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. A TMDL is essentially a plan that defines how much of a particular pollutant may be discharged into a particular waterbody while allowing the waterbody to meet its water quality standards and designated uses. EPA released the final TMDL in December 2010. Prior to that release, the Bay jurisdictions developed WIPs that included specific timelines for enhancing programs and implementing actions to reduce pollution, with all measures needed to reach the TMDL pollution load limits in place no later than 2025. In FY 2011 and FY 2012, the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions will be expected to develop and implement second-generation WIPs that define how the jurisdictions TMDL allocations will be achieved, in part, through local efforts. EPA expects that by 2017, pollution controls will be in place that should result in approximately 60 percent of the required reductions. To support the TMDL, EPA will develop and initiate a tracking and accountability system to ensure that the Bay jurisdictions are effectively implementing the TMDL. EPA will support an increase of 35 sampling sites in the Chesapeake Bay Program's nontidal water-quality monitoring network to better track TMDL progress. The sampling sites will provide better measurements of nutrient and sediment load changes for major sources of pollution in more localities. EPA will invest in bringing more non-traditional monitoring partners, including watershed organizations, permittees, and local governments - into the monitoring network, increasing the data available to assess stream and Bay health and responses to management actions. In FY 2012, EPA will use its technical and scientific analysis capabilities to provide implementation support and guidance to the states and thousands of local governments that will
362
be instrumental in meeting the TMDLs allocations. EPA will assist the jurisdictions in making scientifically informed determinations of the most effective ways to meet their TMDL obligations that will provide individually tailored solutions. Also, EPA is conducting assessments of state developed offset and trading programs to ensure that they meet the expectations for such programs expressed in the TMDL. The refinement and implementation of this program will continue in FY 2012 to aid in identifying cost-effective solutions for meeting the TMDL waste load and load allocations throughout the watershed. EPAs Air and Radiation program will work with Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to analyze whether additional reductions are needed to meet the air deposition load allocations. In FY 2012, EPA also will continue the development and implementation of new regulations to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will continue work on rulemakings under the Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in the Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater discharges from new and redeveloped properties, new or expanded discharges, and other pollutant discharges as necessary. EPA will use its resources to develop the scientific underpinnings of the new regulations, which likely will include enhanced understanding of the loads contributed by various pollution sources in specific geographies. EPAs Air and Radiation program is developing three rules that could affect ambient air levels of NOx and, therefore, the deposition of nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay: 1) a replacement rule for the court-remanded Clean Air Interstate Rule; 2) the reconsideration of the ozone standard that was promulgated in 2008; and 3) a secondary standard for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. EPA will continue to support implementation of environmental market mechanisms as a means of achieving the goals of the TMDL. Environmental market approaches show promise for encouraging innovation and investment in conservation, improving accountability, reducing costs of restoration, expanding opportunities for landowners, and creating new private incentives for conservation and restoration. The basic premise of an environmental market is that an entity that needs to reduce its effects on the environment can purchase credits to offset an equivalent or greater amount of environmental improvement. The Bay TMDL establishes the expectation that the Bay jurisdictions will expand or establish nutrient credit trading and offset programs to allow development while continuing to reduce pollutant loads to the Bay and its tributaries. EPA also is participating in the federal Environmental Markets Team, which includes more than 12 agencies working together to foster the expansion of water quality trading and other environmental markets. To ensure that the states are able to meet EPAs expectations under the TMDL and new rulemakings, EPA will continue and, in some cases, expand its broad range of grant programs. EPA will direct investments toward key local governments and watershed organizations based on their ability to reduce nutrient and sediment loads via key sectors such as development and agriculture in urban and rural areas. Most significantly, EPA will increase funding for state implementation and enforcement from $20.3 million to $25.3 million, including $5 million for implementation of the jurisdictions WIPs. This additional funding will be targeted toward supporting activities at the local level to implement the WIPs. EPA has developed new guidance for implementation grants that ensures a high level of accountability for the use of these
363
resources. These grants are an essential part of achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. EPAs Chesapeake Bay Program has established a high level of accountability and transparency. The next step in meeting that commitment to program partners and stakeholders is the development of the Chesapeake Registry and ChesapeakeStat. The Chesapeake Registry gathers project and resource information from all Bay partners, including non-governmental organizations, to track partner actions with current and expected progress against explicit environmental measures and outcomes (i.e., restored water quality, aquatic habitat and fisheries, healthy watersheds, and fostered stewardship). In FY 2012, EPA will work with key partners to integrate their existing internal partner performance management data systems and refine the Chesapeake Registry to better support state and federal implementation efforts. ChesapeakeStat is a key element in the next generation of tools EPA is developing to significantly enhance the accountability of program partners. ChesapeakeStat is a web based, geo-enabled tool for performance-based interactive decision-making for all Bay partners. The system allows the public to track progress and become informed and engaged in restoring the Bay. A key feature of ChesapeakeStat is the ability to target resources and activities to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used most effectively. ChesapeakeStat provides an interface for existing discrete systems and a newly deployed enterprise data engine for the Chesapeake Bay. In FY 2012, the Agency continue refining and improving ChesapeakeStat. Ensuring that the regulated community complies with the appropriate regulations is an essential responsibility for achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. In FY 2012, the continued implementation of the Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for the Bay Watershed will target sources of pollution impairing the Bay. EPAs multi-year, multi-state strategy combines the agencys water, air and waste enforcement authorities to address violations of federal environmental laws resulting in nutrient, sediment and other pollution in the Bay. More specifically, EPAs compliance and enforcement actions will be focused on the following areas: Identify and address industrial, municipal, and agricultural sources releasing significant amounts of pollutants in excess of the amounts allowed by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other applicable environmental laws; Identify nutrient and sediment impaired sub-watersheds; Identify key regulated business sectors that, when in non-compliance with current applicable environmental regulations, contribute significant amounts of nutrients, sediment and other pollutants to the Bay. The key regulated sectors, some of which are also National Enforcement Initiatives for EPA, are: o Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), o Municipal and industrial wastewater facilities,
364
o Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point sources including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) and stormwater discharges from construction sites and other regulated industrial facilities, and o Air deposition sources of nitrogen regulated under the CAA, including power plants; Analyze the compliance records for facilities in the key regulated business sectors to target investigations and inspections; Investigate and inspect facilities in the key regulated business sectors and pursue appropriate enforcement actions to ensure compliance; and Identify appropriate opportunities for compliance and enforcement activities related to the CWA wetlands protection program, federal facilities, and Superfund sites, including remedial action and removal sites, and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facilities. In addition, enforcement resources will support the Agencys priority to restore the Chesapeake Bay by providing information about wet weather sources of pollution. This will result in an increase in knowledge, use, transparency, and public access to data about wet weather sources through: a) building an electronic reporting module for getting non-major permit data into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES to pilot with states in the Chesapeake Bay; b) building and deploying targeted tools to help identify the most significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants most responsible for the impairment of this important water body; and c) making all non-enforcement confidential data available, with easyto-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use and understand the data. Work under this program project supports the Agencys High Priority Performance Goal (Priority Goal), addressing Chesapeake Bay water quality. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. For a detailed description of the EPAs Priority Goals (implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit Performance.gov. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(cb6) Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Percent Goal Achieved
365
Measure Type
Measure
(cb7) Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Measure Type
Measure
(cb8) Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(233) Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of agricultural best Efficiency management practice implementation per million dollars to implement agricultural BMPs.
48,134
n/a
48,134
49,660
Pounds/$M
For FY 2012, EPA, along with the other agencies involved in responding to the Presidents Executive Order, will be working toward the 12 outcomes articulated in the EO strategy document. These outcomes relate to the specific actions identified in strategy. Shorter-term goals are identified in the annual EO action plan and will be refined in the federal two-year milestones to be released in 2012.
366
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$5,000.0) This reflects an increase to provide the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions with additional funding to implement their watershed implementation plans (WIP). This funding will allow the Bay jurisdictions to work more closely with their local governments to identify and implement actions necessary to meet the nutrient and sediment reductions required under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. This should allow the jurisdictions to meet the schedules identified in their WIPs and their two-year milestones. (+$10,747.0) This reflects an increase to implement the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Presidents Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay, enhance state nonpoint source programs and EPA Executive Order enforcement activities, and support innovative nutrient and sediment removal projects. These activities include a range of reporting and accountability initiatives, such as expanding the Chesapeake Bay monitoring network, further development of ChesapeakeStat, continued development of the Bay Tracking and Accountability System, and implementation of an enforcement and compliance assistance strategy designed specifically for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This funding will also support EPA efforts under the Presidents Executive Order, including working with dischargers to the Chesapeake Bay, including federal facilities and agricultural interests, to reduce their pollutant discharges to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. (+$50.0) This increase reflects additional travel to localities for WIP support. (-$580.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas. (+$2,133.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+5.0 FTE) This change reflects a conversion of non-payroll funding into FTE to support technical and legal expertise. (-2.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 26 et seq. Sections 1267 and 1313. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 85 et seq.
367
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $10,087.1

$10,087.1 1.9

$7,000.0 2.5

$4,847.0 2.3

($2,153.0) -0.2
$7,000.0
$7,000.0 2.5
Program Project Description: The development of the Interim Federal Action Plan (Interim Plan) for the California BayDelta in December 2009 signaled the federal governments intent to protect and restore this critically important ecosystem one that provides water to 25 million residents, sustains one of the most productive agricultural sectors in the country, and until recently supported a commercial and recreational fishing industry that normally contributed hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the California economy. The Interim Plan contained four cross-cutting federal priorities: 1) work in closer partnership with the State of California and local authorities to ensure smarter water use and restore healthy ecosystems; 2) encourage smarter supply and use of Bay-Delta water; 3) work in a focused and expedited manner to address the degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem; and 4) help deliver drought relief services and ensure integrated Bay-Delta flood risk management. Improving water supply reliability and conservation of threatened and listed species remains a focal point of emphasis. The federal government is participating in the development of the BayDelta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a primary feature of federal and state collaboration on water supply and conservation. In addition, over the past two years, the Obama Administration has recognized that despite the careful planning for the BDCP, more immediate actions need to be taken in order to address the California water crisis. The Department of the Interior (Interior), for example, has invested over $500 million dollars in major projects to improve Californias water infrastructure, including the construction of the Delta Mendota Intertie, the Red Bluff Diversion Facility, Contra Costa fish screen, a large number of water reuse and water conservation projects, and the safety of improvements at Folsom Dam. Further, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have undertaken a number of other activities to restore habitat, increase direct drought relief assistance for agricultural producers, and improve water quality. For example: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funded projects to diversify wildlife refuge water supplies including a pilot project for several wildlife areas that are
368
expected to yield over nine thousand acre-feet of water per year. Construction on these three projects is scheduled to be completed in summer 2011; In 2010, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed a $10 million special Environmental Quality Incentives Program Drought Initiative to allow San Joaquin Valley agricultural producers the opportunity to fallow severely eroded fields, rehabilitate springs for stock water, and undertake other critically needed conservation measures; In an effort to assess the effectiveness of current water quality regulation in the Bay-Delta and its tributaries, EPA will soon issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will focus on water quality impacts to Bay-Delta aquatic life from pollutants such as ammonia, selenium, pesticides, emerging contaminants and water quality factors (such as salinity and temperature) that restrict estuarine habitat and migratory areas; and The Administration also plans to continue, as needed, water augmentation activities developed in FY 2010 to provide increased assurance of available water supply from the Central Valley Project (CVP).
The Department of the Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality co-chair the Federal Leadership Committee for the Bay-Delta. Other member agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, the Army (Civil Works), and EPA. Each of these Departments and their agencies are responsible for commitments under the Interim Federal Action Plan. EPA has a diverse and active history of working with state, federal and other stakeholders throughout the entire estuary to protect water quality and ecosystem health. Program priorities49 include: Participation in federal and state partnerships aimed at resolving the challenges of water quality, ecosystem health and water supplies; Water quality improvements through Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Nonpoint Source Program, watershed plans and upgrading aging infrastructure; Support for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (National Estuary Program) and the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP); Protection and restoration of streams and wetlands and the reuse of dredge material; and
49
For more additional information on program activities see: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/strategic_plan/ http://resources.ca.gov/bdcp/, http://deltavision.ca.gov/, http://sfep.abag.ca.gov/ https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=838e0a426684b0feb8abf6b8e60cb326
369
Predicting, mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts on water quality. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary program will focus on the following activities, which support Goal 3 of the Interim Federal Action Plan Addressing the Degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem: Provide scientific support for Bay-Delta restoration to improve the understanding of : o The causes of decline and methods for reversing the decline of pelagic organisms in the Delta; o Restoring the health of the San Joaquin River (San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Public Law 111-11); and o Pesticide and mercury pollutant loading. Participate in a state/federal partnership to balance the competing water needs between agriculture, urban uses and the environment, especially the Agency commitments in the Interim Federal Action Plan of December 2009; Increase effectiveness of regulatory programs to restore water quality and to protect wetlands and streams following up on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to Bay Delta Estuary water quality issues issued in 2011; Continue a competitive grant program to implement projects that improve water quality and restore habitat in San Francisco Bay watersheds; Strengthen ongoing implementation of the San Francisco Estuary Partnerships CCMP by supporting a new strategic plan. Encourage focus on reducing urban runoff impacts on water quality through watershed planning, Low Impact Development (LID) and TMDL implementation; Support the California Water Boards in implementing their Bay Delta Strategic Plan, particularly reviewing/improving water quality standards; Continue efforts to support studies that focus on preparing for the effects of climate change; Continue to support restoration of wetlands acreage; and Strengthen monitoring to assist in Clean Water Act reporting and TMDL implementation, particularly aimed at establishing a San Joaquin Regional Monitoring Program.
370
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$8.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2,005.0) This reduces the FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increase for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Program. (-$156.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA).
371
Geographic Program: Puget Sound Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $40,040.4

$40,040.4 8.5

$50,000.0 9.3

$19,289.0 7.7

($30,711.0) -1.6
$50,000.0
$50,000.0 9.3
Program Project Description: The Puget Sound Program works to protect and restore the Puget Sound, which has been designated as an estuary of national significance under the Clean Water Act National Estuary Program (NEP). EPA efforts are focused on the following high priority environmental activities consistent with the State of Washingtons 2020 Puget Sound Action Agenda: Improving water quality and upgrading shellfish bed classifications; Managing stormwater by implementing effective local watershed protection plans; Reducing sources of toxics and nutrients; Restoring and protecting nearshore habitat; and Improving monitoring and science. For more information, visit: http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa_action_agenda.php50 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Puget Sound Program will accelerate improvements to water quality and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin. The goal of the Puget Sound National Estuary Programs Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), approved in 2009, is to restore and maintain the Puget Sound Estuary's estuarine
50
For additional information please see: https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=e7e16b26192b86b4ba1a48f775e6777e https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=fe6d95fee9f929947a9876314191fded https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=0ade65acaede2fdc28a26ff3dbf43262 https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=8bd234e1795d2cc71f81bc4f7a92269a
372
environment by 2020, so that it will support balanced, indigenous populations of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and support the extensive list of recognized uses of Puget Sound. The program will significantly leverage federal funds with state and local partners to implement the CCMP with special focus in the following areas: Restoring and protecting nearshore habitat by implementing projects identified as priorities in consultation with federal, tribal, state, and local partners. EPAs target is to restore and protect approximately one thousand acres of tidally and seasonallyinfluenced estuarine wetlands in FY 2012; Providing technical and financial support to local governments to reduce the adverse impacts of stormwater on the health of watersheds. Stormwater is a leading stressor on watershed health as identified in the 2020 Action Agenda; Reducing discharges of toxics and nutrient pollution by continuing to implement reduction strategies developed with federal, state, tribal and local partners; Supporting species recovery efforts with federal, tribal, state, and local partners; Strengthening monitoring, performance management and science consistent with the Science Plan developed by the Puget Sound Partnership Science Panel and the advice of the Puget Sound Federal Caucus and Canadian partners. Areas likely to receive continuing support will include monitoring of indicators for accountability purposes; database support; refinement of pathogen, nutrient and toxics loading, circulation and fate models; and watershed assessment work to support more effective implementation activities related to water quality and salmon recovery; and Improving water quality by supporting local efforts to identify sources of pathogen pollution and implementing improved practices to reduce those sources. The goal is to protect human health by upgrading harvest classifications of approximately 500 acres of commercial shellfish beds in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
1,800
4,453
4,953
5,453
Acres
373
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(ps3) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands.
FY 2010 Target
6,500
FY 2010 Actual
10,062
FY 2011 CR Target
12,363
FY 2012 Target
13,863
Units
Acres
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$4,000.0) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding for the Puget Sound Ecosystem Research Initiative at the University of Washingtons College of the Environment. (-$25,845.0) This reduces congressional directed increase in funding in the FY 2010 Budget for the Puget Sound Basin. (-$765.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$86.0 / -1.3 FTE) This reflects a reduction in staff support for the Puget Sound Program. The reduced resources include 1.3 FTE and associated payroll of $86.0. (-$15.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA); Water Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); Economy Act of 1932; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; Clean Air Act (CAA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Pollution Prevention Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; National Environmental Education Act.
374
Geographic Program: South Florida Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $2,321.5

$2,321.5 2.3

$2,168.0 3.9

$2,061.0 3.9

($107.0) 0.0
$2,168.0
$2,168.0 3.9
Program Project Description: The federal government has made substantial progress in Everglades restoration over the past 18 months. Several key projects have commenced which, when complete, will help to restore critical flows to Everglades National Park and protect the Everglades ecosystem. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began construction of one mile of bridging on the Tamiami Trail under the Modified Waters Delivery authority, the C-111 spreader canal, the C-43 (Caloosahatchee River) project, and the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Park Service (NPS) are involved in efforts to eradicate a wide variety of invasive species throughout the region. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) acquired easements on 26,000 acres under the Wetlands Reserve Program in the Fisheating Creek watershed, preserving working agricultural lands that also provide critical water storage and filtration. These are important successes and key milestones in the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. The Administration also has studied the need for additional water flow to Everglades National Park with additional bridging along the Tamiami Trail. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released in late 2010. Additionally, the USDA and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) are partnering with farmers and ranchers north of Lake Okeechobee to protect the agrarian landscape and implement conservation measures that benefit the entire Everglades ecosystem. EPAs South Florida program coordinates activities in the Florida Keys, where water quality and habitat are directly affected by the pollution from, and restoration efforts in, the Everglades. EPA implements, coordinates, and facilitates activities including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Wetlands Protection Program, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), the Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), the FKNMS Water Quality Monitoring Program, the Coral Reef Environmental Monitoring Program, the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Program, the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) as directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, the Brownfields Program, and other programs. For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/southflorida/.
375
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: All of the federal agencies contributing to the recovery of the Everglades Ecosystem are advancing one or more of the following four key goals: restoring water flow; restoring habitat; enhancing water quality; and conserving land. The EPA South Florida program targets efforts in support of the third goal - enhancing water quality. Finalize nutrient criteria for the State of Florida in October 2010 for lakes and flowing water and in August 2012 for coastal areas and estuaries, consistent with the schedule set out in EPAs January 2009 determination; Assist with coordinating and facilitating the ongoing implementation of the Water Quality Protection Program for the FKNMS, including management of long-term status and trends monitoring projects (water quality, coral reef, and seagrass) and the associated data management program; Conduct studies to determine cause and effect relationships among pollutants and biological resources, implement wastewater and stormwater master plans, and provide public education and outreach activities; Provide monetary and/or technical/managerial support for priority environmental projects and programs in South Florida, including: o Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative; o FKNMS Water Quality Monitoring Program; o Benthic Habitat (seagrass) Monitoring Program; o FKNMS Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Program; and o Water Quality Protection Strategy for the South Florida Ecosystem. Implement the Wetlands Conservation, Permitting, and Mitigation Strategy; Support collaborative efforts through interagency workgroups/committees/task forces, including: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; Florida Bay program Management Committee; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and FKNMS Water Quality Protection Program Steering Committee; Under a consent decree, continue assistance with the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for South Florida; and Assist with the development of and tracking of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other permits, including discharge limits that are consistent with state and federal law and federal court consent decrees.
376

(sf3) At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than to equal to 0.35 ug l-1 and light clarity( Kd) )levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
75
75
Percent Stations
Measure Type
Measure
(sf4) At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to .25 uM.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
75
75
Percent Stations
377
Measure Type
Measure
(sf5) Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10 ppb total phosphorus criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Maintain
Not Maintained
Parts/Billion Maintain Maintain
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$86.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$21.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990; National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992; CWA; Water Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
378
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $0.0

$0.0 0.0
FY 2011 Annualized CR $0.0

$0.0 0.0

$6,000.0 7.0

$6,000.0 7.0
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Resources in this program project supplemented by EPA support via the Surface Water Protection and Gulf of Mexico programs support grants for the implementation of state nutrient reduction strategies, consistent with actions outlined in the Hypoxia Action Plan 2008, and the Action Plan II. The 2008 Action Plan describes three goals and eleven actions needed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus, including the promotion of effective conservation practices and management practices, tracking progress, reducing existing scientific uncertainties, identifying the economic costs of hypoxia, and promoting effective communications to increase awareness of Gulf hypoxia.51 EPAs work will continue to involve close collaboration with the U. S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) efforts to target critical watersheds for focused nutrient reduction efforts and the efforts of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to measure progress in nutrient reduction within the Basin. EPA will focus on the most significant contributors to sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loadings at a state and watershed scale in selecting where to award funds. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The hypoxic zone that forms in the summer off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is primarily caused by excess nutrients, many of which originate from farms, urban areas, and industrial facilities along the Mississippi River and its major tributaries (Ohio River, Illinois River, and Missouri River). To address this pressing water quality challenge, EPA will continue to work with state and federal partners to target the highest priority 12 digit HUC high nutrient load watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin to demonstrate how effective nutrient reduction strategies and enhanced partnerships, especially with the agricultural community, can yield significant progress in addressing non-point source driven nutrient pollution. A key emphasis will be encouraging partnerships with USDA and USGS to promote sustainable agricultural practices, to reduce nutrient loadings in the Mississippi River Basin, to implement monitoring programs to measure nutrient reductions, and to use an adaptive management approach, as necessary and appropriate. EPA has been working with USDA's Farm Service Agency to
51
For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/.
379
identify Mississippi River Basin states interested in participating in a "farmable wetlands" program that funds construction of wetlands to treat nutrients in a very cost-effective manner. For example, EPA's Region 5 office is assisting the State of Minnesota to develop a farmable wetlands pilot program in the Root River area of the state by providing technical assistance for the design and siting of constructed wetlands. In FY 2012, EPA will build upon our strong coordination with USDA and invest in the highest priority watersheds in 3-4 states in the Mississippi River Basin through a competitive grant process among the states. The states selected for funding will: implement strong, watershedbased nutrient reduction strategies for point and nonpoint sources contributing sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loading that contribute to water quality problems in nearby waters and the Gulf of Mexico. These programs should target funds towards watersheds generating the greatest nonpoint source loadings of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus and include monitoring to document actual results from implemented practices. EPA and the selected states will also coordinate with USDA on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$6,000.0 / +7.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for a competitive grant program to help states implement watershed-based strategies to reduce nutrient loadings in the Mississippi River Basin. The additional resources include $887.0 in associated payroll for 7.0 FTE. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act.
380
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,141.9

$6,141.9 0.0

$7,000.0 0.0

$2,962.0 0.0

($4,038.0) 0.0
$7,000.0
$7,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: EPA supports the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound through its Long Island Sound Office (LISO), established under Section 119 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. EPA assists the states in implementing the Sounds 1994 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), developed under Section 320 of the CWA. EPA and the States of Connecticut and New York work in partnership with regional water pollution control agencies, scientific researchers, user groups, environmental organizations, industry, and other interested organizations and individuals to restore and protect the Sound and its critical ecosystems. The CCMP identified six critical environmental problem areas that require sustained and coordinated action to address: the effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem, including living marine resources and commercially valuable species, such as the American lobster; the impacts of toxic contamination in the food web and on living resources; pathogen contamination and pollution; floatable debris deposition; the impacts of habitat degradation and loss on the health of living resources; and the effects of land use and development on the Sound, its human population and public access to its resources. The CCMP also identifies public education, information, and participation as priority action items in protecting and restoring the Sound. Priorities for CCMP implementation with quantitative targets and timeframes were adopted in the Long Island Sound Study 2003 Agreement. The States of New York and Connecticut are actively reducing nitrogen through their innovative and nationally-recognized pollution trading programs. In 2009, 106 sewage treatment plants in New York and Connecticut discharged 39,011 trade-equalized pounds per day of nitrogen to Long Island Sound. In 2010, the states restored or protected 1,361 acres of critical coastal habitat, and reopened 13.1 miles of river corridors to diadromous fish passage through construction of fishways or removal of barriers to fish passage. EPA will work with the states, through the Long Island Sound Futures Fund Grant Program, to continue to assist in restoring
381
and protecting critical habitat and reopening rivers http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net for further information.52 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
to
fish
passage.
See
EPA will continue to oversee implementation of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) CCMP in FY 2012 by coordinating the cleanup and restoration actions of the LISS Management Conference as authorized under Sections 119 and 320 of the CWA. In FY 2012, EPA will focus on the following: Reducing the area of the seasonally impaired fish and shellfish habitats through continued emphasis on lowering Sound nitrogen loads to alleviate low oxygen levels (a condition called hypoxia). Specifically, LISO will work with the States of New York and Connecticut to revise and implement the nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load first approved by EPA in April 2001; Coordinating priority watershed protection programs through the Long Island Sound Management Conference partners to ensure that efforts are directed toward priority river and stream reaches that affect Long Island Sound. Watershed protection and nonpoint source pollution controls will help reduce the effects of runoff pollution on rivers and streams discharging to the Sound. Restoration and protection efforts will increase streamside buffer zones as natural filters of pollutants and runoff; Monitoring (year-round and seasonal) for water quality indicators including: biological indicators, such as chlorophyll a, and environmental indicators such as dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity. This monitoring will assist Management Conference partners in assessing environmental conditions that may contribute to impaired water quality and in developing strategies to address impairments; Protecting and restoring critical coastal habitats that will improve the productivity of tidal wetlands, inter-tidal zones, and other key habitats that have been adversely affected by unplanned development, overuse, or land use-related pollution effects through the Long Island Sound Futures Fund, administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Promoting stewardship of ecologically and biologically significant areas, and identification and management of recreationally important areas, will assist in developing compatible public access and uses of the Sounds resources; Coordinating with the Long Island Sound Science and Technical Advisory Committee in conducting focused scientific research into the causes and effects of pollution on the Sounds living marine resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses to assist
52
For additional information see: https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=6504cc92476f05523fc836b5dc099c2f
382
managers and public decision-makers in developing policies and strategies to address environmental, social, and human health impacts; and Coordinating with the Long Island Sound Citizens Advisory Committee to develop an educated population that is aware of significant environmental problems and that understands the management approach to, and their role in, correcting problems. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(li5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE lbs/day.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
52
Data Avail 3/2011
55
56
Measure Type
Measure
(li8) Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
250
Acres
Measure Type
Measure
(li9) Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to diadromous fish passage from the 2012 baseline of 177 river miles by removal of dams and barriers or by installation of bypass structures.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
38
Miles Reopened
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$4,000.0) This reduces the FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increase for the Long Island Sound program.
383
(-$38.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Long Island Sound Restoration Act, P.L. 106-457 as amended by P.L. 109-137; 33 U.S.C. 1269. Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, P.L. 109-353; 33 U.S.C.
384
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $7,671.7

$7,671.7 12.3

$6,000.0 14.0

$4,464.0 12.4

($1,536.0) -1.6
$6,000.0
$6,000.0 14.0
Program Project Description: Over the past two years, the federal government has renewed its commitment to the Gulf Coast region. A series of Administration efforts have sought to better coordinate agencies activities strengthening the working relationship with Gulf Coast states. In October 2009, President Obama created the Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Working Group to consolidate and energize federal efforts in the two states. The Working Group produced a Roadmap that sought to remedy several policy and process issues that were impeding restoration progress. The process it set in motion has improved the working relationship between the federal and state governments, and between federal agency representatives in Washington DC and the region. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill expanded the scope and visibility of restoration needs in a region that had long experienced ecological impacts and highlighted the connection between ecological health and the human environment. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recognized this critical fact in his restoration recommendation to the President, outlining clearly the linkages between economic, human, and environmental health and the importance of ending long-term environmental decline in this region. The President incorporated many of the Secretarys ecosystem restoration recommendations when he signed Executive Order 13554, establishing the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. While the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts two of the most critically degraded areas in the region were the focus of the ecosystem restoration Roadmap and related working groups, the recently created Gulf Coast Ecosystem Task Force, chaired by EPA, has expanded the scope to address the myriad unique environmental challenges facing this ecologically rich, culturally diverse, and economically important region. The Natural Resources Damage (NRD) Trustee Council will focus on remedying the environmental impacts of the oil spill, while the Task Force and its federal agency partners will focus their individual efforts on the broader suite of impacts afflicting the Gulf Coast region. The Task Force also will assist the Trustee Council, as necessary, to implement the NRD Restoration Plan. The Administration supports dedicating a portion of civil penalties obtained from parties responsible for the oil spill to the Gulf Coast
385
region; these funds will be an important resource for critical ecosystem activities by the Task Force. An important issue identified in the Roadmap and in Secretary Mabus report was the need for a broad vision and strategy to guide federal cooperative efforts to address the degradation of this region and to reverse longstanding problems that have contributed to its decline. EO 13554 tasked the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force with developing a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy within one year. The Strategy will identify major policy areas where coordinated federal and state action is necessary and also will consider existing restoration planning efforts in the region to identify planning gaps and restoration needs, both on a state-by-state basis and on a broad regional scale. This strategy, combined with the NRD restoration plan, will likely inform federal investments in ecosystem restoration in the Gulf region over the next decade. EPAs efforts in the Gulf of Mexico directly support a collaborative, multi-organizational Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional businesses and industries, agriculture, state and local governments, citizens, environmental and fishery interests, and numerous federal departments and agencies. The Gulf of Mexico Program is designed to assist the Gulf states and stakeholders in developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Gulf of Mexico Program Regional Partnerships environmental priority goals are healthy and resilient coastal habitats, sustainable coastal barriers, wise management of sediments, improved science monitoring and management efforts for water quality and seafood safety, and environmental education for underserved/underrepresented communities. These efforts will continue to be important based on restoring the Gulf Coast region in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and in support of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. FY 2012 activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program and its partners will include: Coastal Habitats Are Healthy and Resilient Healthy and resilient coastal habitats sustain many ecosystem services upon which humans rely. Reversing ongoing habitat degradation and preserving the remaining healthy habitats is necessary to protect the communities, cultures, and economy of the Gulf Coast. The overall wetland loss in the Gulf area is on the order of fifty percent, and protection of the critical habitat that remains is essential to the health of the Gulf aquatic system. EPA has a goal of restoring 30,600 cumulative acres of habitat by FY 2012 and is working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), environmental organizations, the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and area universities to identify and restore critical habitat. EPA will enhance cooperative planning and programs across the Gulf states and federal agencies to protect wetland and estuarine habitat. Education and outreach are essential to accomplish the EPAs goal of healthy and resilient coastal habitats; Gulf residents and decision makers need to understand and appreciate the
386
connection between the ecological health of the Gulf of Mexico and its watersheds and coasts, their own health, the economic vitality of their communities, and their overall quality of life. There also is a nationwide need for a better understanding of the link between the health of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. economy. EPAs long-term goal is to increase awareness and stewardship of Gulf coastal resources and promote action among Gulf citizens. In 2012, the Gulf of Mexico Program will establish public and private support for the development and deployment of the Gulf Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers Rotational Educational Exhibits Initiative; will foster regional stewardship and awareness of Gulf coastal resources through annual Gulf Guardian Awards; and will support initiatives that include direct involvement from underserved and underrepresented populations and enhance local capacity to reach these populations. Sustainable Coastal Barriers The Gulf Coast supports a diverse array of coastal, estuarine, nearshore and offshore ecosystems, including seagrass beds, wetlands and marshes, mangroves, barrier islands, sand dunes, coral reefs, maritime forests, bayous, streams, and rivers. These ecosystems provide numerous ecological and economic benefits including water quality, nurseries for fish, wildlife habitat, hurricane and flood buffers, erosion prevention, stabilized shorelines, tourism, jobs, and recreation. Coastal communities continuously face and adapt to various challenges of living along the Gulf of Mexico. The economic, ecological, and social losses from coastal hazard events have grown as population growth places people in harms way and as the ecosystems natural resilience is compromised by development and pollution. In order to sustain and grow the Gulf regions economic prosperity, individuals, businesses, communities, and ecosystems all need to be more adaptable to change. In FY 2012, EPA will assist with the development of information, tools, technologies, products, policies, or public decision processes that can be used by coastal communities to increase resilience to coastal natural hazards and sea level rise. EPA is working with NOAAs Sea Grant Programs and the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this goal. Management of Sediments and Impact of Nutrients The wise management of sediments for wetland creation, enhancement, and sustainability is of critical importance to the Gulf Coast region, especially given locally high rates of subsidence, or settling, and the regionwide threat from potential future impacts of climate change. To successfully sustain and enhance coastal ecosystems, a broad sediment management effort is needed that incorporates beneficial use of dredge material, and other means of capturing all available sediment resources. Healthy estuaries and coastal wetlands depend on a balanced level of nutrients. Excessive nutrient levels can have negative impacts such as reducing the abundance of recreationally and commercially important fishery species. An excess amount of nutrients is identified as one of the primary problems facing Gulf estuaries and coastal waters. Over the next several years, the Gulf states will establish criteria for nutrients in coastal ecosystems that will guide regulatory, land use, and water quality protection decisions. Nutrient criteria could potentially reverse current trends in nutrient pollution to coastal waters and estuaries, but the challenge is to prevent
387
or reduce the man-made sources of nutrients to levels that maintain ecosystem productivity and restore beneficial uses. In FY 2012, EPA will support coastal nutrient criteria and standards development with a Gulf state pilot and will develop science and management tools for the characterization of nutrients in coastal ecosystems. Because the five Gulf states face similar nutrient management challenges at both the estuary level and as the receiving water for the entire Mississippi River watershed, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Partnership is an important venue to build and test management tools to reduce nutrients in Gulf waters and achieve healthy and resilient coastal ecosystems. Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf. Actions to address this problem must focus on both localized pollutant addition throughout the Basin and on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River. EPA, in cooperation with states and other federal agencies, supports the long-term target to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone from approximately 17,300 square kilometers to less than 5,000 square kilometers, measured as a five-year running average. In working to accomplish this goal, EPA, states, and other federal agencies, such as USDA, will continue implementation of core clean water programs and partnerships and efforts to coordinate allocation of technical assistance and funding to priority areas around the Gulf. Specifically, in FY 2012, EPAs Mississippi River Basin program will address excessive nutrient loadings that contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Working with the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, Gulf of Mexico Alliance and other states within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, other federal agencies, and the Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, EPA will help develop and implement nutrient reduction strategies that include an accountability framework for point and nonpoint sources contributing nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Gulf, as well as watershed plans that provide a road map for addressing nonpoint sources. EPA will continue to coordinate with USDA and with federal and state partners to support monitoring best management practices and water quality improvement through work with the partner organizations and states and to leverage resources to focus wetland restoration and development and habitat restoration efforts towards projects with the Mississippi River Basin that will sequester nutrients as appropriate from targeted watersheds and tributaries. Improve Science Monitoring and Management Efforts for Water Quality for Healthy Beaches The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources that are essential to protecting water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and in the larger Mississippi River Basin, which contributes pollution, especially oxygen demanding nutrients, to the Gulf. Enhanced monitoring and research is needed in the Gulf Coast region to make data more readily available. EPA regional offices and the Gulf of Mexico Program Office will work with states to continue to maximize the efficiency and utility of water quality monitoring efforts for local managers by coordinating and standardizing state and federal water quality data collection activities in the Gulf region. These efforts will assure the continued effective implementation of core clean water programs, ranging from discharge permits, to nonpoint pollution controls, to wastewater treatment, to protection of wetlands. The Gulf of Mexico Program is working with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this goal.
388
A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat in 13 priority coastal watersheds. These 13 watersheds, which include 755 of the impaired segments identified by states around the Gulf, will receive targeted technical and financial assistance to restore impaired waters. The FY 2012 goal is to fully attain water quality standards in at least 132 of these segments. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause public health advisories, halt commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting, limit recreation, exacerbate human respiratory problems, and cause fish kills. EPA is working with Mexico and the Gulf states to implement an advanced detection and forecasting capability system to manage harmful algal blooms and for notifying public health managers. The Agency expects to expand the system in FY 2012 by providing support for taxonomy training in Yucatan and Quintana Roo which will complete the training in all six Mexican States. The Gulf of Mexico Program Office has a long-standing commitment to develop effective partnerships with other programs within EPA, other federal agencies, and other organizations. For example, the program office is working with the EPA Research and Development Program and other federal agencies to develop and implement a coastal monitoring program to better assess the condition of Gulf waters. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
2.5
Data Avail 12/2011
2.5
2.6
Scale
Measure Type
Measure
(xg1) Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in impaired segments in 13 priority coastal areas (cumulative starting in FY 07).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
96
170
202
234
Impaired Segments
389
Measure Type
Measure
(xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
27,500
29,552
30,000
30,600
Acres
For FY 2012, the Gulf of Mexico Program will continue to support specific challenges designed to restore and enhance the environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico through cooperative partnerships and in support of the goals of the Strategy developed by the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$109.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$45.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiencies Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,362.0) This reduces the FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increase for the Gulf of Mexico program. (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$20.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act.
390
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)

$486.9 0.0

$4,000.0 0.0

$1,399.0 0.0

($2,601.0) 0.0
$4,000.0
$4,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Lake Champlain was designated a resource of national significance by the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act (Public Law 101-596) that was signed into law on November 5, 1990, and amended in 2002. A management plan for the watershed, Opportunities for Action, was developed to achieve the goal of the Act: to bring together people with diverse interests in the lake to create a comprehensive pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for protecting the future of the Lake Champlain Basin. EPAs efforts to protect Lake Champlain support the successful interstate, interagency, and international partnerships undertaking the implementation of the Plan. Opportunities for Action is designed to address various threats to Lake Champlains water quality, including phosphorus loadings, invasive species, and toxic substances.53 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Through a collaborative and transparent process, EPA works with state and local partners to protect and improve the Lake Champlain Basin's water quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. FY 2012 activities include: Working with federal, state, provincial, and local partners to address high levels of phosphorous by implementing the joint Vermont and New York Lake Champlain Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to reduce phosphorus loads from all categories of sources (point, urban, and agricultural nonpoint); Working with federal, state, and provincial partners to implement actions included in the newly revised Lake Champlain Management Plan, developing a system to track implementation of those actions, and tying these actions to an adaptive management framework for evaluating results;
53
For additional information see: http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html http://www.lcbp.org, http://nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain_feds, http://www.cfda.gov
391
Reviewing results of the critical source area study undertaken by the International Joint Commission and beginning collaboration with Lake Champlain partners at the state, local, federal, and provincial levels for implementation of the recommendations from that study; Carrying out required activities resulting from the Lake Champlain TMDL lawsuit and the Vermont National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) withdrawal petition; Implementing an adaptive management framework for evaluating the results of management efforts in the Lake Champlain Basin on water quality and other ecosystem indicators. This adaptive management plan will integrate and complement the ongoing critical source area studies with sub-watershed management practices. This plan will evaluate phosphorus TMDL load allocations through quantitative methods, and be an extension of the current monitoring regime for Lake Champlain and tributaries. The adaptive management plan will include current and future TMDL implementation scenarios, and identify cost-effective alternatives to attain TMDL load allocations; Developing and implementing a tracking system for investments in Lake Champlain Basin restoration; Preventing the introduction of an invasive form of Didymosphenia geminata into the Lake Champlain Basin from the neighboring Connecticut River watershed by expanding education and outreach on detection and spread prevention methods; Monitoring the Lake Champlain Basin for possible introduction of invasive species, including the following: Asian clam, Asian carp, and spiny waterflea; Monitoring the population of alewives, a recent invasive species affecting Lake Champlain, and expanding efforts to educate the public on the perils of transporting baitfish. Efforts also include harmonizing baitfish regulations in Vermont and New York, as well as working to remove and/or prevent the entry or dispersal of this and other fish, invasive plants, and invertebrates in the Lake Champlain Basin; Working with partners, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Canal Corporation, to devise means to reduce the likelihood that new invasive species can enter Lake Champlain from the Great Lakes through the Champlain Canal; Continuing work to understand the high seasonal concentrations of toxic cyanobacteria, particularly microcystin, in the northern reaches of Lake Champlain by monitoring the dynamics of its species composition, concentration, and toxicity levels; reporting on its potential health impacts; and providing necessary information to the health departments of New York and Vermont to close beaches, drinking water intakes, or take other actions as necessary;
392
Implementing recommendations resulting from the climate change studies (water quality, precipitation, and flow) to reduce the impacts of climate change on water quality in the Lake Champlain Basin; and Developing new approaches to stormwater control from urban areas in conjunction with state partners. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$2,566.0) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases for Lake Champlain Basin. (-$35.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act (CWA); North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-Canada Agreements; National Heritage Areas Act of 2006; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 and 2007.
393
Geographic Program: Other Program Area: Geographic Programs Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $4,545.9

$4,545.9 9.4

$7,273.0 10.0

$4,635.0 8.5

($2,638.0) -1.5
$7,273.0
$7,273.0 10.0
Program Project Description: EPA targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by environmental problems. This program is in line with the Administrators emphasis on maintaining a place-based focus. Under this program, the Agency develops and implements community-based approaches to mitigate diffuse sources of pollution and cumulative risk for geographic areas. The Agency also fosters community efforts to build consensus and mobilize local resources to target highest risks. Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Through the CARE program, EPA provides funding, tools and technical support that enable underserved communities to create collaborative partnerships to take effective actions to address local environmental problems. The on-the-ground support and funding help to reduce toxic pollution from all sources, revitalize underserved areas and improve the health of communities across the nation in sustainable ways. In dealing with multi-media, multi-layered issues, communities want One EPA and one government and the CARE program provides them with this. For each of the CARE communities, EPA works together with the community to see their problems holistically, the way they see them. CARE is a model for "One EPA," recognizing that genuine cooperation across the agency and an integrated way of reaching solutions best protects the environment. CARE is highly regarded for its successful innovations in cross-agency management, grants award and administration, and most importantly, its meaningful engagements between EPA and the environmental justice community. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued a positive evaluation of the CARE demonstration program in May 2009 observing the CARE program complements EPA regulatory strategies with place-based strategiesstrategies
394
that consider the local context in which environmental decisions are made and effects are felt.54 The NAPA Panel believes that the CARE approach represents a next step in environmental improvement and protection, concluding that the CARE program successfully demonstrates that the concept works well to combine EPA expertise with community capacity-building to deliver funding and assistance to address risks from all sources of toxics in underserved communities. Since its launch in 2005, the CARE program has awarded 91 grants to communities across 39 states with over 1,700 partners engaged for a total of over $14 million in grants. These grants address one or more of EPAs priorities: 25 percent address climate change; 50 percent address air pollution; 50 percent address safety of chemicals; 30 percent address cleanup of communities; and 30 percent address water issues. Since 2009, 68 CARE communities have leveraged an additional $12 million in funding with local partners providing an additional $2 million in inkind services; visited over 4,000 homes providing information and/or environmental testing; worked to reduce risks in almost 300 schools and provided environmental information to over 2,800 businesses and 50,000 individuals. CARE delivers funding through two types of cooperative agreements. In the smaller Level I agreements, the community, working with EPA, creates a collaborative problem-solving group of community stakeholders. That group assesses the communitys toxic exposure, environmental problems and priorities, and begins to identify potential solutions. In the larger Level II agreements, the community, working with EPA, selects and funds projects that reduce risk and improve the environment in the community. The CARE program ended its successful demonstration period in FY 2010. The cooperative agreements issued under the demonstration authorities of the seven environmental statutes may not be used to support day-to-day program implementation. In FY 2012, EPA is requesting new grant authority to implement the CARE program to continue serving communities across the nation. The Northwest Forest Program The Northwest Forest Program supports interagency coordination, watershed assessment, conservation, and restoration efforts across seven states in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to supporting protection of drinking water and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation, the Northwest Forest Program includes two collaborative, watershed-scale monitoring programs that help characterize watershed conditions across 70 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands in the Northwest. In addition to providing status and trend information for aquatic and riparian habitats, the two monitoring programs help support adaptive management and state water quality/watershed health programs. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program Through a collaborative and voluntary effort, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program strives to restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing and funding restoration projects within the sixteen parishes in the basin. The program continues to support the efforts of
54
http://www.napawash.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09-06.pdf
395
the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation by sampling lake and tributary water quality to support related scientific and public education projects. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA and partner agencies will protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by various sources of pollution. These collaborative and transparent community-based approaches will decrease the cumulative risk for geographic areas. EPAs FY 2012 efforts will focus on the following: CARE A total FY 2012 investment of $2.4 million (see table 1) in the CARE program will address pollution problems in underserved communities (90 percent of CARE projects are in Environmental Justice communities of concern). EPA will help underserved and other communities use collaborative processes to select and implement local actions and will award federal funding for projects to reduce exposure to toxic pollutants and local environmental problems. EPA is requesting new grant authority in FY 2012 to continue this program beyond the demonstration phase. Table 1 displays the multi-media structure of the CARE program. Table 1: FY 2012 CARE Funding by EPA Program Office (Dollars in Thousands) EPA Program Office Air and Radiation Program Water Program Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Program Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program Total Funding Level FY 2012 PB $ 687.0 $ 573.0 $ $ $ 587.0 537.0 2,384.0
In FY 2012, the CARE program will provide support to communities to help them understand and improve their local environments and health by: Selecting and awarding approximately ten assistance agreements to create and strengthen local partnerships, local capacity, and civic engagement to improve local environments and health, and to ensure sustainability of environmental health efforts over time; Providing technical support and training to help CARE communities build partnerships, improve their understanding of environmental risks from all sources, set priorities, and take actions to reduce risks; Improving community access to EPA programs and helping communities utilize these programs to reduce risks;
396
Continuing implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Centers for Disease Controls Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), to improve support for communities by coordinating the efforts of multiple federal agencies working at the community level to improve environmental health; Conducting outreach to share lessons learned by CARE communities and encouraging other communities to build partnerships and take actions to reduce risks; and Exploring and piloting, as appropriate, the Partners Program to provide technical support and access to EPA programs while outside organizations provide funding to the community. The CARE Partners Program pilots could provide the opportunity to leverage EPAs investment and allow CARE to reach more communities than could be reached with increased grant funding alone. Northwest Forest Federal and state partners implement shared responsibilities for aquatic monitoring and watershed assessment. Efforts include refinement and utilization of monitoring approaches and modeling tools and increased integration of monitoring framework designs, monitoring protocols, and watershed health indicators. In FY 2012, EPA will invest $1.3 million in the Northwest Forest Program for the following activities: Continue stream reach sampling on 636 stream reaches and watershed condition/trend monitoring in 378 sub-watersheds in California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington; Use remote sensed data and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers and field data to support a five-year trend assessment on 5,132 6th field watersheds55 in Oregon, Washington, Northern California, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah; Utilize upslope analysis, in-channel assessments, emerging research, and decision support models to inform management decisions and refine future monitoring efforts; Compile temperature and macroinvertebrate data and establish 300 year-round temperature monitoring stations to support state water quality and aquatic habitat reporting, including 303(d) listings; Complete/utilize field reviews of grazing activities and evaluate stream and riparian conditions to tie back to monitoring trends and inform necessary management changes;
55
A 6th field watershed is a hydrological unit. Watersheds in the United States were delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey using a national standard hierarchical system based on surface hydrologic features and are classified into the following types of hydrologic units: First-field (region); Second-field (sub-region); Third-field (accounting unit); Fourth-field (cataloguing unit); Fifth-field (watershed); and Sixth-field (sub-watershed). For more information visit: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.
397
Refine shade models to assist managers in prioritizing restoration opportunities to address stream temperature and sediment issues; Utilize aquatic monitoring to detect invasive species in streams and riparian areas; and Assist in development of implementation-ready TMDLs and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for forestry practices in five Oregon coastal basins. Lake Pontchartrain The program will work to restore the ecological health of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. In FY 2012, EPA will invest $955 thousand in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program for the following activities: Continuing implementation of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program Comprehensive Management Plan56 (LPBCMP) to support: o Planning and design of consolidated wastewater treatment systems to support sustainable infrastructure; o Repair and replacement studies to improve existing wastewater systems; and o Investigation and design of stormwater management systems. Conducting water quality monitoring outreach and public education projects that address the goals of the LPBCMP to: o Improve the management of animal waste lagoons by educating and assisting the agricultural community on lagoon maintenance techniques; o Protect and restore critical habitats and encourage sustainable growth by providing information and guidance on habitat protection and green development techniques; and o Reduce pollution at its source and determine any impacts to Lake Pontchartrain from the recent major oil spill. Performance Targets: Work under these programs supports the Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
56
http://www.saveourlake.org/management-plan.php
398
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$24.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2,000.0 / -1.5 FTE) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases for the Potomac Highlands initiative. The reduced resources include 1.5 FTE, decreased associated payroll of $180.0, and reduced travel of $20.0. (-$522.0) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. This reduction will reduce EPA support for the implementation of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program Comprehensive Management Plan, including water quality and infrastructure improvements and coastal restoration. (-$92.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 2000, codified as Clean Water Act (CWA) 121, 33 U.S.C. 1273, directed EPA to establish a Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program to restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing and funding restoration projects and related scientific and public education projects. CWA 121(b); CWA; Water Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); Economy Act of 1932; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; Clean Air Act (CAA); Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Pollution Prevention Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and National Environmental Education Act.
399
400
Homeland Security: Communication and Information Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $7,206.3

$7,206.3 16.0

$6,926.0 17.0

$4,257.0 16.0

($2,669.0) -1.0
$6,926.0
$6,926.0 17.0
Program Project Description: Recent disasters and incidents continue to demonstrate that timely and effective environmental information is key to the protection of human health and the environment. EPAs Environmental Information Program must play a major role to safeguard workforce health and safety in the event of a significant incident, a Continuity of Operations (COOP), or a pandemic situation. The White House, Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have defined their expectations of EPA during a homeland security incident through a series of statutes, presidential directives, and national plans. EPA uses the Homeland Security Collaborative Network (HSCN), a cross-agency leadership group, to support the Agencys ability to effectively implement this broad range of homeland security responsibilities, ensure consistent development and implementation of homeland security policies and procedures, avoid duplication, and build a network of partners. EPAs homeland security program also capitalizes on the concept of dualbenefits so that EPAs homeland security efforts enhance and integrate with EPAs core environmental programs that serve to protect human health and the environment. Homeland Security information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the agencywide Information Security and Infrastructure activities, which are managed in the Information Security and IT/Data Management programs. The upgrading and standardization of technology, with particular emphasis on the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) infrastructure, is necessary to provide information access during an emergency. This program also enables video contact between localities, headquarters, Regional offices, and laboratories in emergency situations. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA will update and maintain a homeland security policy for planning, preparedness, response and recovery for nationally significant incidents. EPAs homeland security efforts will focus on maintaining its preparedness level, filling critical knowledge and technology gaps, and working
401
with partners to define collective capabilities and leverage combined resources to close common gaps. EPA will ensure that interagency intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are met. This will be achieved through coordination with the U.S. Intelligence Community, including the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, and the White House National and Homeland Security Councils. EPA also will track emerging national/homeland security issues in order to anticipate and avoid crisis situations and target the Agencys efforts proactively against threats to the United States. EPAs FY 2012 resources will support national security efforts through monitoring across the Agencys IT infrastructure, to detect, remediate, and eradicate malicious software or Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) from EPAs networks and through improved detection capabilities. EPA will improve national security efforts, including heightened awareness and vigilance across the Information Security community, by increasing training and awareness of these threats. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$150.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$159.0 / -1.0 FTE) This change includes $159.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and agency priorities by streamlining administrative management. (-$130.0) This reflects a reduction to the homeland security programs mission support contract. (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$28.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Currently, there are no
402
(-$2,491.0) This reflects a reduction to the Agencys homeland security specific IT infrastructure security efforts related to the deployment of critical infrastructure in support of emergency response and homeland security activities. Statutory Authority: Homeland Security Presidential Directives, 5 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Sections HSPD 1 25 and National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 42 U.S.C. 3231 et seq. Sections 300, 300.1, 300.2, 300.3, 300.4, 300.5, 300.6 and 300.7 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Bio Terrorism Act of 2002, 42. U.S.C. 201 et seq. Sections 303, 305, 306 and 307 and Homeland Security Act of 2002, 116 U.S.C. 2135 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 211-215, 221-225, 231-235 and 237 and Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, 6 U.S.C. 772 et seq. Sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512 and 513 and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, 50 U.S.C. 2302 et seq. - (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
403
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,805.1

$20,954.9 $1,269.5 $29,029.5 46.4

$23,026.0 $1,760.0 $31,622.0 49.0

$11,379.0 $0.0 $12,444.0 25.0

($11,647.0) ($1,760.0) ($19,178.0) -24.0
$6,836.0
$23,026.0 $1,760.0 $31,622.0 49.0
Program Project Description: This program includes a number of EPA activities that coordinate and support the protection of the nations critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. EPA activities support effective information sharing and dissemination to help protect critical water infrastructure. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Information Sharing Networks & Water Security In FY 2012, EPA will continue to build its capacity to identify and respond to threats to critical national water infrastructure. EPAs wastewater and drinking water security efforts will continue to support the water sector by providing access to information sharing tools and mechanisms that provide timely information on contaminant properties, water treatment effectiveness, detection technologies, analytical protocols, and laboratory capabilities for use in responding to a water contamination event. EPA will continue to support effective communication conduits to disseminate threat and incident information and to serve as a clearing-house for sensitive information. EPA promotes information sharing between the water sector and such groups as environmental professionals and scientists, emergency services personnel, law enforcement, public health agencies, the intelligence community, and technical assistance providers. Through such exchange, water systems can obtain up-to-date information on current technologies in water security, accurately assess their vulnerabilities to terror acts, and work cooperatively with public health officials, first responders, and law enforcement officials to respond effectively in the event of an emergency.
404
EPA continues to partner with available information sharing networks to promote drinking water and wastewater utilities access to up-to-date security information. In FY 2012, EPA will continue efforts to increase the water sectors participation in these critical networks. This effort will ensure that these utilities have access to a comprehensive range of important materials, including tools, training, and protocols, some of which may be sensitive and therefore not generally available through other means. In addition to providing a vehicle for utilities to access these materials, EPA will continue to develop materials to ensure that utilities have the most updated information. This work also will enable participating water utilities of all sizes to gain access to a rapid notification system. Participating utilities will then receive alerts about changes in the homeland security advisory level or to regional and national trends in certain types of water-related incidents. For example, should there be types of specific water related incidents that are re-occurring, the alerts distributed to the utilities will make note of the increasing multiple occurrences or trends of these incidents. Access to such information sharing networks allows the water sector not only to improve their understanding of the latest water security and resiliency protocols and threats, but also to reduce their risk by enhancing their ability to prepare for an emergency. The FY 2012 request level for the information sharing networks is $1.1 million. Counterterrorism There is no request for this program in FY 2012. Monitoring There is no request for this program in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$1,494.0) This reduction reflects decreased federal support for the water information sharing networks in FY 2011 and FY 2012 as it transitions to a subscription based program and meets intended programmatic goals by FY 2012. (-$540.0) This reduction eliminates travel and expense resources that support regional water response teams. (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its Currently, there are no
405
work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$1,114.0/-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects the development of effective monitoring modeling methodologies to demonstrate the effects of air threats to air quality in the United States for use in emergency response situations. This reduction includes 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $123.0. (-$2,616.0 / -11.8 FTE) EPA does not need to maintain separate capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for terrorism-related investigations. This reduction reflects the increased capacity of other agencies to handle the environmental forensics work associated with potential homeland security related incidents. This reduction includes $1,980.0 in associated payroll for 11.8 FTE. Statutory Authority: SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f300j9 as added by Public Law 93523 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments, Sections 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
406
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $4,264.2

$37,697.9 $51,558.9 $93,521.0 176.4

$41,657.0 $53,580.0 $98,660.0 174.2

$30,078.0 $40,662.0 $70,740.0 170.9

($11,579.0) ($12,918.0) ($27,920.0) -3.3
$3,423.0
$41,657.0 $53,580.0 $98,660.0 174.2
Program Project Description: EPA plays a lead role in protecting U.S. citizens and the environment from the effects of attacks that release chemical, biological, and radiological agents. EPA's Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Program develops and maintains an agencywide capability to prepare for and respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). EPA continues to increase the state of preparedness for homeland security incidents. The response to chemical agents is different from the response to biological agents, but for both, the goals are to facilitate preparedness, guide the appropriate response by first responders, ensure safe re-occupancy of buildings or other locations, and protect the production of crops, livestock, and food in the U.S. In the case of chemical agents, EPA develops new information to assist emergency planners and first responders in assessing immediate hazards. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: There is no request for this program in FY 2012. Performance Targets: This program has consistently exceeded its performance targets in past years in developing Proposed AEGL values. Work under this program also supports performance results in Toxic Substances Chemical Risk Review and Reduction and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,589.0/-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects the elimination of EPAs support for the development and refinement of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs), a program
407
for developing scientifically credible limits for short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic high-priority chemicals. Work to develop proposed values will be completed in FY 2011. Most of the proposed values have already been elevated to Interim status and are being implemented. The reduced resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $155.0. (-$369.0/-2.0 FTE) This reflects the redirection of pesticide program resources to support core program operations in Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk. This will impact efficacy testing of chemicals and pesticides for decontamination of food and agricultural facilities and disinfectants for hospital use. The reduced resources include 2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $311.0. (-$1,409.0) This reflects decreased support for homeland security pesticides related activities. This reduction is possible since EPA has assisted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies in completing guidance on procedures, plans, and technologies to restore airports following a biological attack, and completed the development of a risk management framework for decision-makers for restoration and recovery from a biological incident, including response to and recovery from Bacillus anthracis contamination of a large urban area. (-$56.0) This reflects reduced costs for IT security and integration services. Statutory Authority: Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA; SARA; TSCA; Oil Pollution Act; Pollution Prevention Act; RCRA; EPCRA; SDWA; CWA; CAA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; Ocean Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Executive Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; PRIA.
408
Science & Technology Building and Facilities Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $6,300.3

$593.0 $9,652.1 $1,194.0 $17,739.4 3.3

$593.0 $8,070.0 $1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0

$579.0 $8,038.0 $1,172.0 $15,767.0 3.0

($14.0) ($32.0) ($22.0) ($459.0) 0.0
$6,369.0
$593.0 $8,070.0 $1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0
Program Project Description: This portion of EPAs Homeland Security Program is composed of the following three distinct elements: (1) Physical Security - ensuring EPAs physical structures and critical assets are secure and operational with adequate security procedures in place to safeguard staff in the event of an emergency; (2) Personnel Security - initiating and adjudicating personnel security investigations; and (3) National Security Information - classifying and safeguarding sensitive mission critical data. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on issuing secure and reliable identification (Smart Cards) to all employees and select non-federal workers. Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201-1, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, establishes the technical specifications for the Smart Cards. Additionally, EPA will continue its physical security activities on a regular basis, including conducting security vulnerability assessments and mitigation at EPAs facilities nationwide. Personnel security will play a major role in the Agencys new EPA Personnel Access Security System (EPASS) deployment. Concurrent with new EPASS responsibilities, the Personnel Security Program will continue to perform position risk designations, prescreen prospective new hires, process national security clearances, and maintain personnel security files and information. Regarding national security information, FY 2012 activities will include: classifying, declassifying and safeguarding classified information; identifying and marking of classified
409
information; performing education, training, and outreach; and conducting audits and self inspections. In addition, certification and accreditation of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) will continue. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$31.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$200.0) This reflects an efficiency achieved through combining the National Security Information Program and Personnel Security Program. Combining the support contracts for two functionally-related, but separate programs creates a streamlining effect which allows for leveraging knowledge and resources between the two programs. (-$159.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$17.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$16.0) This reflects a realignment of general expenses and contracts to support administrative costs. Statutory Authority: The National Security Strategy; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Executive Orders 10450, 12958, and 12968; Title V CFR Parts 731 and 732. Currently, there are no
410
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
411
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $5,715.8

$5,715.8 13.4

$7,100.0 11.9

$10,795.0 30.9

$3,695.0 19.0
$7,100.0
$7,100.0 11.9
Program Project Description: The Agency coordinates and advances protection of childrens environmental health through regulatory development, science policy, program implementation, communication and effective results measurement to make protecting children an explicit part of the EPA mission to protect human health. The childrens health protection effort is directed by the 1997 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Childrens Health from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks and the 2010 memorandum from the Administrator, EPAs Leadership in Childrens Environmental Health. Legislative mandates such as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 also direct the Agency to protect children and other vulnerable life stages.57 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to use a variety of approaches to protect children from environmental health hazards. Those approaches will include regulation, implementation of community-based programs, research, and outreach. At the same time, the program will periodically evaluate EPAs performance to ensure that it is making steady progress. The Childrens Health program will take the lead in ensuring that EPA programs and Regional offices are successful in their efforts to protect childrens environmental health. (In FY 2012, the Children and other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination program will be funded at $10.79 million and 30.9 FTE.)
57
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directs EPA to produce guidelines on the safe siting of schools and guidelines to states on school environmental health programs in order to protect children from environmental hazards where they learn. The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to strengthen protection of children by considering the risk to the most vulnerable populations and lifestages when setting standards. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to include stricter safety standards for pesticides, especially for infants and children, and a complete reassessment of all existing pesticide tolerances.
412
The following are planned activities in FY 2012: As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools, the program will continue working internally and with other agencies, states and tribes to expand coordinated implementation of successful community-based programs to improve childrens health outcomes. Internally, EPA will continue improving coordination across the Agency to ensure that policies and programs explicitly consider and use the most upto-date data and methods for protecting children from heightened public health risks. In addition, EPA will continue to serve as a co-lead of an inter-agency effort with the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and other related agencies to improve Federal government wide support in implementing legislative mandates under the EISA and coordinating outreach and technical assistance. Address the potential for unique exposures, health effects, and health risks in children during the development of Agency regulations and policies. Coordinate with internal and external research partners to fill critical knowledge gaps on childrens unique vulnerabilities. Improve EPA risk assessment and science policies and their implementation tools to ensure they address unique, early-life health susceptibilities including those for multiple environmental hazards and stressors. Contribute to standards, policies, and guidance at home and abroad that protect children by eliminating potentially harmful prenatal and childhood exposures to pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Increase environmental health knowledge of health care providers related to prenatal and childhood exposures and health outcomes with a focus on vulnerable groups. Continue to work toward the goal of developing measures related to childrens health for which baseline data can be collected in FY 2012, and set targets in FY 2013. Increase transparency and coordination with states, local communities, schools and the general public by supporting a strong communications and outreach effort to share information and provide technical assistance, tools and materials to schools and stakeholder groups. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
413
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$903.0) This decrease reflects a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$2,501.0/+11.0 FTE) This increase supports the coordination and implementation of EISA, providing technical assistance to states and communities on implementation of voluntary school citing and environmental health guidelines. The resources will also support the Agencys cross-program Healthy Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools. These resources include $1,595.0 in associated payroll and 11.0 FTE. (+$1,254.0/+2.0 FTE) This increase reflects the Agencys cross-program Healthy Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools. Funding is for coordinating expertise and efforts across programs to provide technical assistance, develop and implement tools and models, and support communication and outreach. These resources include $290.0 in associated payroll and 2.0 FTE. (+$870.0/+6.0 FTE) This increase reflects the Agencys strategy to focus on childrens health in Agency regulatory action and on outreach and coordination on childrens health actions with federal, state and local government agencies. These resources include $870.0 in associated payroll and 6.0 FTE. (-$27.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: EO 13045; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Food Quality Protection Act of 1996; Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 0f 1996.
414
Environmental Education Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $7,396.6

$7,396.6 14.3

$9,038.0 17.6

$9,885.0 18.5

$847.0 0.9
$9,038.0
$9,038.0 17.6
Program Project Description: This program ensures that Environmental Education (EE), based on sound science and effective education practices, is used as a tool to promote the protection of human health and the environment, and to encourage student academic achievement. Environmental Education is fundamental to EPAs mission and cross-cutting priorities in that it teaches the public about choices and environmental stewardship to produce the next generation of environmentally literate citizens and stewards, and generate support for environmental policy. The National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) provides a foundation for the activities that the Agency conducts. EPA EE programs support NEEA, provide leadership and support and work in partnership with K-12 schools, colleges and universities, federal and state agencies, and community organizations to assess needs, establish priorities, and leverage resources. EPAs environmental education program encompasses education programs and activities that support EPAs strategic goals and priorities. A OneEPA approach to education coordinates Agency education activities to help conserve resources, avoid duplication, and builds upon efforts to increase intra-agency collaboration in support of EPAs goals and priorities. Early examples of this collaboration were in the publication of EPAs 2009 Environmental Education Highlights report, which provided an inventory of education activities and accomplishments across EPA, and the subsequent establishment of an EPA intra-agency Environmental Education Workgroup composed of EPA staff in headquarters and regions in September 2010. In addition to intraagency coordination, OneEPA education activities also involve inclusion of education components in existing EPA grant programs, education for the general public on their role in rulemaking, integration of education elements in coordinated roll-out of programs, and policies and rules. Environmental Education activities are also consistent with the Agency's efforts to promote education in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics nationally. Please see the program website for additional information (www.epa.gov/enviroed). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, a resource level of $9.88 million and 18.5 FTE support Environmental Education.
415
Major programs and activities to be implemented with FY 2012 resources include: National Environmental Education Grant program; National Educator Training program; Environmental Education Awards; Managing the National Environmental Education Advisory Council; Providing funding to the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF); Inter and intra-agency OneEPA coordination: providing technical assistance, funding, and coordination to improve Environmental Education across EPA and the federal government; In FY 2012, EPA also will fund single and multi-media initiatives that include climate change education and OneEPA activities including intra-agency coordination, inclusion of education components in existing EPA grant programs, EPA Eco-ambassadors program that focuses on environmental education on college campuses, and faith and neighborhood partnerships; participation in national community-focused conferences, education for the general public on their role in rulemaking, integration of education elements in coordinated roll-out of programs, policies and rules, and inclusion of education in web and social-media initiatives. Performance Targets: Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$442.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$210.0/+2.0 FTE) This increase will support Environmental Education administrative activities. The additional resources include 2.0 FTE, and $210.0 in associated payroll. (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$248.0) This reflects a net change in resources as a result of a reduction of $843.0 in associated payroll to fund $1,091.0 in non-payroll expenses. The $843.0 decrease in payroll was for the Agency to remain within the 25 percent statutory requirement for program operations. These non-payroll resources are necessary to support EE activities under section 4 of the NEEA, which include climate change education and One EPA
416
activities including intra-agency coordination and incorporating education components in existing EPA grant programs. (-$3.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$50.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: National Environmental Education Act (PL 101-619); Section 103 of the Clean Air Act; Section 104 of the Clean Water Act; Section 8001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act; Section 10 of the Toxic Substances Control Act; Section 20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
417
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $52,787.0

$52,787.0 354.2

$51,944.0 364.1

$52,268.0 357.4

$324.0 -6.7
$51,944.0
$51,944.0 364.1
Program/Project Description: The Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations program provides resources to several headquarters and Regional offices that help EPA to meet its commitments to protect human health and the environment. The activities include support for the Offices of the Administrator and Regional Administrators, as well as Headquarters and Regional support for Congressional, Legislative, and Intergovernmental activities associated with responding to Congressional requests for information and providing written and oral testimony, briefings, and briefing materials, as well as outreach and coordination to state and local governments; public affairs; program and program management services; correspondence control; and the management of EPAs Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Immediate Offices of the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Regional Administrators provide leadership and direction for EPA's programs and activities. The Immediate Offices provide the leadership, guidance, and direction necessary to ensure the achievement of the Agencys strategic goals and the Administrators priorities. Agency leadership also provides an important link to other government policy makers, states, tribes and the public by communicating Agency proposals, actions, policy, data, research, and information through mass media, print publications, and via the Web. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator will be funded at a level of $6.78 million and 44.4 FTE.) The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) in headquarters and the Regional offices lead EPAs interactions with Congress, Governors, and other state and local officials. In FY 2012, these offices will prepare EPA officials for hearings and meetings with members of Congress, oversee responses to written inquiries from members of Congress, coordinate and provide technical assistance and briefings to members of Congress and staff on
418
legislative areas of interest; and coordinate with the White Houses Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Council for Environmental Quality. The Agencys state and local relations staff will serve as the Agencys liaison to state and local government officials and will manage the Administrators Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) and the Small Community Advisory Committee (SCAC). These activities will help to ensure that EPAs policies and regulations consider specific impacts on state and local governments. The office also will work closely with program offices to more fully integrate the National Environmental Performance Partnerships System (NEPPS) framework and principles into the Agency's core business practices. NEPPS is a performance-based system of environmental protection designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state-EPA partnerships. By focusing EPA and state resources on the most pressing environmental problems and taking advantage of the unique capacities of each partner, performance partnerships may help achieve the greatest environmental and human health protection. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations will be funded at a level of $6.72 million and 48.3 FTE.) In FY 2012, EPA is requesting resources for its Representation fund to host the triennial Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) conference, which is an international organization, created by Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The CEC was established to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. This is a week long session that includes participation by each government delegation and by the public. The US hosts the event every three years. The Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO) formerly the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM), creates uniform policy and guidance and has oversight responsibility for the Agencys FACA committee management process. It surveys committee members and stakeholders, identifies and shares best practices, and provides training to Agency Designated Federal Officers (DFOs), committee Chairpersons, and committee members. This work will ensure that EPAs 50 federal advisory committees (FACs) and sub-committees are in compliance with FACA requirements and administrative guidelines provided by the General Services Administrations Committee Management Secretariat. In FY 2012, OFACMO will conduct comprehensive oversight/assist visits to ensure that EPAs federal advisory committees comply with notice, open meeting, public document, and record keeping requirements. These visits will help reduce practices that expose the committees to legal challenges and vulnerability. In addition, this Office is responsible for managing five FACs: the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, the National Advisory Committee, the Governmental Advisory Committee, the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, and the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee. In FY 2012, OFACMO also will implement a strategic outreach initiative to environmental justice and science-based groups, schools and organizations to increase the number of underrepresented and underserved communities on EPAs federal advisory committees. An enhanced pool will allow DFOs and program offices to bring sorely needed expertise to existing
419
committees from individuals, communities and groups that have traditionally been underserved and/or underutilized on EPAs committees. Such an approach will allow the Agency to have balanced, diverse points of views, a key component of the FACA process. OFACMO will create and maintain a pool of diverse candidates in a central diversity database that will be a key resource for the Agencys advisory committees. Further, the program will visit regional offices to brief managers and staff on the benefits advisory committees bring to their programs. To strengthen its public participation function, OFACMO will implement a plan to expand the conversation on environmentalism. This will include integrating new technologies, including videoconferencing, webcasting, and other forms of social media, with other communication and outreach efforts. By using these tools, OFACMO can ensure links between EPAs federal advisory committees. Moreover, it will allow the Office to hold public meetings, attend conferences, and form partnerships with Minority Academic Institutions, the National Science Foundation, and other science/policy based organizations. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach will be funded at a level of $2.05 million and 11.0 FTE.) The Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education (OEAEE) (formerly the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Environmental Education, respectively) leads EPA in providing a consistent, transparent flow of information from the Agencys headquarters and regional offices to the public, the media, federal, state and local government entities and stakeholders. In FY 2012, EPAs headquarters and Regional Offices of External Affairs will take full advantage of multimedia and Web applications to reach international and domestic audiences and provide local, state and tribal governments access to timely, coherent, and comprehensive information on the Agencys activities and policies. The offices will strive to increase the publics awareness and understanding of health and environmental issues that touch their lives, and shed light on social, technological and scientific solutions. External affairs will utilize traditional and social media, website, and other innovative channels like webcasting and video casting to reach students, diverse communities, multilingual populations and audiences that have not historically participated in the conversation on environmental issues. Environmental Educations resources and activities are included under the Environmental Education program. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education will be funded at a level of $14.79 million and 53.3 FTE.) As the central administrative management component of the Office of the Administrator (OA), the Office of Executive Services (OES) provides advice, tools, and assistance for the organizations programmatic operations including human resources management, budget and financial management, and information technology management and security. In FY 2012, Executive Services will continue to manage the utilization of OAs resources, improve the tracking and projecting of payroll utilization to ensure sound management, and achieve cost savings wherever possible. OES also will assist other organizations by creating cost-effective information technology solutions (i.e., database systems), prepare studies to help assess resource needs, oversee the offices Working Capital fund, and prepare organizational, administrative and personnel materials. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of Executive Services will be funded at a level of $3.35 million and 20.8 FTE.)
420
The Executive Secretariat (OEX) serves as the correspondence, records management, and Freedom of Information Act hubs of the Office of the Administrator, managing executive correspondence, overseeing the FOIA process, maintaining the Administrators and Deputy Administrators records, ensuring that OA meets its records management responsibilities, and managing the Correspondence Management System, a major Agency information technology application. In FY 2012, OEX will continue to assist staff, program, and regional offices in implementing paperless and web-based technologies for correspondence, records management, and FOIA processing, assuring greater efficiency, improved accountability, and reduced cost (e.g., physical records storage at the Federal Records Center). (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of Executive Secretariat will be funded at a level of $1.93 million and 13.5 FTE.) Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$381.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-6.7) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$57.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$319.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (+$10.0) This reflects an increase for the Administrators Representational Fund to host the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), which takes place every three years. (-$329.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: As provided in Appropriations Act funding; FACA; EAIA; NAFTA Implementation Act; RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA. Currently, there are no
421
Exchange Network Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $17,918.5

$1,438.6 $19,357.1 28.2

$1,433.0 $18,457.0 24.0

$1,433.0 $22,316.0 30.4

$0.0 $3,859.0 6.4
$17,024.0
$1,433.0 $18,457.0 24.0
Program Project Description: EPA and state, tribal and territorial partners reap tremendous data management and environmental benefits from the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Network, EN). The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes and other entities to facilitate and streamline electronic reporting, sharing, integration, analysis, and use of environmental data from many different sources. The Central Data Exchange58 (CDX) is the largest component within the EN program. CDX is the portal, or electronic gateway, through which environmental data enters the Agency. It enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from state and local governments, industry and tribes to EPA. It also provides a set of core services for the entire Agency, rather than each Agency program building its own duplicative services. The reuse of existing central services like CDX promotes a leaner and more cost-effective enterprise architecture for the Agency, enables more robust central services and provides a common way to promote data integration and sharing with states since CDX serves as EPAs connection to the EN. The CDX budget supports infrastructure for development, testing and production; sophisticated hardware and software; data exchange and Web form programs; built-in data quality checks; standards-setting projects with states, tribes and territories for electronic reporting; and significant security and quality assurance activities. By reducing the IT data management burden on EPA programs, CDX helps environmental programs focus their resources on enforcement and programmatic work, rather than data collection and manipulation. Other tools and services in the EN program include the Facility Registry System (FRS) and the System of Registries (SoR). The FRS is a widely used source of mapping and environmental data about facilities. It allows a multimedia display and integration of environmental information
58
For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
422
keyed to a single or multiple facilities. It offers enormous benefits for enforcement targeting, homeland security and data integration among disparate datasets as well as a key point of entry for the public interested in EPAs data stores. The SoR adds meaning to EPAs data and promotes access, sharing and understanding of it. The SoR helps environmental professionals and the public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will develop services that encourage innovative data sharing and analysis while reducing the cost and burden of reporting. The program will pilot projects that move the Network from a closed partnership of states, tribes and EPA to a more open platform of services that the public or third parties can use to develop tools and applications to make environmental data reporting, sharing, and analysis faster, simpler and cheaper. The EN program also will increase the amount of critical environmental data flowing, expand the programs role in sharing data among partners, provide increased business value through reduced burden and build on prior efforts to provide better data quality, timeliness and accessibility while making the Network simpler and less costly to implement. Finally, pending the results of research in 2011, CDX will move to a public or private cloud in order to save money and gain added efficiency for its customers. EPA continues to leverage the EN to achieve Agency goals and priorities while increasing efficiency. Success stories include the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) State Data Exchange (SDX) which has significantly reduced the burden both for reporting facilities and for states. Prior to the EN, facilities had to report data both to EPA and to the State. SDX eliminates the need for facilities to report twice. Furthermore, states now receive this data instantly from EPA and it is automatically placed in their information systems, dramatically reducing state costs to manage this data. While starting primarily with states, Network partnerships have expanded to include a broader range of participants. Examples include sharing data about the Chesapeake Bay among all levels of participating governments and a central tribal information hub hosted by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for water quality data reporting and sharing. In FY 2012, EPA expects to begin full development of at least one to two of the required Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) data exchanges. ACE is the Customs and Border Protections commercial trade processing system designed to automate border cargo processing and enhance border security. Once in production, EPA will be able to demonstrate and promote broader reuse of its successful ACE data exchange across other federal agencies exchanging data with ACE. EPA will provide its technology and approaches to other interested federal agencies for installation and operation. In FY 2012, CDX will continue to support the Office of Transportation of Air Quality (OTAQ) in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard through several interconnected systems. The systems include the OTAQ Registration system, OTAQ Fuels Reporting System, and the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). EMTS is a unique industry government partnership that reduces burden and improves efficiency for industry by providing an electronic marketplace
423
for transactions of Renewable Identification Numbers as well as traditional computer to computer electronic reporting. CDX will also increase electronic reporting to EPA by meeting several new reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Planned activities in FY 2012 for the System of Registries will continue efforts to allow greater sharing and better understanding of EPAs data, including: The Substance Registry Services will continue to catalog all chemicals and other substances that are tracked or regulated at EPA. The Registry of EPA Applications and Databases (READ) inventories EPA data systems. The Reusable Component Services (RCS) is a developers' catalog of services (e.g, Web services, XML schema, code libraries) that promotes cost savings and reuse not just at EPA but across the Exchange Network with states and tribes. The Data Registry Services (DRS) is a central repository for data dictionaries and code sets that help system management, align data among different systems and ensure conformance to data standards. Terminology Services (TS) is the Agency's catalog of terms (e.g., gray water, climate change) and vocabularies to support better understanding of data and linking data that might not otherwise be connected in order to promote better analysis and access. In FY 2012, the EN program will support the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative by expanding the use of the Network. EPA will create an open platform electronic reporting file data exchange standard, modeled after that used by the IRS to collect tax data. The intent is to unleash the expertise of the private sector marketplace to create new electronic reporting tools for three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System data flows. These private sector electronic reporting tools would be based on EPA and Exchange Network data standards and protocols and would replace the largely paper-based reporting systems that evolved over the past 30 years. Further, in those programs where EPA has already built electronic reporting tools, the private sector may enhance these tools to better support industry needs, enabling EPA largely to eliminate the need to continue to fund the operation and maintenance of these tools. Through the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, the Agency will be adding a number of electronic submissions to EPA through rulemakings in any media, such as air, water, toxics and pesticides. New e-File goals of faster, easier compliance submissions to EPA will be met, providing technical assistance and guidance to the vendor community and, internally, enhancements that will be needed to the EN and CDX technologies. Examples include technical assistance with standards, guidelines and procedures, data delivery protocols and internal enhancements to EN services such as user registration. An Agency help desk will also be necessary to support the vendor community to ensure compliance and interoperability with
424
Agency requirements. EN technologies also will support large industry partners that want to submit data directly from their enterprise resource systems to EPA. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(052) Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
60
60
60
72
Systems
Measure Type
Measure
(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.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
65
69
65
80
Users
Measure Type
Measure
(054) Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
210,000
231,700
210,000
215,000
Users
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$118.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (- 0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.
425
(+$3,408.0/+1.0 FTE) This increase will support the Agencys efforts to modernize compliance reporting and monitoring as part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative. EPA will enhance the electronic reporting capabilities through the Network and CDX environmental data technologies. The additional resources include $158.0 associated payroll for 1.0 FTE. (+$948.0/+6.0 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE and associated payroll from IT/Data Management. This shift more accurately reflects the work already being done. (-$615.0) This reflects efficiency gains from consolidating a portion of the Envirofacts data warehouse, the Facility Registry System, and the Systems of Registries into a single operation under one Federal manager. Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act, Security and Accountability of Every (SAFE) Port Act, Executive Order 13439. Exchange Network Program funding has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY 2002 (Public Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY 2005 (Public Law 108-447) and FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
426
Small Business Ombudsman Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $3,488.5

$3,488.5 8.1

$3,028.0 10.0

$2,953.0 9.3

($75.0) -0.7
$3,028.0
$3,028.0 10.0
Program Project Description: The Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman (ASBO), a component of the Office of Small Business Programs, serves as the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) leading advocate for small business regulatory issues. The ASBO reaches out to the small business community by partnering with state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs) nationwide and hundreds of small business trade associations. These partnerships provide the information and perspective EPA needs to help small businesses achieve their environmental goals. This is a comprehensive program that provides networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses.59 The core ASBO functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating and supporting the programs hotline and homepage, participating in EPA program and regional offices small business related meetings, and supporting internal and external small business activities. The ASBO helps small businesses learn about new EPA actions and developments, and helps EPA learn about the concerns and needs of small businesses. The ASBO partners with state SBEAPs in order to reach an ever increasing number of small businesses, and to assist them with updated and new approaches for improving their environmental performance. The ASBO provides technical assistance in the form of workshops, conferences, hotlines, and training forums designed to help small businesses become better environmental performers and helps our partners provide the assistance that small businesses need. In addition, the Office of Policys Sustainable Communities program helps small businesses effectively compete in neighborhood retail markets. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman program will continue to: Support and promote EPAs Small Business Strategy by encouraging small businesses, states, and trade associations to comment on EPAs proposed regulatory actions, as well
59
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sbo
427
as providing updates on the Agency's rulemaking activities in the quarterly Smallbiz@ EPA electronic bulletin. Serve as the Agencys point of contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act by coordinating efforts with the Agencys program offices to further reduce the information collection burden for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Participate with the Small Business Administration and other federal agencies in Business.gov. Business.gov is an official site of the U.S. Government that helps small businesses understand their legal requirements, and locate government services supporting the nations small business community. This work helps to improve services and reduces the burden on small businesses by guiding them through government rules and regulations. EPA also will support and promote a state-led multi-media small business initiative and coordinate efforts within the Agency. Strengthen and support partnerships with state Small Business SBEAPs and trade associations, and recognize state SBEAPs, small businesses, and trade associations that have directly impacted the improved environmental performance of small businesses. Develop a compendium of small business environmental assistance success stories that demonstrate what really works. Use lean manufacturing, which is a business model and collection of methods that help eliminate waste while delivering quality products on time and at least cost. Building on the current efforts will help to develop and coordinate EPAs policies and strategies related to sustainable manufacturing. This effort will involve working with EPAs program and regional partners, as well as the Departments of Commerce and Energy on a multi-agency initiative to demonstrate successes in sustainable production. Work with partners in EPAs programs and regions to lead and coordinate Agency policies and strategies on green workforce development. Provide technical assistance and coordination to other federal and state departments and agencies - as well as other external organizations - to promote green workforce development in key sectors that are critical to meeting EPAs goals. Under this program, resources of $1.68 million and 4.7 FTE support the Office of Small Business Programs. The remaining $1.27 million and 4.6 FTE in this program support the Office of Policy, Office of Sustainable Communities' activities related to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports EPAs Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution, Objective 2: Promote Pollution Prevention. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
428
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$31.0) This decrease reflects a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (- 0.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$27.0) This reflects a minor decrease to contract resources for outreach due to efficiencies realized by partnering with other EPA offices and programs to meet this need. (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CAAA, section 507.
429
Small Minority Business Assistance Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $2,133.1

$2,133.1 9.2

$2,350.0 9.8

$2,280.0 9.6

($70.0) -0.2
$2,350.0
$2,350.0 9.8
Program Project Description: The Agencys Small Minority Business Program encompasses the Agencys Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) Direct Procurement, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), and Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) programs. This program provides technical assistance to small businesses as well as headquarters and Regional offices employees, to ensure that small, disadvantaged, women-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), servicedisabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), and MAIs receive a fair share of EPAs procurement dollars and grants, where applicable. This program enhances the ability of these businesses to participate in the protection of human health and the environment. The functions involve accountability for evaluating and monitoring contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements entered into, and on behalf of, EPAs headquarters and Regional offices. This will ensure that the Agencys contract and procurement practices comply with federal laws and regulations regarding the utilization of small and disadvantaged businesses, direct procurement acquisitions, indirect procurement assistance, and further the policies and mandates of Executive Orders associated with the MAI program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, under the Agencys OSBP Direct Procurement program, small and disadvantaged business procurement experts will continue to provide assistance to headquarters and Regional program office personnel and small business owners to ensure that small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), HUBZone firms, and SDVOSBs receive a fair share of EPAs procurement dollars. EPA negotiates a number of national goals with the Small Business Administration (SBA) every two years, which are targeted at increasing opportunities for the above mentioned categories of small businesses. (In FY 2012, the funding for the Small Minority Business Assistance Program is $2.28 million and 9.6 FTE).
430
In FY 2012, EPA continues to work to eliminate unnecessary contract bundling to help ensure opportunities for Americas small business community. Contract bundling requires certain conditions to obtain contracts that small businesses cannot provide because of their size. Strong emphasis will be placed on implementing Section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, authorizing contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs for certain federal contracts in industries in which the SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in federal procurement. The Agency also will emphasize contracting with SDVOSBs, as mandated by Executive Order 13360, which requires increased federal contracting opportunities for this group of entrepreneurs. Under its DBE Program, EPA has a statutory goal of ten percent utilization of Minority Business Enterprises/Women-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory eight percent goal for all other programs. The DBE program encourages the Agency and its financial assistance recipients to meet these indirect procurement goals. These efforts will enhance the ability of Americas small and disadvantaged businesses to help the Agency protect human health and the environment while creating more jobs. As a result of the Supreme Courts decision in Adarand v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), EPA promulgated the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Rule (40 CFR Part 33). EPA will continue implementation of the DBE Rule, which requires EPA grant recipients to perform good faith efforts to ensure that DBEs have an opportunity to compete for contracts funded by EPA assistance agreements. Under its MAI program, the Agency develops strategies, collects data, provides technical assistance, and produces reports on its efforts to meet the initiatives of Executive Order 13216, Increase Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs; Executive Order 13230, President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans; Executive Order 13256, President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); and Executive Order 13270, Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$18.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Currently, there are no
431
(-$28.0) This reflects a minor decrease to contract resources for outreach due to efficiencies realized by partnering with other EPA offices and programs to meet this need. (-$16.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Small Business Act, sections 8 and 15, as amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432, 12138, 13256, 13270, 13230, 13360 and 13216; P.L. 106-50; CAA.
432
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,426.7

$13,426.7 51.0

$13,303.0 57.9

$14,613.0 59.8

$1,310.0 1.9
$13,303.0
$13,303.0 57.9
Program Project Description EPA works with state, local, and tribal partners to help protect the public and the environment from catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical handling facilities. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA regulations require that facilities handling more than a threshold quantity of certain extremely hazardous substances must implement a Risk Management Program and submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to EPA. RMPs also are sent to state and local emergency planning entities as well as the Chemical Safety Board, and are made available to the public at federal reading rooms. The RMP describes the hazards of the chemicals used by the facility, the potential consequences of worst case and other accidental release scenarios, the facilitys five year accident history, the chemical accident prevention program in place at the site, and the emergency response program used by the site to minimize the impacts on the public and environment should a chemical release occur. Facilities are required to update their RMP at least once every five years and sooner if changes are made at the facility. The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to conduct audits and inspections at RMP facilities to ensure their compliance with the regulations. EPA conducts on-site inspections at more than 500 facilities annually, and takes enforcement actions where inspections and audits reveal significant non-compliance. EPA has identified 13,100 RMP facilities nationwide. Of these, approximately 1,900 facilities have been designated as high risk based upon their accident history, quantity of chemicals on site and proximity to large residential populations. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Agency works with state, local, and tribal partners to help them develop and implement emergency plans through technical assistance grants, technical support, outreach, and training, and also works with industry partners to produce tools and guidance used by industry, government, and local communities to control hazardous materials. EPA works with communities to provide chemical risk information about local facilities, as well as helping them understand how the chemical risks may affect their citizens. Additionally, EPA supports continuing development of emergency planning and response tools such as the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
433
(CAMEO) software suite. With this information and these tools, communities are better prepared to reduce and mitigate hazardous chemical releases that may occur. EPA also conducts inspections at facilities subject to EPCRA to ensure they comply with the statutes chemical inventory reporting and emergency release notification provisions. EPA also assists the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as other federal agencies and state, tribal, and local partners by providing updated copies of the RMP database, analytical support, and ongoing technical support for integration of RMP and EPCRA tools and information. In addition, EPA conducts analyses of RMP data to identify regulated facilities, chemical accident trends, and industrial sectors that may be more accident-prone, to gain knowledge on the effectiveness of risk management measures. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Recent accidents at chemical facilities have resulted in injury and death, severe environmental damage, and great financial loss. Accidents reported to EPA by the current universe of Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities have resulted in over 40 worker deaths, nearly 1,500 worker injuries, more than 300,000 people sheltered in place, and more than $1 billion in on-site and off-site damages for the current universe of facilities. States and communities often lack the strong infrastructure needed to address these emergencies or to prevent them from happening in the first place. Despite the growing need, the number of RMP facility inspections has historically been low, as resource and staffing levels are limited for this program. Further, as high-risk chemical facilities (such as petroleum refineries) are usually the largest and most difficult facilities to inspect, these facilities had historically been inspected at an even lower rate. EPA has already shifted resources toward high risk facility inspections, but additional staff and funding is needed to increase the number and frequency of these inspections. In FY 2012, as part of the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, EPA requests an increase to its chemical accident prevention and emergency planning programs in order to reduce risks at high risk chemical facilities. EPA leadership has focused attention on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities exist, in terms of scale and potential risk. The nation has seen too many examples in the last two years of the consequences of insufficient regulatory oversight. These resources will be devoted to inspections conducted at high risk facilities in order to find and address problems before they become disasters. Using these additional resources, EPA will increase the rate of inspections at high risk facilities to 149 per year (from the FY 2011 rate of 142 per year), while maintaining its current rate of inspection for non-high risk RMP facilities. The FY 2012 target assumes there is a lag time in the hiring and training of new inspectors. In FY 2012, EPA will continue its ongoing implementation of the base program by improving other aspects of the chemical accident prevention and emergency response programs. EPA will provide national coordination for chemical accident prevention and emergency response planning program policy, inspections, compliance, and enforcement. Activities include
434
developing and updating program policies and procedures, conducting program oversight and monitoring, continuing support for the CAMEO system, and continued efforts to strengthen identification of facilities that did not file RMPs. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(CH2) Number of risk management plan audits and inspections conducted.
FY 2010 Target
400
FY 2010 Actual
618
FY 2011 CR Target
560
FY 2012 Target
578
Units
Audits
In FY 2012, EPA will conduct at least 578 RMP facility inspections, including at least 149 inspections at high-risk facilities. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$312.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-3.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$1,000.0/ +5.0 FTE) This reflects an increase as part of the Agencys Regaining Ground investment with additional resources devoted to more inspections conducted at high risk facilities. This includes 5.0 FTE and associated payroll of $680.0. (+$28.0) This reflects an increase in non-pay base resources. (-$30.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 11001-11023 and the Clean Air Act, as amended by the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Section 112(r).
435
TRI / Right to Know Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $15,230.9

$15,230.9 46.4

$14,933.0 43.0

$16,463.0 50.1

$1,530.0 7.1
$14,933.0
$14,933.0 43.0
Program Project Description: High quality, readily available and useable data serves as a strategic resource that supports the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment. Environmental information programs support the Administrations goals of transparency, participation, engagement and collaboration to expand the conversation on environmentalism. The Toxics Release Inventory60 (TRI) Program reliably provides the public with information on releases for over 650 toxic chemicals from certain classes of industrial facilities. TRI is the Agencys only multi-media, integrated provider of such information to the public. Each year, the TRI Program receives facility-submitted data on toxic chemical releases and transfers, maintains the data in a database and makes the data readily available to the public. Due to the scope and timeliness of the data, TRI is a premier source of information for community right-to-know groups, and it fulfills the Agencys statutory responsibilities under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). The TRI data is used by many individuals and organizations including environmental and community groups, academic institutions, the financial community, industrial facilities, government agencies and the international community to find out about toxic chemical releases at the local level, to ensure compliance with environmental laws and regulations and to encourage pollution prevention and source reduction activities by industrial facilities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The regulatory foundation for the TRI Program ensures that communities have access to timely and meaningful information on toxic chemical releases in their neighborhoods. To strengthen this foundation, the program will take steps in FY 2012 to clarify the TRI reporting requirements for specific industries as needed (e.g., metal mining facilities), and to propose selected chemicals (e.g., chemicals listed in the Agencys Chemical Action Plans) to the list of toxic chemicals that
60
For more information on the Toxics Release Inventory, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/.
436
are reported under TRI. In addition, the program will consider whether to regulate additional industry sectors under TRI and/or to require TRI reporting by individual facilities of concern. TRI will continue to work closely with EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program to evaluate potential data quality issues concerning facility TRI submissions and to support compliance assistance and enforcement efforts. Strong coordination of programmatic and enforcement efforts will continue to be essential in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the TRI data. TRI will continue to encourage facility reporters to submit their TRI reports electronically using the online TRI-MEweb application and EPAs Central Data Exchange (CDX). TRI-MEweb includes certain pre-populated data fields, as well as a number of automated data quality checks, which help facilities submit accurate reports more easily. In addition, TRI will continue to encourage states to join the TRI State Data Exchange, which makes it possible for facilities in participating states to submit their federal and state TRI reports simultaneously rather than separately, thereby reducing their reporting burden. Also, TRI will continue outreach efforts. The TRI National Training Conference is our premier outreach effort for connecting with nongovernmental organizations, Industry Trade Associations and other parties interested in the TRI program. We also contact all TRI reporters annually to educate them on the new reporting requirements and tools. By July 1st of each year, reporting facilities must submit their TRI reports to EPA for the previous calendar year. In FY 2012, the TRI Program will continue providing public access to the TRI data as quickly as possible through downloadable data files (available on the TRI Web site, with links from Data.gov), analytical tools such as TRI Explorer and Envirofacts, and/or data publishing services. TRI will work to enhance the analytical capabilities available to data users and to provide more hazard-based information to help make the data more meaningful and useful to a wide range of data users. The TRI Program will continue to work with outside organizations, such as the Environmental Council of the States, to foster stakeholder discussions and collaboration on the analysis, use and application of TRI data (e.g., through the ChemicalRight2Know.org Web site and the TRI National Training Conference). At the same time, TRI will work with others to promote corporate accountability and environmental stewardship. The program will continue to provide access to TRI data at both the individual facility level and the corporate level. TRI also will continue to highlight TRI data on pollution prevention and best management practices. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$403.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. Currently, there are no
437
(-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$1,177.0 / +8.2 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources, including shifting 8.2 FTE and $1,148 associated payroll, from the IT/Data Management program to the TRI program to reflect current efforts being performed for TRI. These efforts include the assessment of 360 chemicals to be listed in the inventory and the development of community-focused tools to assist in the evaluation of toxics release data. (-$50.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and Ecosystems program, which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this database in the past. Statutory Authority: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA).
438
Tribal - Capacity Building Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,040.9

$13,040.9 78.2

$12,080.0 73.1

$15,070.0 87.3

$2,990.0 14.2
$12,080.0
$12,080.0 73.1
Program Project Description: Under federal environmental statutes, EPA has responsibility for protecting human health and the environment in Indian country. EPA has worked to establish the internal infrastructure and organize its activities in order to meet this responsibility. Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with tribes on a government-togovernment basis in recognition of the federal government's trust responsibility to federallyrecognized tribes. EPAs American Indian Environmental program leads the Agency-wide effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country. See http://www.epa.gov/indian/ and http://www.epa.gov/indian/policyintitvs.htm for more information. EPAs strategy for this program has three major components: Work with tribes to create an environmental presence for each federally-recognized tribe (discussed under the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) in the STAG appropriation); Provide the data and information needed by tribal governments and EPA to meet tribal environmental priorities. At the same time, ensure EPA has the ability to review and analyze the conditions on Indian lands and the effects of EPA and tribal actions and programs on the environmental conditions; and In FY 2012, the American Indian Environmental program will continue to support not only the efforts laid out by the GAP program, but also provide an administrative and oversight role for the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA requests support for the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program requested in this budget. This program is tailored to address an individual tribes most serious
439
environmental needs through the implementation of federal environmental programs. It is essential that EPAs Tribal Capacity Building Program and the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program be effectively harmonized so that they build upon each other to enhance environmental protection in Indian country and Alaskan Native Villages. EPAs Indian Policy affirms the principle that the Agency has a government-to-government relationship with tribes and that EPA recognizes tribes as the primary parties for setting standards, making environmental policy decisions and managing programs for reservations, consistent with agency standards and regulations. To that end, EPA encourage[s] and assist[s] tribes in assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities, primarily through the treatment in a manner similar to a state (TAS) processes available under several environmental statutes. EPA continues to encourage tribal capacity development to implement federal environmental programs, including the use of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) authority.
Number of Tribes with TAS (cumulative)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Another tool in building tribal capacity is implemented through the development of Tribal/EPA Environmental Agreements (TEAs) or similar tribal environmental plans that address and support priority environmental multi-media concerns in Indian country. In 2005, EPA instituted an annual review of the national GAP grant program to ensure effective management of grant resources. This effort includes review of Regional GAP programs and individual GAP grant files. Regional reviews of the GAP program by the Agency will continue in FY 2012. All GAP grantees must meet the requirement, begun in FY 2007, to submit a standardized work plan which includes milestones and deliverables, and links to the Agencys strategic plan. Standardized workplans lead to a better characterization of environmental and
440
public health benefits of the capacity building activities in a consistent manner. EPA has developed and implemented the GAP Online database as part of the Tribal Program Environmental Assessment (TPEA). GAP Online is a web-based tool for workplan development and reporting. In addition, EPA will continue developing a framework to assist recipients in clearly identifying key procedures and milestones leading to building capacity for specific programs. EPA has a suite of secure internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and program implementation in Indian country, as well as other business functions. One application, the Tribal Program Management System (TPMS), tracks progress in achieving the performance targets under Goal 3 Objective 4 of EPAs FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country and other EPA metrics. EPA staff use TPMS to establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and to record actual program performance for overall national program management. The system serves as the performance database for all of the strategic targets, annual performance measures, and program assessment measures. TPEA, part of the Agencys Envirofacts system, is a multi-agency, multi-media database that is designed to support tribal programs for all tribes, as well as the EPA National Program Managers. TPEA, accessible through the tribal portal, links tribal environmental information from EPA with tribal data systems from other agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Indian Health Service. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to enhance this database to promote management of tribal environmental programs and to show results of environmental improvements in Indian country. TPEA organizes environmental data on a tribal basis, bringing together data from different agencies, programs and tribes in a format providing a clear, up-to-date picture of environmental conditions in Indian country. TPEA is entirely internet-based and is designed to track the following three classes of information: Environmental information from national monitoring and facility management databases; EPA programmatic information, generally utilizing customized databases where data are input by Regional program offices; and Individual sets of environmental data to be submitted by tribes. Access to information, as noted above, is a powerful tool in assisting local tribal priority setting and decision making and is a major emphasis for EPAs tribal capacity programs. EPAs American Indian Environmental program will continue to support this effort in FY 2012. See http://www.epa.gov/Tribalportal/ for more information. In FY 2012, EPA will have completed and integrated a crosswalk of tribal identifier codes to consistently report tribal information across the EPA Databases. The tribal names and codes used by EPA are identical to those used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and are developed and maintained by the BIA Office of Indian Services. The names of tribes are identical to the listing of tribes in the Federal Register. Both the names of tribes and the tribal codes have been adopted by EPA as agency Environmental Data Standards, for adoption by all EPA data systems
441
that track tribal programs. For this activity, the cooperation of the BIA Office of Indian Services is gratefully acknowledged. These two efforts will enable EPA to measure environmental quality in tribal lands in two important areas: ambient quality of air and water and emissions of pollutants into the environment. Both measures (ambient quality and emissions) are important in the development of outcome-based performance measures for EPA tribal programs. Efforts to link TPEA directly to the Sanitation Deficiency System Database (SDS) of the Indian Health Service (IHS) will continue. To further strengthen EPAs effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country, the program provides support to EPAs National Tribal Operations Committee and Agency-wide meetings, including the Indian Program Policy Council. In FY 2012, EPA will begin to implement recommendations of its partnership assessment, conducted in FY 2010-2011, to strengthen and extend the reach of the Committee. Also in FY 2012, EPA will conduct program evaluations with the goal to aid in improving delivery of financial services to tribes, support tribal ecoAmbassador activities, and commit to measures development work across the Agency that strengthens the accuracy and relevancy of tribal measure outcomes. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$355.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$6.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$2,698.0 / +15.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for implementation of the new multimedia grant program which includes associated payroll of $1,894.0 for 15.0 FTE. These funds support new positions to oversee, provide guidance, and ensure accountability to the new grant program. The majority of the FTE are regional due to the place-based nature of the program. (-$57.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Currently, there are no
442
Statutory Authority: Annual Appropriation Acts; Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act; PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SDWA; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; MPRSA; Indoor Radon Abatement Act; OPA; and additional authorities. Work within this Tribal Capacity Building Program supports the above authorities as well as additional statutory authorities that influence environmental protection and affect human health and environmental protection in Indian country.
443
Program Area: International Programs
444
US Mexico Border Program Area: International Programs Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $4,997.8

$4,997.8 21.4

$4,969.0 21.2

$4,912.0 21.1

($57.0) -0.1
$4,969.0
$4,969.0 21.2
Program Project Description: The 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico is one of the most complex and dynamic regions in the world. This region accounts for three of the ten poorest counties in the U.S., with an unemployment rate 250-300 percent higher than the rest of the United States.61 In addition, 432 thousand of the 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias62 which are unincorporated communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 program continues to be a successful joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments. The two governments work with the 10 border states (4 U.S./6 Mexican), 26 U.S. federally recognized Indian tribes, and with local communities to improve the regions environmental health. The Border 2012 framework agreement is intended to protect the environment and public health along the U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Some examples of the results achieved to date include: (1) constructed adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for over 7 million border residents; (2) completed a report on Truck Stop Electrification and Anti-Idling as a Diesel Emission Reduction Strategy at US-Mexico Ports of Entry that identifies strategies for reducing emissions from idling trucks as they wait at the ports of entry; (3) completed the first hazardous waste clean-up, Metales y Derivados, a lead smelting facility, under Mexicos new clean-up law; (4) continued the cleanup at the Ciudad Juarez site (together, all cleanups to date have eliminated over 4.5 million scrap tires along the border); (5) developed an educational DVD entitled A is for Asthma with Elmo, which is utilized to educate preschoolers thru second graders about asthma; and (6) updated the sister city plan for the municipality of Juarez (Chihuahua) and Sunland Park (New Mexico) to incorporate Isleta del Sur Pueblo, making this the first sister city plan to include a Native American tribe. Note: The Border water and wastewater infrastructure programs are described in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation, Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border Program Narrative.
61 62
http://www.nmsu.edu/~bec/BEC/Readings/10.USMBHC-TheBorderAtAGlance.pdf http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php
445
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 program continue to include: (1) increasing access to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure; (2) building greenhouse gas (GHG) information capacity and expanding voluntary energy efficiency reduction programs to achieve GHG reduction; (3) developing institutional capacity to manage municipal solid waste; (4) piloting projects that reduce exposure to household pesticides; (5) conducting binational emergency preparedness training and exercises at sister cities; and (6) continuing to test and update the emergency notification mechanism between Mexico and the United States. In addition, in FY 2012, EPA also will focus its efforts towards the development of the next generation of the border program. The Border 2012 Program continues to address water and sanitation needs along the border through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), which has been instrumental in improving the quality of life of communities along the border. More than 7 million people benefit today from improved sanitation and access to drinking water. In addition, Border 2012 funded several demonstration projects, including storm-water detention structures in Nogales, Sonora; constructed wetlands in Mexicali and Tecate; and a pilot rain harvesting system and composting toilets in the Arizona/Sonora region. All will reduce water contamination from sewage and each provides added benefits through improved flood control, water conservation, or riparian habitat value. In 2009, BEIF funding helped to complete 13 projects, which provided wastewater and drinking water services to 370,000 people in border communities of Playas de Rosarito (Baja California), Somerton and Nogales (Arizona), and Agua Prieta (Sonora). Continued collaboration between EPA and the Mexican Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT) has resulted in Mexico launching the Transporte Limpio, modeled after EPAs SmartWay. Work under this program will continue with a goal to increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from diesel trucks operating along the border. In addition, all 10 border states have completed greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) inventories following the International Panel on Climate Change protocol. These inventories provide information on sources and volumes of emissions and enable identification of strategies for reducing emissions. In FY 2012, the program will continue work towards building on border greenhouse gas (GHG) information capacity using comparable methodologies and expand voluntary cost-effective programs for reduction of GHG emissions in the border area. GHG emissions will be estimated in at least eight border states, identifying the sources and locations from which reductions may be achieved. Abandoned scrap tires continue to present environmental and public health hazards from potential fires and their resulting air pollution and from disease-carrying pests. Together, all cleanups to date have eliminated over 4.5 million scrap tires along the border. Previously, EPA and SEMARNAT developed the Scrap Tire Integrated Management Initiative to eliminate scrap tire piles and ensure that newly generated scrap tires are managed in an environmentally sound manner. Since then, EPA has been working with border states, municipalities, and the tire industry in their tire initiative collaborative efforts to increase awareness and understanding of the US-Mexico Scrap Tire Integrated Management Initiative through capacity building efforts. In FY 2012, the program will continue the clean-up of the Ciudad Juarez tire pile, in addition to
446
reducing waste generation and environmental impacts through green purchasing, proper solid waste management, and source reduction practices. For example, a collection event in Tamaulipas achieved notable results, including the collection of 12,010 liters of used oil, 4,461 liters of oil mixed water, 768 kilograms of mud containing hydrocarbons, and 2,150 used batteries. In FY 2012, EPA will continue applying the binational framework on cleanup/remediation and restoration of sites contaminated with hazardous waste at the border of California and Baja California. In 2010, EPA and SEMARNAT, building on the very successful performance of Border 2012, started the evaluation/assessment of continuing environmental and health challenges in the border region which will inform the development of the next generation of the border program. This work will continue in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. Currently, there are no
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (-$31.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$29.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$3.0) This increase supports programmatic outreach efforts for the Border 2012 Program.
447
Statutory Authority: In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)63: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(1) and (2), 33 USC 1254(a)(1) and (2); SDWA 1442(a)(1), 42 USC 300j-1(a)(1); SWDA 8001(a)(1), 42 USC 6981(a)(1); FIFRA 17(d) and 20(a) , 7 U.S.C. 136o(d) and 136r(a); TSCA10(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2609(a) (in consultation and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and with other appropriate departments and agencies); MPRSA 203(a)(1), 33 USC 1443(a)(1), 42 USC 4332; Annual Appropriation Acts.
63
Section 102(2)(F) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F), directs all Federal agencies, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, to lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment. EPA construes the explicit authority to conduct education and training and to render technical assistance contained in the statutes cited above, as supplemented by 102(2)(F) of NEPA, as implicitly supporting activities which will benefit foreign governments and foreign, international and domestic organizations in the international arena to protect the quality of the environment.
448
International Sources of Pollution Program Area: International Programs Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $8,514.5

$8,514.5 43.7

$8,628.0 44.4

$8,302.0 44.2

($326.0) -0.2
$8,628.0
$8,628.0 44.4
Program Project Description: EPA has improved the quality of life for all Americans by safeguarding their air, water, and land and helping protect their health. To achieve our domestic environmental objectives, it is important to keep abreast of emerging environmental issues and to collaborate with domestic and foreign partners to address foreign sources of pollution that impact the United States (U.S.) and the global commons, such as the open ocean and the atmosphere. It also is important for the U.S. to work with international partners to address the impacts of pollution from the U.S. on other countries and the global environment. Key countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and vital regions like Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, as well as U.S. border areas, are necessary partners in addressing these issues. EPA has identified six priority areas for international action: Build Strong Environmental and Legal Structures; Improve Access to Clean Water; Improve Air Quality; Limit Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Climate Forcing Pollutants; Reduce Exposure to Toxic Chemicals; and Reduce Hazardous Waste and Improve Waste Management. Air quality in the United States is affected by other countries emissions of criteria pollutants (e.g., PM, NOx, SOx, lead, ozone, carbon monoxide) and air toxics (e.g., mercury [Hg], Persistent Organic Pollutants [POPs]). These emissions also can have a detrimental impact on human health and the environment. Foreign sources of pollution may impact the U.S. environment and public health directly through our land borders, shared natural resources, transport of pollutants in the atmosphere, food chains, or other vectors. Foreign sources of pollution may include emissions of air pollutants, mercury, toxics, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and waste (hazardous and electronic). As we better understand the interdependencies of global ecosystems and the transport of pollutants, it becomes clear that the actions of other countries affect the U.S. environment and the actions of the U.S. affect the global environment. EPA engages bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally (e.g., United Nations Environment Program [UNEP] and the Arctic Council, and multilateral agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, etc.) to address sources of pollution and address
449
domestic and global environmental challenges. An important EPA focus is building the capacity of international partners to establish environmental institutions, enact effective laws and regulations, enforce environmental laws, have the technical abilities and tools to assess environmental conditions, impacts, and measure the progress of environmental protection policies, programs, and strategies. International capacity-building plays a key role in protecting human health and the environment. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA continues to address air pollution and air quality with international partners that contribute significant pollution to the environment and who are committed to improving their environmental performance. For example, China is steadily improving its clean air laws with advice and lessons learned from the U.S. Also, Indonesia is collaborating with EPA in improving the air quality in key areas, such as the city of Jakarta, an important mega-city. EPA will work with selected countries in the Caribbean to enhance their monitoring capabilities and assist in the development of air quality standards. EPA also will continue to address climate change issues by fulfilling its international responsibilities under existing efforts and provisions, and by intensifying our efforts to coordinate, negotiate, implement, and participate in international agreements. EPA will do this at the policy level via participation and representation of the U.S. in international organizations and at international fora. EPA engagements will cover core elements of ongoing negotiations, and associated multilateral and bilateral dialogue on implementation via mitigation, adaptation, financing and trade, and technology cooperation. EPA also will explore and assess climate impacts of short-term air pollutants including black carbon, tropospheric ozone and methane, with a particular focus on the Arctic. Additionally, EPA will strengthen and expand international capacity building efforts for GHG avoidance and reduction, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on work with developing countries and emerging economies. EPA will partner with developed and developing countries, to share lessons learned on the effective management of GHG emissions reductions as well as to share tools and methodologies to promote ways to adapt to climate change. EPA also will promote co-benefit strategies with partner countries that reduce GHG emissions and black carbon, improving local air quality as well as global climate impacts. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to be an active partner in the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (PCFV) program. The global car fleet is predicted to triple by 2050 - over 80 percent of that increase would be in the developing world.64 The primary goal of this global partnership is to reduce vehicular air pollution and emissions of climate forcers in developing and transitioning countries by eliminating lead in gasoline, phasing down sulphur in diesel and gasoline fuels, and facilitating the introduction of cleaner and more efficient vehicles. Additionally, EPA will continue its efforts to reduce transboundary pollution by focusing on practical measures to achieve reductions in PM, NOx and other emissions, particularly from power plants and ships. For example, EPA will continue to assist China with assessing and reducing emissions of PM and mercury from coal combustion sources, and with information and analyses to inform Chinas environmental objectives under the 12th 5-Year Plan.
64
IEA 2008 Energy Technology Perspectives 2008Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, International Energy Agency, Paris.
450
As part of its effort to reduce global sources of persistent bioaccumulative toxics, EPA continues efforts to reduce the global use and emission of mercury. EPA joined with other U.S. Government agencies and the international community at the February 2009 UNEP Governing Council in Nairobi in supporting a major decision to elaborate a legally binding instrument on mercury to reduce the health and environmental risks associated with mercury. 65 EPA participated in the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in June 2010, and the Agency will be active in the development of U.S. negotiating positions through the conclusion of the INC process in 2013. In FY 2012, EPA will work with the UNEP and other partners to strengthen the availability and reliability of data, analyses, and other technical information necessary to inform the INC process. This will include sharing information on U.S. mercury emissions sources and regulatory and policy approaches for controlling them. EPA also will continue to address priority issues such as reducing the supply of commodity mercury to the global market, enhancing the capacity for mercury storage, reducing mercury use in products and processes, and raising awareness of mercury-free alternatives. EPA will work closely with other mercury-emitting countries, especially China; and address various aspects of the reduction or elimination of the use and emissions of mercury. As urban populations continue to grow, clean water supplies become increasingly at risk. Collaboration with global partners is needed to build awareness of water pollution issues and to promote watershed protection. For FY 2012, EPA will promote clean water and drinking water programs in Africa, China, Latin America, the Caribbean, and other key countries and regions focusing on improving the quality of water sources and managing other environmental risks using comprehensive and sustainable approaches. Through an exchange of technical expertise and capacity building efforts, EPA will work with partners to develop programs that promote cost-effective and sustainable drinking water and wastewater approaches with key countries and share experiences and lessons learned globally. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide technical cooperation, expertise, and assistance to help communities and countries preserve and restore the land and to mitigate sources of land pollution. Under the Stockholm Convention,3 EPA works with many countries to reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, dioxins, and furans. To demonstrate the U.S. commitment to international action on these chemicals, EPA is working to mitigate potential risk from POPs reaching the U.S. by long range transport, including better inter- and intra-country coordination on POPs implementation activities through improved access to POPs technical, regulatory, and program information from all sources, including the Internet. In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen implementation of global, regional, and national programs to address electronic waste (e-waste) and sound reuse and recycling of electronic equipment. The
65 3
Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Program, February 2009. For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http://www.pops.int.
451
Agency will partner with other nations and international organizations, such as UNEP, to begin tracking the international movement of electronic waste, and to provide eWaste best practices through education and demonstration projects in developing countries. These efforts will help reduce risks from exposure to toxic substances contained in e-waste such as lead, mercury, cadmium, perfluorinated chemicals, hexavalent chromium, and barium through awareness raising, capacity building on inspections in ports, detecting cases of noncompliance, and enabling improved inter-ministerial and inter-governmental information sharing and collaboration to address e-waste issues. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. Currently, there are no
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$83.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$396.0) This reflects a reduction of efforts addressing international sources of criteria pollutants and toxics such as mercury, POPs, and lead. (+$20.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (-$33.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
452
Statutory Authority: In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)66: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(1) and (2), 33 USC 1254(a)(1) and (2); SDWA 1442(a)(1), 42 USC 300j-1(a)(1); SWDA 8001(a)(1), 42 USC 6981(a)(1); FIFRA 17(d) and 20(a) , 7 U.S.C. 136o(d) and 136r(a); TSCA10(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2609(a) (in consultation and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and with other appropriate departments and agencies); MPRSA 203(a)(1), 33 USC 1443(a)(1), 42 USC 4332; Annual Appropriation Acts.
66
453
Trade and Governance Program Area: International Programs Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,359.8

$6,359.8 20.7

$6,227.0 16.3

$6,233.0 16.3

$6.0 0.0
$6,227.0
$6,227.0 16.3
Program Project Description: As our understanding of environmental issues has increased, so has our appreciation of the need to engage other countries on environmental goals. International cooperation is vital to achieving our mission. Our shared goals for environmental protection can open doors between the United States and foreign governments. Assisting other countries in their environmental protection efforts is an effective part of a larger U.S. strategy for preserving the health and environment of U.S. citizens while also promoting sustainable development and advancing democratic ideals. EPA supports U.S. diplomatic, trade, and foreign policy goals that extend far beyond our domestic agenda. The nexus of environmental protection and international trade has long been a priority for EPA engagement. EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities sustain environmental protection since the 1972 Trade Act mandated interagency consultation by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on trade policy issues. U.S. trade with the world has grown rapidly from $34.4 billion in 1960 to $3.394 trillion in 2008 as stated by the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division.67 This increase underscores the importance of addressing the environmental consequences associated with trade. EPA is a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG), interagency mechanisms that are organized and coordinated by USTR to provide advice, guidance and clearance to the USTR in the development of U.S. international trade and investment policy. EPA, represented by the Administrator, is the lead U.S. agency to implement the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). Beyond its primary objective to foster the protection and improvement of the environment in the region, this also involves trilateral efforts to assess and reduce any possible environmental effects of increased trade among the three North American nations. NAAECs creation represented a commitment by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to integrate environmental protection considerations into their trade negotiations. When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect in 1994, it created the biggest free trade area in the world at the time, with a combined population
67
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/goods.pdf.
454
of 400 million people and an aggregated GDP of over $7 trillion.68 Booming trade after NAFTA came into effect also has led to increasing traffic congestion and related environmental consequences, particularly air pollution.69 Beyond NAFTA, EPA plays an important role in several World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiation forums, bilateral free trade agreements, and other matters. To engage a variety of domestic stakeholders, USTR and EPA co-host the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), a Congressionally-mandated advisory group that provides advice and information in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy. To address trade-related environmental issues, EPA performs four major functions. First, by contributing to the development, negotiation, and implementation of environment-related provisions in all new U.S. free trade agreements, EPA helps to ensure that U.S. trading partner countries improve and enforce their domestic environmental laws. EPA also works with USTR to promote environmental protection through liberalized trade in environmentally preferable goods and services. A second function involves helping to develop the U.S. Governments (USG) environmental reviews of each new free trade agreement, as well as encouraging other trade partners to assess the environmental implications of their own trade liberalization commitments. EPAs third function in this area involves helping to negotiate and implement the environmental cooperation agreements that parallel each trade agreement, such as the NAAEC. EPA, along with USG agencies and other collaborators, supports implementation of agreements by assisting our trading partners to develop effective and efficient environmental protection standards. A fourth function is to provide technical and policy guidance so as to avoid potential conflicts between trade commitments and our statutory obligations to implement domestic environmental laws and policies. As part of the implementation of free trade agreements, especially the NAFTA, EPA continues to have a central role in developing and managing programs to build good environmental governance. These programs help protect human health and the environment, while helping to ensure that U.S. companies and communities compete on an equal footing in the international marketplace. In particular, EPA works with U.S. trading partners to help them meet their obligations under trade agreements to enforce their own environmental laws. Through leadership in the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other international entities, EPA supports environmental performance reviews of other countries. These reviews help facilitate the sharing and continual improvement of good governance best practices (such as providing access to information, collaborating with diverse stakeholders, and providing transparency in environmental decision making). Beyond CECs support of environmental performance reviews, the EPA ensures that capacity-building activities are incorporated throughout the CECs annual work plans.
68
US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Annual 2008 Trade Highlights, www.census.gov/foreigntrade/statistics/highlights/annual.html, accessed August 17, 2009. 69 U.S. Transportation Research Board, The National Academies, Critical Issues in Transportation, 2006.
455
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: During FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide input to U.S. engagement in multilateral trade negotiations and initiation and/or conclusion of new bilateral or regional free trade agreements, and trade and investment framework agreements. EPA will continue to provide the USTR with policy and technical guidance, as well as analytical data to inform environmental practices in key trade partner countries. In particular, EPA will be providing technical policy expertise in the development of the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), affecting environment and trade throughout the trans-Pacific region. In assisting the USTR to develop and negotiate the environmental provisions of the TPP agreement, EPA will contribute to the associated environmental reviews and environmental cooperation agreements and advocate greater attention to key environmental concerns (e.g., invasive species and air pollution) associated with the movement of traded goods. EPA also is contributing to the follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, Rio+20, to be held in Rio in 2012. In advance of the Rio 2012 Conference, EPA is working closely with the Department of State and other federal agencies to address international environmental governance equities, such as the development of a framework of action for sustainable production and consumption. EPA and other federal partners also will continue to build on the sustainable communities partnership efforts through the demonstration of the sustainable communities concept in an international setting. In support of the international environmental governance and the green economy track, EPA will explore activities such as economic, environmental, and health benefits of green infrastructure investment. EPA also will provide targeted capacity building support under the TPP with similarities to governance and capacity building under previously negotiated U.S. free trade agreements. Should negotiated agreements enter into force, including with South Korea, EPA will seek to provide appropriate capacity building assistance. The priorities for a majority of this cooperative work are established through a State Department chaired and led inter-agency process in which EPA is a full member, with additional input provided by the USTR-led inter-agency process. NAAEC priorities are set by the CEC member countries. As the first environmental cooperation agreement under a trade agreement, the NAAEC paved the way for many of our subsequent efforts under other Free Trade Agreements and serves as a good example of EPAs approach to trade related work. The CEC promotes environmental cooperation in North America and addresses environmental issues from a regional perspective, with a particular focus on those issues that arise in the context of deeper economic, social, and environmental linkages. Ensuring healthy communities and ecosystems will involve undertaking activities that offer greater protection of our children and other at-risk and underserved communities and by building capacity among our indigenous peoples to design and implement innovative environmental protection and conservation projects. In looking to increase the effectiveness and relevance of the CEC, EPA led efforts resulting in a new policy direction focused on three new environmental priorities: (1) Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, (2) Climate Change Low-Carbon Economy, and (3) Greening the Economy in North America. This first priority addresses
456
chemical risks as an important element of healthy communities and ecosystems and will strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations that also serve to promote healthy communities. The second priority focus begins the transition to lowcarbon economies in order to significantly reduce our respective and collective carbon footprints. Recognizing that climate change could disproportionately affect some communities, EPA is promoting trilateral support to community-based adaptations to enhance resilience to impacts from climate changes that affect both physical and social environments. Our third priority is the goal of greening the economies of the three Parties. By refocusing on the three priorities above, the CEC will support EPAs goals and objectives and move the Administrators agenda forward throughout North America. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. Currently, there are no
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$19.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$21.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$8.0) This increase supports cooperation efforts in international trade and governance foras and arenas.
457
Statutory Authority: In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)70: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(1) and (2), 33 USC 1254(a)(1) and (2); SDWA 1442(a)(1), 42 USC 300j-1(a)(1); SWDA 8001(a)(1), 42 USC 6981(a)(1); FIFRA 17(d) and 20(a) , 7 U.S.C. 136o(d)and 136r(a); TSCA10(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2609(a) (in consultation and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and with other appropriate departments and agencies); MPRSA 203(a)(1), 33 USC 1443(a)(1), 42 USC 4332; Annual Appropriation Acts; Executive Order 12915 (May 13, 1994) (implementation of NAFTA environmental side agreement); Executive Order 13141 (Environmental Review of Trade Agreements); Executive Order 13277 (Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of 2002), as amended by E.O. 13346 (July 8, 2004);
70
458
459
Information Security Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $5,881.7

$524.3 $6,406.0 9.7

$785.0 $6,697.0 15.8

$728.0 $7,565.0 13.3

($57.0) $868.0 -2.5
$5,912.0
$785.0 $6,697.0 15.8
Program Project Description: Information is a strategic resource to EPA. It allows each program office to fulfill its mission in support of the protection of human health and the environment. The Agencys Information Security program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of these information assets. The protection strategy includes, but is not limited to, enterprise policy, procedure and practice management; information security awareness, training and education; risk-based Certification & Accreditation (C&A); Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) management to ensure remediation of weaknesses; defense-in-depth and breadth technology and operational security management; incident response and handling; and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Effective information security requires vigilance and adaptation to new challenges every day. Agency security practitioners are challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts to breach organizational protections. In FY 2012, EPAs integrated efforts will allow the Agencys Information Security Program to take a more pro-active role in dealing with these threats. EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets by continuing to improve its Information Security Program. The Agency will continue to focus on asset definition and management, compliance, incident management, knowledge and information management, risk management and technology management. Secondary activities in FY 2012 include, but are not limited to, access management, organizational training and awareness, measurement and analysis, and service continuity. These efforts will strengthen the Agencys ability to ensure operational resiliency. The final result is an information security program that can rely on effective and efficient processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive events.
460
Concurrently, EPA will continue its performance-based information security activities with a particular emphasis on risk management, incident management and information security architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth). These three areas are critical to the Agencys security position. They are also key components of various federal mandates, such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information security initiatives, which will be implemented throughout FY 2012, including: Domain Name Service Security (DNSSec); the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC); and United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB). These mandates are rapidly enhancing the Agencys security requirements for information policy, technology standards and practices. EPA will continue transitioning from Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in accordance with the June 30, 2008 OMB M-05-22, Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). This effort is a Federal initiative designed to retain our nations technical and market leadership in the Internet sector and to expand and improve services for Americans. As with many enterprise initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed to make this capability secure. EPA will continue analyzing and planning a long-term strategy for implementing, monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2012. EPA will support and expand continuous monitoring to detect and remediate Advanced Persistent Threats to the Agencys IT networks. EPA will enhance our internal Computer Security Incident Response Capability to ensure the rapid identification, alerting and reporting of suspicious activity. Additionally, EPA continues to support the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requirements for logical access as identified in the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(408) Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that are certified and accredited.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
100
100
100
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$124.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTE to better reflect utilization rates.
461
(+$1,049.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act, EPA is required to have the ability to provide pro-active, reactive and support services associated with information security incident management. Statutory Authority: Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq. Sections 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 401 and 402 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701 and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
462
Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $98,258.9

$4,054.0 $152.3 $24.0 $16,498.3 $118,987.5 481.6

$4,385.0 $162.0 $24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1

$4,108.0 $0.0 $0.0 $15,352.0 $108,036.0 481.5

($277.0) ($162.0) ($24.0) ($1,735.0) ($11,032.0) -21.6
$97,410.0
$4,385.0 $162.0 $24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
Program Project Description: High quality, readily available and usable data is a strategic resource that supports the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment. IT/Data Management (IT/DM) program activities support the Administrations goals of transparency, participation, engagement and collaboration to expand the conversation on environmentalism. IT/DM also supports the expansion of the Agencys efforts to build services, rather than just databases or IT systems, that enable citizens to interact with their government electronically to get the information they need from EPA, to understand what it means, and to share it with each other more cheaply and with less burden. This program provides essential technology to Agency staff to enable them to conduct their work effectively and efficiently. Mission activities across the Agency require and rely upon better information and tools; improving agency work processes to promote efficiencies; increasing transparency and innovation in the agency work processes; and enabling the work force with reliable tools and services. In broad terms, IT/DM powers these mission priorities by providing the critical IT infrastructure needed for: 1) rapid and efficient communication; 2) exchange and storage of data, analysis and computations; and 3) access to the scientific, regulatory and best practice information needed by agency staff, the regulated community and the public. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Recent partnerships include portal projects with the Research and Development and Air and Radiation programs to access scientific and program data.
463
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/Information Management (IT/IM) policy and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance enhancements (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the IT/DM Program will continue to work with EPA program offices on the Healthy Communities priority. This program will focus on: 1) increasing the availability of plainlanguage information and tools on air toxics for at-risk communities, including information on environmental health issues affecting schools and children; 2) providing Web 2.0 information collaboration tools such as wikis and/or blogs in EPA's outreach and communications efforts to increase transparency, coordination and collaboration among states, local communities, schools and the general public as they share lessons learned, best practices and an evolving understanding of the environment; and 3) maintaining EPA's technology infrastructure to provide the capacity needed to support use of information technologies in outreach programs. Wikis, blogs and other Web 2.0 communication technologies are effective, low cost and low maintenance tools for obtaining citizen and key stakeholder input and dialog that is critical to expanding the conversation on environmentalism. In particular, work in the program will focus on developing discovery tools and data publishing infrastructure for facilitating access to EPA data assets, including an automated capability to access and query data from programmatic databases. For example, EPA has developed data discovery tools, such as Data Finder, to help citizens find a vast selection of EPA data sources, which are organized into user-friendly topics and are in easily downloadable formats. For each data source in Data Finder, you can see a basic overview, including the geographic scale and other contextual information, then access the data source itself. Other tools are being developed for more specific use with programmatic datasets, such as TRI, air, water and enforcement. Work also will include the ability to convert existing data into a number of different data formats, such as open geospatial standards, to enhance data integration and collaboration. Final products will be available in the form of Web services and syndicated feeds to a variety of users inside and outside EPA, including publishing the data through the Exchange Network. The program will work to develop collaborative tools and suites of key information in close consultation with EPAs media programs. The program also will assist by developing a mobile application to allow monitoring data collected in the field to be sent directly to EPA or other appropriate location for publication on the Internet so that it can be made quickly available to all who are interested. Working through its ongoing relationship with the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the program will continue to obtain and utilize advice on ways diverse and underserved communities prefer to receive environmental information that will allow them to participate in keeping our communities healthy. IT/Data Management will support the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative by enabling electronic reporting of environmental data by industry. Currently, facilities rely on out-
464
dated, paper-based reporting of their emissions, leading to time and resource consumption, delays, lack of tools to share and analyze the information, and data gaps. Mandating electronic reporting will improve the ability of EPA and its regulatory partners to determine the compliance status of facilities, improve enforcement targeting and substantially reduce the costs of collecting, sharing and analyzing compliance information. In FY 2012, EPA will develop an open platform e-file data exchange standard. For as many regulatory programs as possible given funding received, EPA will determine the required data elements for reporting and establish security and authentication standards that would be incorporated by commercial software vendors. This approach has been successful for the Internal Revenue Service, for example. With these improvements to the Agencys electronic reporting capabilities, the Agency will have a centralized and secure service-based storage mechanism for compliance monitoring and enforcement data from the states and its partners. In addition to compliance benefits, this initiative will promote transparency and data integration. Enhancing compliance data systems to allow electronic reporting will allow for better integration with other data. If new reporting tools and upgrades to existing systems are well integrated, the result will be improved data and an improved ability for users of EIS to conduct analysis in support of developing future regulations and programs to protect public health and the environment. The following summarize other ongoing major activity areas within this program: Information Access - FY 2012 activities will continue making environmental information accessible to all users. Activities include: support for Toxics Release Inventory71 (TRI) data; maintaining EPAs libraries; managing HQs Docket Center operations; access to Environmental Indicators; proactive disclosures of environmental information; increased access to environmental databases via the Web; and using the Agencys Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tracking and management system to ensure more timely responses to FOIA requests. The Agency will continue to support eRulemaking a Web-based system to facilitate, and provide greater public access to, federal rulemakings; and development of analytical tools to help users understand the meaning of environmental data. It includes facility data collected from numerous federal programs and tools to help those who use information from a variety of sources to reconfigure that data so it can be easily compared and analyzed. Of particular emphasis in FY 2012 is EPAs Transparency and Open Government participation, including streamlined contributions to Data.gov. Key activities will ensure that access to critical data (e.g., regulated facilities, toxic releases) is increased through Data.gov and the Agencys GeoData Gateway, providing opportunities for collaboration and intergovernmental partnerships, reducing duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to important federal services for businesses. Core Web 2.0 activities will continue to be funded to support necessary program-specific blogs, wikis and collaboration activities. (In FY 2012, the Information Access activities will be funded at $1.03 million in payroll funding and $4.21 million in non-payroll funding.)
71
For more information on Toxics Release Inventory data, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
465
Geospatial Information and Analysis72 In FY 2012, EPA will continue providing place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities, roads, waste sites, etc.) and natural features (wetlands, soil types, hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged and can be accessed using web-based or desktop tools. Geospatial information and analysis play a critical role in the Agency's ability to respond rapidly and effectively in times of emergency in addition to meeting everyday program and region specific business needs. Additionally, geographic location is a key way to find and access EPA digital data and documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will allow Web users to retrieve relevant documents by specifying a location in which they are interested. Implemented as a holistic enterprise solution, these projects also save time and money, assure compatibility and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software, data and analytical services. (In FY 2012, the Geospatial Information and Analysis activities will be funded at $4.88 million in payroll funding and $4.93 million in non-payroll funding.) Envirofacts73 This area supports a single point of access to EPA databases containing information about environmental activities that may affect air, water and land anywhere in the United States; houses data that has been collected from regulated entities and the states; and makes that data accessible to environmental professionals, the regulated community, citizens groups and state and EPA employees through an easy-to-use, onestop access point. Its components include databases and applications that make integrated environmental information available to all EPA stakeholders. Serving up 3-4 million hits per month, Envirofacts offers popular queries and place-based reporting and is a highly desirable capability for reporting environmental information to the public. Envirofacts directly supports the Agency's strategic goal of fulfilling American citizens "Right-toKnow" about their environment, which in turn supports EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. It also supports integrated data access, a key component in the planned enterprise architecture that will support EPA's current and future business needs. (In FY 2012, Envirofacts activities will be funded at $0.33 million in payroll funding and $1.90 million in non-payroll funding.) IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning In FY 2012, EPA will continue to review information systems and data bases for redundancy, streamline and systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities, and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM activities and systems. This category supports EPAs Enterprise Architecture and the Capital Planning and Investment Control74 process (CPIC), to assist the Agency in making better-informed decisions on IT/IM investments and resource allocations. The Agency does not currently have any high-risk IT projects. (In FY 2012, the IT/IM Policy and Planning activities will be funded at $11.29 million in payroll funding and $4.28 million in non-payroll funding.)
72 73
For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/ For more information on Envirofacts, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ 74 For more information on the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/OEI/cpic/
466
Electronic Records and Content Management FY 2012 activities in this area primarily create the systems, and establish and maintain the processes, to convert paper documents into electronic documents, convert paper-based processes into systems that rely less on paper documents and manage the electronic documents. By doing so, these activities reduce costs, improve accessibility and improve security for all of the documents entered into the system. Electronic documents require less storage space and do not need a filing staff to manage the paper records. A single copy of an electronic document can be accessed simultaneously by numerous individuals and from virtually any location. Using a collaborative process, in FY 2012 the Agency will continue implementing the Electronic Records and Content Management (ECMS) project, an enterprise-wide, multimedia solution designed to manage and organize environmental data and documents for EPA headquarters, regional offices, field offices and laboratories. Previously fragmented data storage approaches will be converted into a single standard platform that is accessible to everyone, reducing data and document search time while improving security and information retention efforts. In FY 2012, the project will be entering an operations and maintenance stage, which will offer efficiencies, as the results of the collaborative process used to implement the records repository and other similar system-to-system transfer of data are realized. Certain tools developed for specific systems (e.g. Email BulkLoader Tool) during the development stages of the project have shown to have broader applicability for other systems within the Agency. These tools will be modified to meet the needs of these systems and thus expand the number of Agency data systems capable of utilizing the ECMS repository. Further integration will occur as ECMS and its email bulk loading tool are used to enhance the Agency's Email Optimization Project. EPA uses WebCMS, a software system specifically designed for Web assets for the creation, management and publishing of the Agency's Web content. ECMS is an Agency system that enables employees, contractors, grantees and agents of EPA to capture, manage, store, deliver and preserve Agency-owned information resources and to manage electronic records. Both WebCMS and ECMS are built using Documentum, but they have separate and distinct purposes. (In FY 2012, the Electronic Records and Content Management activities will be funded at $0.56 million in payroll funding and $1.93 million in non-payroll funding.) Internet Operations and Maintenance Enhancements (IOME) EPA has implemented and continues to maintain the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over 200 top-level pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on the EPA Web site, as well as support Web hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery mechanism for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2012, the IOME activities will be funded at $1.42 million in payroll funding and $3.09 million in non-payroll funding.)
467
Information Reliability and Privacy In FY 2012, EPA will continue to ensure that all of the data collected by the Agency comes from reliable sources, is stored in a manner that is consistent with its security needs, and is only made available to those who are authorized to have access. These efforts apply to environmental information, including data that is submitted by and shared among the states, tribes and territories, as well as other types of information, such as business information that is reported by various industry communities, and personal information for all EPA employees. (In FY 2012, the Information Reliability and Privacy activities will be funded at $0.33 million in nonpayroll funding.) IT/IM Infrastructure This area supports the information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications for all EPA employees and other on-site workers at over 100 locations, including EPA Headquarters, all ten regions and the various labs and ancillary offices. More specifically, these activities provide what is known as workforce support, which includes desktop equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote access, telephone services and maintenance, Web and network servers, IT related maintenance, IT security, and electronic records and data. Since 2007, EPA has led a series of successful initiatives embracing data center consolidation, industry best management practices and virtualization across its data centers. The Agency has completed a phased virtualization program across the National Computer Center - EPAs primary data center - including optimizing the efficient use of floor space and turning off air handlers. Currently, EPA is hosting more than 200 individual Agency business applications in an innovative shared hosting environment offering many of the features of private cloud services. Over the next three years, EPA will consolidate small data centers and computer rooms in various locations across the country, with plans to gain more efficiencies. In FY 2012, EPA will build on the use of multi-year leasing that sustains and renews technical services (e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance) in a stable leastcost manner as technologies change. EPA will continue to upgrade EPAs Web presence to facilitate the publics access to environmental information on the Internet in support of the Presidents initiative on Open Government. EPA also will expand and support the Agencys cloud computing initiative and enable a mobile workforce through strategic investments in collaboration tools such as EPAs Portal and access technologies. Definitive OMB and EPA guidance on cloud computing along with GSA applications and services are still in development. The Agency's IT investments have not yet evaluated cloud computing and will be updating the current alternatives analysis by September 2012. EPA continually revisits IT operations and investments through its Quality Improvement Council. As part of FY 2012 planning, a senior management level workgroup was charged with identifying specific opportunities for streamlining and gaining Agencywide IT efficiencies. In FY 2012, the funding for IT/Infrastructure will be reduced by $3.559 million. This cut represents the Agencys dedication to IT efficiencies, which are being
468
achieved through an Agencywide effort to reduce infrastructure costs. As a result, the consolidation of services, consistent use of applications and purchase consolidation and savings related to workforce support services have enabled this program to streamline IT efforts and achieve significant efficiencies. (In FY 2012, the IT/IM Infrastructure activities will be funded at $25.23 million in payroll funding and $23.17 million in nonpayroll funding.) Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,291.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2,112.0 / -14.3 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources from IT/DM to better reflect where the work is being done, including: 6.0 FTE and associated payroll to Exchange Network, 8.2 FTE and associated payroll to TRI, and a 0.1 FTE reduction in the Regional offices. (+$750.0) These additional resources support the Agencys efforts to modernize compliance reporting and monitoring as part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative and will enhance the Agencys electronic reporting capabilities for environmental data. (+$186.0) This increase reflects a realignment of resources from LUST and Oil appropriations to provide more efficient accounting of program expenditures. (-$3,559.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. This is a result of an Agencywide workgroup that was charged with identifying specific opportunities for infrastructure efficiency savings. The identified opportunities will be implemented at Headquarters and Regional offices. (-$4,713.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$58.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in EPAs share of E-Rulemaking costs. (-$111.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
469
(-$508.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency's IT and telecommunications resources for Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program and other related IT and telecommunications needs. Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961 and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
470
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
471
Administrative Law Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $5,424.8

$5,424.8 31.8

$5,275.0 33.7

$5,386.0 32.6

$111.0 -1.1
$5,275.0
$5,275.0 33.7
Program Project Description: This program supports EPAs Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) or the Board. The ALJs preside in hearings and issue initial decisions in cases initiated by EPA's enforcement program concerning environmental violations. The EAB issues final decisions in environmental adjudications (primarily enforcement and permit-related), that are on appeal to the Board. The EAB also serves as the final approving body for proposed settlements of enforcement actions initiated by the Agency. ALJs issue orders and decisions under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the various environmental statutes that establish administrative enforcement authority. EABs issue decisions under the authority delegated by the Administrator. The decisions reflect findings of fact and conclusions of law. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJs and EAB will continue to further the Agencys mission to protect human health and the environment. In FY 2012, the ALJs will continue to preside in hearings and issue initial decisions in cases brought by EPAs enforcement program against those accused of environmental violations under various environmental statutes. The right of affected persons to appeal those decisions is conferred by various statutes, regulations and constitutional due process rights. The EAB issues the Agencys final decisions in environmental adjudications on appeal to the Board. These decisions are the end point for appeals in the Agencys administrative enforcement and permitting programs. The Agency has sought to achieve efficiencies in this process. The ALJs increased the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques to facilitate the settlement of cases and avoided more costly litigation. The EAB and ALJs also use videoconferencing technology to reduce expenses for parties involved in the administrative litigation process.
472
In FY 2012, the EAB plans to monitor the electronic filing of original documents with the Board as first permitted in FY 2010 and assess whether any changes to the process are needed. This should result in greater efficiencies for all concerned. The EAB will continue its two-year pilot project initiated in FY 2010 on the use of alternative dispute resolution in cases on appeal, to be followed by an assessment of the results of the pilot and modifications as appropriate. The Board also will continue to support international judicial environmental training consistent with Agency priorities. (In FY 2012, the ALJ office will be funded at $2.93 million and 17.6 FTE, and the EAB will be funded at $2.45 million and 15.0 FTE.) Performance Targets Narrative: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$184.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$57.0) This decrease represents a reduction in base program resources. (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$5.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; SDWA; EPCRA; APA; as provided in Appropriations Act funding. Currently, there are no
473
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $1,313.8

$863.5 $2,177.3 6.4

$893.0 $2,040.0 7.3

$927.0 $2,256.0 6.9

$34.0 $216.0 -0.4
$1,147.0
$893.0 $2,040.0 7.3
Program Project Description: The Agencys General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. EPA utilizes ADR as a method for preventing or resolving conflicts prior to engaging in formal litigation and includes the provision of legal counsel, facilitation, mediation and consensus building. The intent is to offer a cost-effective process to resolve disputes. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA headquarters and Regional Offices and external stakeholders on environmental matters. The national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties such as facilitators and mediators more readily available for those purposes. Under EPAs ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in many contexts, including adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
474
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$192.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. ($-7.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. ($-2.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. ($-1.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. Statutory Authority: Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 571, 572, and 573, Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 563, 565, 566, and 568; EPAs General Authorizing Statutes.
475
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $12,413.1

$12,413.1 66.9

$12,224.0 69.5

$11,685.0 67.9

($539.0) -1.6
$12,224.0
$12,224.0 69.5
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Civil Rights (OCR) provides policy direction and guidance on equal employment opportunity, civil rights, affirmative employment, diversity, and reasonable accommodations for the Agencys program offices, Regional offices and laboratories. EPAs Civil Rights program includes: Title VI compliance; Review and complaint adjudication; intake and processing of complaints of discrimination from Agency employees and applicants for employment under Title VII; Implementation of processes and programs in support of reasonable accommodation; and Affirmative employment and diversity program planning and implementation. Program functions include accountability for implementation, program evaluation and compliance monitoring of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Titles VI, VII, IX), and legislative requirements and executive orders covering civil rights, affirmative employment, disability, alternative dispute resolution, and reasonable accommodation. The program also interprets policies and regulations, ensures compliance with civil rights laws, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) directives and equal employment initiatives, and upholds the civil rights of EPA employees and prospective employees as required by federal statutes and Executive Orders.
476
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, OCR will continue to focus on its core mission, to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all employees and applicants for employment, and to foster an environment wherein diversity is recognized as a valuable resource within the Agency. OCR plans to conduct compliance reviews of five recipients of EPA financial assistance in FY 2012. The Agencys Civil Rights External Compliance Program also plans to identify and implement more effective and timely processes for the resolution of external complaints. (In FY 2011, the Headquarters Office of Civil Rights will be funded at $7.85 million and 38.7 FTE.) In FY 2012, the OCR will: Work with the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education on issues regarding discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and other factors, as well as work with varying federal agencies that may simultaneously receive discrimination complaints from the same complainant regarding a particular recipient. Aggressively work to reduce processing time for complaints of discrimination (Title VII) and increase the number of complaints resolved through the Agencys alternative dispute resolution. Ensure that certification training, refresher training, and technical guidance are provided to more than 100 collateral duty Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselors in the Agencys Regional offices and at Headquarters, annually. OCR will provide guidance and technical direction to its EEO Officers and provide technical assistance, as needed. Continue to roll out on-line mandatory training for EPA employees for No Fear Act information, which is also a Congressional requirement. Continue to support an EEO presence in the EPA Las Vegas (LV) Laboratory and develop EEO training programs to specifically address EEO management concerns in the LV lab. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Reasonable Accommodation process. Provide technical assistance to managers, supervisors, employees and the designated Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators, in the form of expert training and consultation by the Northeast Regional Application Center, to ensure efficient implementation of the policy and procedures. Monitor the Agencys compliance with various statutes, Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, EPA policy and procedures related to the reasonable accommodation of qualified applicants and employees with disabilities. Conduct special emphasis programs that increase cultural awareness of minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, as well as celebrate the diversity of our Agency.
477
Prepare Management Directive 715 annual report to EEOC. Continue effective and consistent communications of OCRs Affirmative Employment Program plan to EPA management and brief senior management in all headquarters program offices. Management Directive 715 (MD-715) is the policy guidance which the EEOC provides to federal agencies for their use in establishing and maintaining effective programs of equal employment opportunity under Section 717 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 791 et seq. MD-715 provides a roadmap for creating effective equal employment opportunity (EEO) programs for all federal employees as required by Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Work aggressively with Regional EEO officers to develop briefing strategies for Regional management teams. OCRs Affirmative Employment and Diversity staff will monitor all plans (Regional and headquarters) and establish a metric for determining progress in achieving model EEO status. Continue timely processing of complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation and update policy, as necessary. Continue monitoring of the implementation of Agency policy on harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Link the Agencys applicant flow data with the existing database for workforce diversity. OCR will engage the Office of Human Resources in the development of more meaningful and effective recruitment plans. Conduct a comparative analysis of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Commissions reporting requirements covering FY 2009-2011. The EEOC requires that each federal agency submit an annual report summarizing the Agency's EEO complaints processing activity. This report is entitled the EEO Form 462 report. The requirements for this report, including the new format and layout, were summarized in the EEOC Form 462, Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints Instructions document. Work with the Office of Human Resources, appropriate program offices and Regional offices to affect recruitment strategies that will result in two percent of the Agencys workforce being comprised of employees with disabilities. Ensure that less than 15 percent of all Title VII complaints will exceed the established timeframes. Continue working with EPAs Office of General Counsel to close and resolve all Title VI cases in a timely manner according to EPA established regulations. As a result of these activities, the Agencys mission will be supported by a workforce that is as diverse as the communities it serves, goal oriented, and treated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
478
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$182.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$100.0) This reflects a decrease in classroom training sessions and a shift to more online, webinars and teleconferencing trainings. (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects our effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$212.0) This reflects a decrease to contract support following evaluation of program needs as part of the effort to reduce base program resources. (-$34.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CRA VII, as amended; FWPCA amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Rehabilitation Act of 1974, as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The ADA Amendments Act of 2008, OWBPA as amended; ADEA as amended EEOC Management Directive 715; Executive Orders 13163, 13164, 13078, 13087, 13171, 11478, 13125, 13096, 13230, 13270 July 3, 2002 (Tribal Colleges), 13339 May 13, 2004 (Asian American Participation in Federal Programs).
479
Legal Advice: Environmental Program Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $42,826.7

$658.7 $43,485.4 240.8

$746.0 $43,408.0 250.6

$750.0 $46,102.0 248.1

$4.0 $2,694.0 -2.5
$42,662.0
$746.0 $43,408.0 250.6
Program Project Description: The Agencys Legal Advice: Environmental program provides legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. Resources for legal services for other support activities necessary for the operation of the Agency are included in the Legal Advice: Support program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency relies upon sound legal advice in carrying out its environmental mission. In FY 2012, legal advice to environmental programs will continue to include litigation support representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant, as well as those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are necessary for Agency management and program offices on matters involving environmental issues including, for example, providing interpretations of, and drafting assistance on, relevant and applicable laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to evaluate and reform the Title VI program, giving emphasis to the evaluation of potential long-term institutional changes to the Agencys Title VI complaint process. The Agency also will direct legal resources towards supporting Regaining Ground: Increased Compliance in Critical Areas. The Agencys focus on Compliance in Critical Areas will need legal support for regulatory actions, legal advice, and counsel. The Agencys intention to use 21st century electronic reporting and monitoring tools in combination with market-based approaches to better protect human health and the environment marks a shift from the old approach to compliance reporting. This effort represents a departure from current practices and will require legal advice and counsel to ensure sound implementation.
480
Additionally, in FY 2012, EPA will direct legal resources towards supporting the Deep Water Horizon investigation. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,800.8) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-4.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$167.0/+1.0 FTE) This funding will support the Agencys efforts to modernize compliance reporting and monitoring as part of the regaining ground compliance initiative. These resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $167.0, will support the development of rules to incorporate electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements. (+$417.5/+2.5 FTE) This reflects an increase for legal support for requirements under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The additional resources will be used to help resolve the Agencys backlog of pending Title VI complaints. (-$150.3/-0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction in legal support for the Appalachian surface coal mining interagency action plan, which includes 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of $150.3. This decrease in resources aligns with the required effort to review program guidance and permit reviews associated with revised policies for the Appalachian surface coal mining. (-$4.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$183.0) This represents an increase in non-pay base resources. (+$350.0) This reflects an increase in legal resources to provide legal advice and counsel in support of the Deep Water Horizon Investigation. (-$74.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
481
Statutory Authority: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d 2000d-7; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 2 U.S.C. 794; Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 1688; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101- 6107; Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; EPAs General Authorizing Statutes.
482
Legal Advice: Support Program Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $14,727.9

$14,727.9 83.8

$14,419.0 86.3

$15,873.0 83.4

$1,454.0 -2.9
$14,419.0
$14,419.0 86.3
Program Project Description: The Legal Advice: Support program provides legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the Agency. This program focuses on administrative requirements determined by statutes, GAO decisions and federal agency regulations. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support will continue to be provided for all Agency activities as necessary for the operation of the Agency (i.e., contracts, personnel, information law, ethics and financial/monetary issues). Legal services include litigation support representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant, as well as those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are necessary for Agency management and administrative offices on matters involving actions affecting the operation of the Agency, including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,457.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
483
(-2.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$29.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$27.0) This represents an increase in non-pay base resources. Statutory Authority: Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 USC 2601 et seq.; Pollution Prevention Act , 42 USC 13101 et seq.; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11023; Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.; Solid Waste Disposal Act as Amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Sections 2002, 3001 3023, 4001 4010, 6001 6004, 7003 7006, 8001 8007, and 9001 9010; Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, Section 311; Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 2762, Sections 1001 7002; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., Sections 302-304, 311 313, and 325, 326; Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA), Public Law No. 110-414; EPAs General Authorizing Statutes.
484
Regional Science and Technology Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $3,146.2

$3,146.2 1.9

$3,271.0 2.0

$3,283.0 2.0

$12.0 0.0
$3,271.0
$3,271.0 2.0
Program Project Description: The Regional Science and Technology program (RS&T) activities support all of the Agencys national programs (including enforcement) and goals by supplying laboratory analysis, field monitoring and sampling, and through efforts to build tribal capacity for environmental monitoring and assessment. RS&T supports the purchase of equipment for the Regional laboratories, field investigation teams, and mobile laboratory units, as well as equipment required for laboratory quality assurance and quality control. The RS&T program provides essential expertise for a multitude of national programs, including but not limited to ambient air, water quality, monitoring activities, and areas involving environmental biology, microbiology, chemistry, and criminal investigations. EPA has made significant strides toward improving environmental data collection and laboratory analytical capacity and capability to strengthen science-based decision-making. The programs applied science expertise is used to develop and modify analytical methods for specialty work such as emerging chemicals of concern and also provides scientific consultation to Agency, state, and tribal partners. Funding for equipment is essential for continued progress and enhanced capabilities in order to respond to emergencies, emerging environmental issues. The RS&T program provides in-house expertise and technical capabilities in the generation of data for Agency decisions and differs from the Agencys research operation by focusing on applied science needs rather than short or long term research. RS&T resources support the development of critical and timely environmental data, rapid data review in emerging situations, and development of enhanced capabilities for proper environmental assessment of chemical warfare agents.
485
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, RS&T resources will continue to support Regional implementation of the Agencys statutory mandates through field operations for environmental sampling and monitoring. Regional laboratories perform environmental analytical testing, monitoring, special studies, method development, quality assurance oversight, and data management support. Direct laboratory support also increases efficiencies in Regional program management and implementation by allowing the Regional offices to focus on addressing environmental issues which may be specific to certain geographic areas in the Nation (e.g., mountain top mining, wood treating operations, oil refining, etc.). The Agency will stay abreast of rapidly changing technologies (i.e., new software, rapid analysis instrumentation, and new analytical capabilities as well as new remote sensing technologies), that allow EPA to collect and analyze samples more cost effectively, quickly, and/or detect lower levels of contaminants, and to assay new and emerging contaminants of concern. The Agency will enhance laboratory and field monitoring capacity and capability to ensure that it implements critical environmental monitoring and rapid analysis, partners with existing laboratory networks and state/local organizations, and develops enhanced response, recovery and cleanup procedures. EPAs Regional laboratories contribute to various aspects of the Agencys performance measures in each of the major Agency programs. For example, the Civil and Criminal Enforcement performance assessment measures are supported through significant technical and analytical activities for civil and criminal enforcement cases, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund programs. The laboratories analyze samples associated with a variety of illicit activities including unpermitted discharges, illegal storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes, and illegal dumping. Resulting data are used by the Agencys Criminal Investigation Division and by Assistant U.S. Attorneys to support prosecution of civil and criminal cases. Other examples of activities that support results measurement include operating laboratory equipment such as Standard Reference Photometers, which are used to ensure that the national network of ozone ambient monitors accurately measure ozone concentrations in support of Mobile Source and Air Toxics performance assessment measures. Also, many of the analyses performed by Regional laboratories support the cleanup of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites associated with the Superfund Program. Analytical support also is provided for identifying and assessing risks associated with pesticides and other high risk chemicals. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$19.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. Currently, there are no
486
(+$10.0) This increase reflects additional contract resources for this program. (-$4.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SDWA; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
487
Integrated Environmental Strategies Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $18,366.6

$18,366.6 89.4

$18,917.0 82.9

$17,509.0 57.3

($1,408.0) -25.6
$18,917.0
$18,917.0 82.9
Program Project Description: Efforts under the Integrated Environmental Strategies program (formerly titled Regulatory Innovation) continue to focus on priority cross-agency management and policy issues in particular, those central to creating more sustainable communities and businesses and developing strategies for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency. These activities, carried out in collaboration with other Agency programs, support the Agencys core mission of protecting human health and the environment by providing tools and resources to create stronger, prosperous, and more economically and environmentally resilient communities and businesses Recognizing a constrained fiscal environment, EPA is reducing or terminating lower priority voluntary programs to increase and refocus efforts on promoting sustainable development and a greener economy. EPA considers these efforts to be a higher priority because these efforts have greater promise for yielding environmental results, and they are directly central to the Administrator's priority for safe, clean communities and sustainable development. A key activity of this program is the development of effective policies, practices and tools to promote sustainable communities. One important approach involves helping community and government leaders meet environmental standards through innovative community and building design, policies, and infrastructure investment strategies. EPA accomplishes this work by: (1) collaborating with federal agencies and state, regional, tribal, and local governments as well as non-governmental organizations, developers, and other private sector stakeholders; (2) providing community technical assistance; and (3) developing standards and sustainable design approaches. This work fosters outcomes in the built environment that protect environmental quality and public health while encouraging the adoption of practices that promote economically strong communities and avoid disproportionate harm to disadvantaged communities. In addition, this program project develops new strategies that promote a greener economy by improving the environmental performance of businesses and other enterprises, encouraging environmental sustainability in the delivery of goods and services, and promoting transparency and greater use of information on environmental issues. This program also includes program evaluation and strategic management of agency operations.
488
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, activities will include: Promoting Smart Growth75 and Sustainable Design: EPA works across its program offices and with other federal agencies, state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, developers, and other private stakeholders to help communities grow in ways that may strengthen their economies, protect the environment, and preserve their heritage. Program activities include on-the-ground efforts to provide communities with tools and assistance to address specific smart growth and sustainable design barriers and implementation strategies. Examples of these activities include working with a local government to help incorporate land use strategies into a climate action plan or providing policy options to a state that is seeking to better align water and transportation infrastructure investments. The programs policy activities, tool development, and investigations on emerging trends provide the foundation for this assistance. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance and develop tools to assist communities, particularly rural areas and those that are disadvantaged or have been adversely impacted by contamination and environmental degradation. Major project areas are described below: Engaging Federal Partners. EPA, together with the U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communities in 2009. EPA is working with its program and Regional offices to implement activities related to the Partnership, such as identifying strategies that may help communities access federal resources in an easier and more streamlined manner. Selected areas of work within EPA include working with program offices to: (1) explore innovative approaches to sustainable water infrastructure implementation; 2) facilitate area planning assistance, (3) identify and remove barriers to cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated sites, (4) promote environmental justice, and (5) develop climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. In FY 2012, EPA will work to catalyze changes in federal rules, regulations, policies, programs, and spending to foster sustainable growth and communities. In addition to DOT and HUD, EPA will provide support and smart growth expertise to other federal agencies such as United States Department of Agriculture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Centers for Disease Control and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help them achieve greater environmental benefits through their programs, policies, regulations, and resources while meeting their core agency objectives. Providing Technical Assistance. The Agency also provides a variety of direct technical assistance to state and local governments to promote more sustainable community development outcomes at the neighborhood, regional, and state levels. EPA responds to communities' demands for strategies that can help them grow in a manner that minimizes the impact of development. EPA provides support at the local level to identify ways to ensure that growth protects natural and cultural resources. Analytical efforts are focused
75
EPAs Smart Growth Program was recently reorganized into the Office of Sustainable Communities. Additional information on the program can be found at: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
489
on creating and field-testing tools to help facilitate better development and public investment decisions. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to tribal, state, regional, and local governments as they seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implement green infrastructure approaches, incorporate sustainable design practices, or promote equitable development. EPA is committed to promoting sustainable approaches to growth and development that provide multiple benefits for this and future generations. EPA will accomplish these goals by: (1) expanding the current set of smart growth and sustainable design implementation tools and development mechanisms, (2) delivering assistance with these tools to a larger number of recipient communities, and (3) providing assistance to communities through third party organizations, such as the Governors Institute on Community Design. Developing Tools and Other Community Resources. Because smart growth development and sustainable design approaches are dependent, in part, on local codes, ordinances and standards, EPA works with and convenes a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure that rules and practices guiding the development, redevelopment, and operations of communities and buildings support more environmentally sustainable outcomes. For example, in FY 2012, EPA will work with stakeholders to create model rural sustainable community development and design policies and code changes. EPA also is developing technical analyses, guidance, and implementation tools to help communities ensure that development projects are sited, designed, and constructed in a manner that is consistent with the communities environmental and health goals. In FY 2012, EPA will expand its analytical research and policy assessment to develop more place-based tools and resources for communities across the urban-to-rural spectrum, focusing specifically on sustainable economic growth and climate change mitigation strategies. (In FY 2012, the Sustainable Communities/Smart Growth program will be funded at $9.91 million under the Integrated Environmental Strategies program, and $1.28 million under the Brownfields program.) Promoting a Greener Economy: EPA will continue to build upon prior cross-media experience by identifying and developing strategies in partnership with states, other federal agencies, and other external stakeholders for simultaneously encouraging environmental protection and economic progress with a near term focus on: Supporting a cross-agency effort to promote greener, sustainable products, and to ensure that the Agency participates effectively in interagency and external discussions of product-related issues including labeling and greenwashing (i.e., making unfounded claims about the environmental and safety attributes of products). Articulating and operationalizing strategies through which EPA can promote and drive sustainability in businesses, governments and other enterprises to allow the economy to grow while at the same time shrinking its environmental footprint.
490
Developing the potential to incentivize improved environmental performance in business through disclosure of information to communities, investors, and other interested audiences. Coordinating EPA activities to support sustainable workforce skills needed in an increasingly green economy, and to ensure that the expertise, resources, and opportunities available within the Agencys programs effectively support those efforts in partnership with other federal agencies, states, communities, and educational institutions. (In FY 2012, the Promoting a Greener Economy program will be funded at $2.91 million.) Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis: EPA uses program evaluation and performance analysis to assure the public that Agency programs are protecting human health and the environment effectively and efficiently. EPA is developing a body of program evaluations and metrics that support evidence-based decisions about program implementation strategies that work most effectively. This is particularly important in an era of fiscal responsibility that calls for greater federal accountability and public transparency. EPA acknowledges that rigorous, independent empirical evidence plays an important role in effective environmental policy and is committed to publicly disseminating complete evaluation findings, regardless of whether conclusions are consistent with Agency expectations. In FY 2012, increased resources are requested to provide EPA headquarters and Regional offices support for evaluations. Specific consideration will be given to evaluations that (a) assess program effectiveness and efficiency; (b) provide insights on how the use of new approaches may help better achieve program goals and fulfill the Agencys mission; (c) address issues of strategic importance to the Agency, or address cross-cutting issues that present challenges to multiple programs; (d) draw on social science research and tools to evaluate the impact of EPA activities on the behavior of regulated entities; and (e) assess the statistical rigor and validity of EPAs outcome measurement data. Resources will support EPAs performance management training regimen (online and classroom), which enables EPA staff and managers to use essential tools such as logic modeling and performance measurement. Resources also will support outcomes and impact measurement projects in collaboration with states and other co-regulators. As part of the Administrations Program Evaluation Initiative, funding is requested in FY 2012 to improve EPAs capacity to incorporate evaluations into new initiatives, evaluate the impact of policy interventions, and assess the outcomes and impacts of EPAs priorities based on targeted needs. EPA will improve staff expertise to promote rigorous, evidence-based evaluation methods for transparent external and in-house evaluations, and manage contracts with third-party evaluators. As part of this capacity building effort, EPA will support efforts to make Agency program data available to the public and enable external evaluators to assess programs. This program project will also conduct performance analysis to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency programs and operations. These predominantly internal analyses focus on ensuring EPAs operations and programs are coordinated, aligned, and maximized to achieve EPAs mission. For example, EPA is using lean government tools to improve the efficiency of internal business processes. (In FY 2012, the Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis will be funded at $4.69 million.)
491
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$368.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$506.0/+2.0 FTE) This is an increase in resources to implement EPAs program evaluation strategy and build evaluation capacity, which is consistent with the Administrations Program Evaluation Initiative. The change includes 2.0 FTE, and $306.0 in associated payroll. (+$935.0/+3.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of existing 3.0 FTE and associated payroll supporting the performance analysis function consistent with the reorganization of the program. The change includes 3.0 FTE and $459.0 in associated payroll. (+$4,094.0/+4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in funding to support the Smart Growth program as part of the Agencys participation in the Sustainable Communities Partnership. The change includes 4.0 FTE, and $612.0 in associated payroll. (-$3,882.0/-14.8 FTE) This reflects a reduction in past regulatory innovation programs to focus more tightly on efforts that help to promote a greener, more sustainable economy. EPA considers these efforts to be a higher priority because these efforts have greater promise for yielding environmental results, and they are directly central to the Administrator's priority for safe, clean communities and sustainable development. The change includes -14.8 FTE, and -$2,264.0 in associated payroll. (-$1,272.0/-8.0 FTE) This decrease represents the discontinuation of the Effective Use of Environmental Stewardship program which is consistent with the reorganization of the program. The change includes -8.0 FTE, and -$1,224.0 in associated payroll. EPA considers these efforts to be a higher priority because these efforts have greater promise for yielding environmental results, and they are directly central to the Administrator's priority for safe, clean communities and sustainable development. (-$1,805/-11.8 FTE) This decrease represents the discontinuation of several programs: the State Innovation Grants (SIG) (-8.0 FTE), Innovative Pilot Testing (IPT) (-1.8 FTE), and a reduction to Promoting a Greener Economy (PGE) (-2.0 FTE) due to an Agency effort to focus more on efforts that help to promote a more community-based sustainable economy. This change includes -11.8 FTE, and -$1,805.0 in associated payroll. (-$52.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
492
(-$150.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$150.0) This reflects the elimination of EPAs support of the EPA/State Symposium (ESS). This support will be mitigated through efficiencies and support of the ESS by other participants. Statutory Authority: CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
493
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $19,041.3

$19,041.3 109.0

$19,404.0 104.2

$22,326.0 101.5

$2,922.0 -2.7
$19,404.0
$19,404.0 104.2
Program Project Description: EPA ranks second among federal departments and agencies in the number of regulations issued annually (typically over 450). EPA takes its regulatory responsibility seriously and has invested in a centralized regulatory and economic management and analysis function to encourage and support the development of high quality regulations. The Regulatory Economic, Management and Analysis program strengthens EPAs regulatory, economic, and policy development efforts. The program focuses on ensuring an efficient and effective regulatory and policy planning and decision process, including consistent and appropriate policy and economic analysis. The program supports consideration of an appropriate set of alternatives during regulatory decision-making and works to quantify the costs and benefits of environmental regulations and policies. Resources are used to manage the EPA regulatory, policy, and guidance development process; make information on EPA regulatory activities available to the public to improve transparency and encourage meaningful participation; develop, identify and analyze various regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and policy options; identify successful strategies and regulatory approaches; and address policy priorities including considering impacts on small business and governmental entities. Objectives of the program include: Implementing efficient and effective internal procedures that facilitate timely decisions. Ensuring that Agency decision-making processes are invested with high quality and timely information, including relevant science, policy, economic factors, and consideration of an appropriate range of alternatives to achieve the best overall environmental results.
494
Advancing the theory and practice of quality economics, and promoting policy analysis and risk analysis within the Agency. Providing information on the full societal impacts of reducing environmental risks, including the expected distribution of the costs, benefits and impacts of regulatory options. Building and communicating a more comprehensive picture of the qualitative and quantitative economic benefits, costs and impacts of environmental policies and programs in EPAs economic analyses, and delivering sound and timely economic, science, regulatory, and program analyses to support informed management decisions throughout the Agency. Leading Agency implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), to address potential burdens on small entities. Working with state representatives to minimize state administrative reporting burdens. Increasing the transparency of and encouraging public involvement in EPAs regulatory and policy development efforts through improved use of collaborative networking and implementation of information technology. Improving program effectiveness and efficiency through analysis and information sharing. Promoting appropriate implementation of the Administrative Procedures Act, Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the Paperwork Reduction Act. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Program activities planned for FY 2012 include: Managing the Agencys internal Action Development Process, ensuring appropriate engagement across EPAs headquarters and Regional offices, and leading EPAs review of other agency and department actions. The program will provide training, resources, and tools to EPA staff on the Agencys Action Development process, Economic Analysis Guidelines, and related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4 on Regulatory Analysis). EPA will review and revise its economic guidelines so that they remain current with advancements and reflect best practices in the profession.76 Participating in the development of the Agency actions, implementing policy priorities (e.g., environmental justice, climate adaptation) in rulemakings, and providing technical assistance when needed to help meet Agency goals. This will be accomplished by
76
Please refer to: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html
495
characterizing the impacts of the Agencys actions, quantifying the environmental improvements and economic impacts of the Agencys regulatory programs. Developing tools, best practices, and standard operating procedures related to better communicating the goals and requirements of new EPA regulations. For example, EPA is investigating how multi-media and social media tools may be utilized to help regulated entities understand new regulatory actions. By providing better understanding and encouraging more timely innovation in environmental technology, the states and regulated community will be able to more quickly implement new standards. Chairing Small Business Advocacy Panels and leading implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Unless the Agency certifies that a rule does not have a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number Of Small Entities, the RFA requires a formal analysis of the potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, completion of a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), preparation of a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage), and Agency review of the rule within 10 years of promulgation. Conducting and supporting research on methods to improve the quality and quantity of economic science available to inform the Agencys decision makers, including management of the Science to Achieve Results in the Economic and Decision Sciences research program. Research priorities include integration of ecological and economic models to value improvements in ecological functions and services, establishing improved measures of the economic benefits of reducing health risks to children, and improvements in surveys and other data collection tools used to gather information on economic costs and benefits from environmental programs. Evaluating EPAs ability to fully and accurately measure and articulate the economic costs and impact of enacted environmental regulations, including exploring whether and why EPAs predictions of costs and benefits may differ from actual costs and benefits incurred by society to comply with EPAs regulations. A variety of analytical approaches will continue to be explored to measure and improve the quality and consistency of our regulations. Methodologies include using surveys, conducting statistical analyses of published economic data, and drawing on expertise and first-hand knowledge of actual practices in the fields of pollution control technology development, investment and operations. Facilitating communication between the scientific community and Agency policy analysts by supporting workshops on priority economic and environmental policy issues. Examples include analytical tools to measure environmental justice impacts, measuring the economic benefits of ecological services, measuring human health benefits with a focus on risks to children, evaluating market mechanisms and incentives, developing improved risk assessment methods to serve economic analyses, and methods to address uncertainties in risk and economic analyses77. The program will support the utilization of
77
For more information on these workshops, please refer to: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/WorkshopSeries.html
496
high quality outside technical peer review of influential economic models and methods used in developing the Agencys regulations. Improving the focus on water protection activities by enhancing EPAs capacity to analyze and estimate the economic benefits of water protection activities, and evaluating policy issues surrounding the effectiveness of applying economic incentives, such as tradable permits and offset programs. This includes addressing pressing water quality issues like nutrient and sediment loadings and their adverse effects on ecology of the Chesapeake Bay and the nations urban waters. The program will support EPAs initiative, Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas. EPA is concerned about the level of non-compliance with environmental laws. The Agency intends to enforce laws in a consistent and equitable manner to ensure that the environmental benefits of laws passed by Congress are realized by the public. A new enforcement paradigm will help EPA and its state and tribal partners more effectively protect communities, keep pace with our responsibilities, and assure a level playing field for corporate America. To support this Agency initiative, resources will be dedicated to review the cost/benefits of monitoring, transparency, compliance, and how these analyses are used in the regulatory development process. Additionally, existing rules will be reviewed to determine more effective and efficient ways to improve compliance reporting, with an emphasis towards electronic reporting and monitoring. The program will improve the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) capabilities for: providing original analyses and expanding technical assistance support for economic benefit-cost and risk analyses pertaining to EPA regulations; developing better information on the economic implications of environmental regulations and policies on the competitiveness of domestic industries, including consideration of trade, employment and productivity effects; increasing efforts to integrate economic and natural science models to support economic benefits analyses. The program will support enhanced regulatory support across the Agency for the development of 1) science-based methods to assess disproportionate health impacts; 2) advances in the measurement of the beneficial effects of reducing pollutants, including supporting analysis and development of methods to improve the utility of cancer and non-cancer risk assessment consistent with recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences; and, 3) supporting research to explore application of the comparative risk assessment framework and tools to conduct disproportionate impact analysis. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
497
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$109.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$405.0/-2.7 FTE) This decrease impacts Regulatory Economic, Management and Analysis administrative activities. The reduced resources include 2.7 FTE, and $405.0 in associated payroll. (+$1,100.0) This increase supports enhanced regulatory support across the Agency for the development of 1) science-based methods to assess disproportionate health impacts; 2) advances in the measurement of the benefits of reducing pollutants; and 3) supporting research to explore application of the comparative risk assessment framework and tools to conduct disproportionate impact analysis. (+$2,034.0) This reflects an increase in resources for the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) capabilities for: providing analyses and expanding technical assistance support for economic benefit-cost and risk analyses pertaining to EPA regulations; developing better information on the economic implications of environmental regulations and policies on the competitiveness of domestic industries, including consideration of trade, employment and productivity effects; increasing efforts to integrate economic and natural science models to support economic benefits analyses; and increasing participation in the development and modification of Agency science policy in response to advances in risk assessment methods and recommendations from expert institutions such as the National Academy of Science. (+$200.0) This reflects an increase in resources to support EPAs Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas investment for the cost/benefits of monitoring, transparency, and compliance; and how these analyses are used in the regulatory development process. (-$95.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$21.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
498
Statutory Authority: TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 (15 U.S.C. 2603, 2604, and 2605); CWA sections 304 and 308 (33 U.S.C. 1312, 1314, 1318, 1329-1330, 1443); SDWA section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 210, 300g-1); RCRA/HSWA: (33 USC 40(IV)(2761), 42 USC 82(VIII)(6981-6983)); CAA: 42 USC 85(I)(A)(7403, 7412, 7429, 7545, 7612); CERCLA: 42 USC 103(III)(9651); PPA (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109); FTTA.
499
Science Advisory Board Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,157.2

$6,157.2 24.4

$6,278.0 25.2

$5,867.0 28.3

($411.0) 3.1
$6,278.0
$6,278.0 25.2
Program Project Description: Congress established the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 and gave it a broad mandate to advise the Administrator on a wide range of highly visible and important scientific matters to ensure that EPAs technical products are of the highest quality. The SAB and two other statutorily mandated chartered Federal Advisory Committees, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, draw on a balanced range of non-EPA scientists and technical specialists from academia, communities, states, independent research institutions, and industry. This program provides management and technical support to these Advisory committees charged with providing EPAs Administrator with independent advice and peer review on scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems, regulations, and research planning.78 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the SAB will conduct 40 reviews to provide scientific and technical advice on topical areas related to the technical basis of EPA National Drinking Water Standards for drinking water contaminants, EPA revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria air pollutants, technical assessments of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals, ambient water quality criteria, risk management technologies, economic benefit methods and analyses, and EPAs research and science programs. The SAB plans to produce 30 advisory reports on these areas. (In FY 2012, the funding for the Science Advisory Board will be $5.87 million and 28.3 FTE)
78
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/ for further information.
500
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$427.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$510.0/+3.4 FTE) This increase supports EPAs plans to have the Science Advisory Board review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the six criteria pollutants on a five year cycle. This change includes 3.4 FTE and $510.0 in associated payroll. (-$102.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$387.0) This reflects a reduction in additional resources provided in FY 2010 for accelerated review of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals. (-$5.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA); 42 U.S.C. 4365; FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. C; CAA Amendments of 1977; 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2); CAA Amendments of 1990; 42 U.S.C. 7612. Currently, there are no
501
502
Science & Technology Building and Facilities Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $310,238.8

$72,841.7 $29,896.7 $871.9 $489.4 $76,052.0 $490,390.5 410.6

$72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1

$76,521.0 $33,931.0 $916.0 $536.0 $81,431.0 $518,300.0 408.5

$3,603.0 $5,000.0 $12.0 $31.0 $2,949.0 $21,322.0 -2.6
$315,238.0
$72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
Program Project Description: Environmental Program Management (EPM) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program are used to fund rental of office and laboratory space, utilities, and security. This program is also used to manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas within EPA, including health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, and environmental management functions. Resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities management services, including facilities maintenance and operations, space planning, shipping and receiving, property management, printing and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency. This program also includes the Agencys Protection Services Detail (PSD) that provides physical protection of the Administrator, by coordinating security arrangements during routine daily activities, as well as in-town and out-of-town events. The PSD coordinates all personnel and logistical requirements including scheduling, local support, travel arrangements, and managing special equipment needed to carry out its protective function. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis, and continues to implement a long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical. From FY
503
2007 through FY 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and facilities nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $5.3 million in EPM dollars over this period. In FY 2011 through FY 2014, EPA plans to release additional space for more savings. These achieved savings and potential savings partially offset EPAs escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for regional offices in Boston, Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle are significantly higher than those previously negotiated. The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services Administration and other private landlords by conducting reviews and verifying that billing statements are correct. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $170.81 million for rent, $11.22 million for utilities, $29.27 million for security, $11.54 million for transit subsidy, and $6.71 million for Regional Moves in the EPM appropriation. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of advanced technologies and energy sources. EPA will continue to direct resources towards acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 1342379, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Orders environmental performance goals related to buildings through several initiatives, including comprehensive facility energy audits, re-commissioning, sustainable building design in Agency construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power purchases, and the use of Energy Star rated products and building standards. In FY 2012, the Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37 billion British Thermal Units or three percent. EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately 21% less energy than it did in FY 2003. EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will meet the requirements of EO 13514 through: Managing existing building systems to reduce consumption of energy, water, and materials; Identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing assets, optimize real property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and Implementing best management practices in energy-efficient management of real property including Agency labs and data centers. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13150 Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of EO 13423.
79
Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13423/, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
504
EPA will advance the implementation of Safety and Health Management Systems to identify and mitigate potential safety and health risks in the workplace to ensure a safe working environment. As part of the Agencys commitment to promoting employee health and wellness, the Agency collected data to assess its health and wellness programs nationwide. The data will be used to establish a baseline from FY 2010, which the Agency will use to explore options to improve health and wellness programs, and to develop performance improvement targets and an action plan with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of life of EPA employees. In the interim, EPA has a short-term plan that includes the following initiatives: Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand health and wellness programs in GSA-owned and leased facilities. Some options include healthier food choices, increasing fitness center activities, and expanding health unit capabilities. Enhance outreach efforts to employees to increase fitness center memberships, registration for seminars and educational programs, and inoculations and screenings in health units. Establish or expand sports competitions and fitness challenges to build or strengthen our fitness programs nationwide. Offer more health educational classes and seminars to increase employee attendance and participation. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(010) Cumulative percentage reduction in GreenHouse Gas (GHG) Scopes 1 & 2 emissions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption.
FY 2010 Target
15
FY 2010 Actual
18.3
FY 2011 CR Target
18
FY 2012 Target
21
Units
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,263.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
505
(-4.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$15,301.0) This change reflects a net effect of the projected contractual rent increase, EPMs rent reduction realized from the space consolidation effort, as well as a rebalancing of cost methodologies between the EPM, S&T, and SF appropriations. The space consolidation effort provides cost avoidances that help to avoid a portion of the projected rent increases. (-$2,293.0) This reflects a decrease in utility costs, which includes Research Triangle Park (RTP) and agency-wide facilities as a result of utility efficiencies created by improvement in building infrastructure, space consolidations, and heat recovery projects. (+$1,269.0) This change reflects an increase in security costs. (-$83.0) This reflects a decrease in transit subsidy costs based on projected need. (-$3,741.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result of the completion of the Puerto Rico and Region 10 moves. (+$162.0) This reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPA owned regional laboratories. (-$416.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$434.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$1,607.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$153.0 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects realignment to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program from the Acquisition Management Program to consolidate property management services into a single function under the Office of Administration, which manages the Agency's facilities. This includes 1.0 FTE, and $153.0 in associated payroll. (+$153.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to support administrative oversight, and includes 1.0 FTE, and $153.0 in associated payroll.
506
Statutory Authority: Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA; TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive Orders 10577, 12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
507
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $86,883.5

$1,312.0 $28,192.2 $116,387.7 538.7

$1,115.0 $27,490.0 $111,439.0 547.7

$512.0 $22,252.0 $100,312.0 535.7

($603.0) ($5,238.0) ($11,127.0) -12.0
$82,834.0
$1,115.0 $27,490.0 $111,439.0 547.7
Program Project Description: Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability processes, and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. This includes developing, managing, and supporting a goals-based management system consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) for the Agency that involves strategic planning and accountability for environmental, fiscal, and managerial results; providing policy, systems, training, reports, and oversight essential for the financial operations of EPA; managing the Agency-wide Working Capital Fund; providing financial payment and support services for EPA through three finance centers, as well as specialized fiscal and accounting services for many EPA programs; and managing the Agency's annual budget process. Also included is EPAs Environmental Finance Program that provides grants to a network of university-based Environmental Finance Centers which deliver financial outreach services, such as technical assistance, training, expert advice, finance education, and full cost pricing analysis to states, local communities and small businesses. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency will continue to provide high-quality resource stewardship to ensure that all Agency programs operate with fiscal responsibility and management integrity and are efficiently and consistently delivered nationwide and demonstrate results. This is accomplished through leadership in better understanding program results and promoting effectiveness. Early in FY 2012, the Agency will complete a major milestone by deploying a new core financial system. This extensive effort will improve both the Agencys ability to meet its
508
fiduciary responsibilities as well as advance program goals and initiatives by better linking EPA financial and program performance and providing timely and reliable financial data to inform management decision making. For example, the new core financial system will improve efficiency by automating quality control functions as well as comply with Congressional direction and federal financial systems requirements. This work will be framed by the Agencys Enterprise Architecture and will make use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve its transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of operations through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments over financial activities as required under revised OMB Circular A-123 as well as controls over programmatic operations under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). Improvements in internal controls will further support EPAs initiatives for improved financial performance. EPA also will continue to ensure improved accessibility to data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance integration, and management decisionmaking. Since the implementation of the Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed, sampled, and monitored its payments to protect against erroneous payments. The Agency consistently exceeds the government-wide performance goal of 2.5 percent with an average error rate of less than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities, and travel/purchase card). In addition, EPA conducted statistical sampling of Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund payments to ensure controls are in place for our largest grant programs. Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the sample. In FY 2012, EPA will continue these activities to reduce even further the amount of improper payments pursuant to the Improper Payment Act of 2002, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), (P.L. 111-204). Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$951.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$150.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (+$3.0) This reflects an adjustment to cover the cost of payroll processing at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Currently, there are no
509
(-$6,150.0) This decrease reduces support for the financial system modernization project (FSMP). (-$8.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$113.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$119.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPAs Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law and EPAs Assistance Regulations (40 CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982); FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990); GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5, USC; National Defense Authorization Act.
510
Acquisition Management Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $33,272.6

$172.4 $23,820.8 $57,265.8 333.6

$165.0 $24,684.0 $57,253.0 362.9

$163.0 $24,097.0 $58,379.0 348.9

($2.0) ($587.0) $1,126.0 -14.0
$32,404.0
$165.0 $24,684.0 $57,253.0 362.9
Program Project Description: Environmental Programs & Management (EPM) resources in this program support contract/acquisition management activities at Headquarters, regional offices, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Cincinnati, Ohio, facilities. Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPAs programs. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of its procurement activities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, between the Superfund and EPM accounts, at least $3 million in total acquisition management resources will be used by EPA to train and develop its acquisition workforce, and to strengthen its contractor training programtwo efforts that mirror the Presidents guidelines for civilian agencies in the Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for FY 2010-2014. Resources will support the recruitment, retention, and hiring of additional members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Acquisition management also will address information technology needs that support management and the acquisition workforce. In addition, EPA will take the following steps to achieve acquisition savings efficiencies: Eliminate contracts that are similar to or redundant in scope, or are no longer necessary to achieve the Agencys programmatic needs; Eliminate contract requirements that contribute programmatic needs, but may be combined with other Agency acquisitions to realize greater buying power via economies of scale; and
511
Use government wide procurement sources where available to reduce the need for new contracts. As the Agency completes the final implementation stage of EPAs Acquisition System (EAS), additional resources for this new system will provide the Agency with a better and more comprehensive way to manage data on contracts that support mission oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the Agency to meet E-Government (E-Gov) requirements and the needs of Acquisition Management personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation. In addition, EPA will reinforce its contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level Assessments, increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel, and Simplified Acquisition Contracting Officer (SACO) reviews. These measures will further strengthen EPA's acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(009) Increase in number and percentage of certified acquisition staff (1102)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
335,80
Units
Number, Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,505.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$124.0 / -1.0 FTE) This change reflects realignment from the Acquisition Management Program to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program to consolidate property management services into a single function under the Office of Administration, which manages the Agency's facilities. This includes a reduction of $124.0 in associated payroll. (+$248.0 / +2.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to supplement existing acquisition staff in an effort to enhance acquisition workforce effectiveness. This includes 2.0 FTE, and $248.0 in associated payroll. (-7.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$952.0) This change reflects a revised estimate on the implementation of EPAs Acquisition System to expand access to the system which will improve the capacity, capability, and effectiveness of the acquisition workforce. (-$557.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
512
(-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$316.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$25.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE). Statutory Authority: EPAs Environmental Statutes; annual Appropriations Acts; FAR. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
513
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $24,311.6

$3,240.9 $27,552.5 182.1

$2,945.0 $28,432.0 177.5

$3,243.0 $29,466.0 174.5

$298.0 $1,034.0 -3.0
$25,487.0
$2,945.0 $28,432.0 177.5
Program Project Description: Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise over half of the Agencys budget. EPM resources in this program support activities related to the management of Financial Assistance Grants/Interagency Agreements (IA), and to suspension and debarment at Headquarters and within Regional offices. The key components of this program are ensuring that EPAs management of grants and IAs meet the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding produces measurable environmental results. This program focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of EPAs assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with state, local and tribal governments to support the implementation of environmental programs. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will achieve key objectives under its FY 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan. These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive and measurable environmental outcomes, and implementing a comprehensive post-award monitoring program.80 The Grants Management Plan provides a framework for extensive improvements in grants management at the technical administrative level, programmatic oversight level and at the executive decision-making level of the Agency. EPA will continue to reform grants management by conducting on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and applicants, by improving systems support, by performing indirect cost rate reviews, by providing tribal technical assistance, and by implementing its Agencywide training program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.
80
US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf.
514
Also, to continue strengthening grants management, EPA, working with the states, has issued a new policy that replaces the State Grant Performance Measures Template. The policy is intended to 1) enhance accountability for achieving grant performance objectives; 2) ensure that State grants are aligned with the Agencys Strategic Plan; and 3) provide for more consistent performance reporting. To achieve those objectives, the policy requires that state categorical grant workplans and associated progress reports prominently display three Essential Elements: the EPA Strategic Plan Goal; the EPA Strategic Plan Objective; and workplan commitments plus time frame. Regions and states will begin to transition to the new policy in FY 2012 with the goal of 100% compliance for all grants awarded on or after October 1, 2012. EPA will continue to streamline Grants Management through the E-Government (E-gov) initiative Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB). GM LoB offers government-wide solutions to grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. Currently, there are no
FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,042.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$96.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$116.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$59.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$59.0) This reflects a decrease in E-Gov service fees for Grants.gov. (+$81.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) Loans and Grants.
515
(+$1.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for Grants Management Line of Business. (-$58.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or grant management services. Statutory Authority: EPAs Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act; Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
516
Human Resources Management Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $43,526.7

$4,332.7 $47,859.4 274.6

$5,580.0 $48,027.0 303.1

$7,046.0 $51,726.0 296.1

$1,466.0 $3,699.0 -7.0
$42,447.0
$5,580.0 $48,027.0 303.1
Program Project Description: Environmental Programs & Management (EPM) resources support activities that influence the broad spectrum of human capital and human resources management services throughout the Agency. As requirements and initiatives change, the Agency continually evaluates and improves human resource functions in outreach, recruitment, hiring, developing and nourishing the workforce to increase management and employee satisfaction, and to help the Agency achieve its mission. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on implementing the Administrations comprehensive hiring reform in the Federal government. On May 11, 2010 the President signed the memorandum, Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process81, which directed agencies to adopt simpler and more applicant-friendly hiring practices that improve the quality and timeliness of the hiring process, and that are consistent with merit system principles. Executive departments and agencies are required to overhaul the way they recruit and hire our civilian workforce. In addition, managers and supervisors must assume leadership roles in recruiting and selecting highly-qualified employees from all segments of society and will be held accountable for these responsibilities. The key facets of hiring reform are: to ease the hiring process while raising the bar on candidate quality; to increase engagement of agency leaders in the recruitment and selection process and to monitor agency efforts to increase the speed and quality of hiring. The six major initiatives include: 1. Eliminating any requirement that applicants respond to essay-style questions when first applying for federal employment.
81
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process
517
2. Allowing individuals to apply using resumes and cover letters. 3. Exercising discretion to use Category Rating. which can increase the number of candidates for interviews. 4. Making sure that managers and supervisors with responsibility for hiring are more fully involved in the process and are held accountable through the performance management process. 5. Working with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the HR community to improve the quality and speed of the agency process. 6. Notifying individuals applying for federal employment through USAJOBS about the status of their application at key stages in the application process. EPA fully integrated this update feature in February of this year. We will monitor applicant satisfaction of this feature through the applicant satisfaction survey data supplied by OPM and make future changes as deemed appropriate. These initiatives will be addressed mainly through further standardizing processes (such as standardized position descriptions), and developing guides and processes that address each major initiative. Hiring Reform is a broad, Agency-wide human capital responsibility that requires participation from a cross-section of managers, program officials, and the human resources community. EPA will continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency human resources operations conducted by its three Shared Service Centers (SSCs). These three SSCs handle all human resources transactional functions for EPAs 17,000 plus employees. The SSCs continue to track timeliness and monitor the quality of customer service, through formal and informal processes. In 2012, EPA will solicit employee feedback on what the Agency may do to improve the quality of work life. In addition, the Agency will launch a Quality of Work Life intranet site that will announce new plans and activities, and publicize programs that help employees develop their careers, enjoy their work environment, balance work and personal demands, and lead healthier lives. In FY 2012, EPA will continue employee outreach efforts and soliciting employee feedback in the Agencys effort to improve the quality of work life. In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the EGovernment initiative and the Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) program. HR LoB offers government-wide, cost effective, and standardized HR solutions while providing core functionality to support the strategic management of human capital. In FY 2012, EPA will support the transition to a new HR system which will establish modern, cost-effective, standardized, interoperable HR solutions that provide common core functionality and supports the strategic management of human capital.
518
Performance Targets: Measure Type

Output
Measure
(007) Percent of GS employees (DEU) hired within 80 calendar days.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
15
FY 2012 Target
20
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(008) Percent of GS employees (Other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
23
FY 2012 Target
25
Units
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$4,739.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$348.0) This reflects an increase for workers compensation unemployment cost. (+$205.0) This change increases resources for EPAs Sign Language program. (-$100.0) This reflects a decrease in resources for EPAs Childcare Subsidy to reflect expected demand. (-$838.0/-5.4 FTE) This decrease in funding for the Environmental Careers Intern Program reflects a change in the recruitment cycle for an intern class from every six months to every nine months. This change includes -5.4 FTE, and -$713.0 in associated payroll. (-$901.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$375.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for the Agencys Honor Awards ceremony and the SES National Conference. Savings will occur due to the Honor Awards ceremony being held regionally and the SES National Conference being held every 18 months. (-$174.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
519
(-$138.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$548.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for contractor support for human resources management transactional work resulting from efficiencies created from the HR Shared Service Centers. (+$15.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for the Enterprise Human Resources Initiative (EHRI). Statutory Authority: Title V United States Code.
520
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
521
Endocrine Disruptors Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $8,513.2

$8,513.2 15.4

$8,625.0 11.0

$8,268.0 11.0

($357.0) 0.0
$8,625.0
$8,625.0 11.0
Program Project Description: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) was established under authorities contained in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).82 The program consists of several ongoing activities that support a two-tiered approach. In Tier 1, chemicals are screened for their potential to interact with endocrine systems (specifically the estrogen, androgen and thyroid systems). Those chemicals identified as having the potential to interact with endocrine systems will be further evaluated in Tier 2 to generate effects information that can be used in risk assessment. Current activities within the EDSP include assay development and validation, priority setting for screening, establishing policies and procedures, and data evaluation. Assay development and validation provides validated scientific test methods used to screen pesticides and other chemicals to determine their potential to interact with the endocrine systems (Tier 1) and, ultimately, to characterize their effects (Tier 2). Priority setting establishes the lists of chemicals that undergo screening in the EDSP. The policies and procedures provide a regulatory framework that requires the generation and submission of EDSP data. Finally, data evaluation consists of analyzing all relevant data to determine whether the evidence suggests the substance has the potential to interact with endocrine systems (Tier 1) and, therefore, should be further tested for effects (Tier 2). This process is known as a Weight of Evidence (WoE) evaluation and is described more fully in a draft document released for public comment on November 4, 2010 titled Weight Of Evidence Guidance: Evaluating Results Of Edsp Tier 1 Screening To Identify Candidate Chemicals For Tier 2 Testing (available at http://www.epa.gov/endo/). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: During FY 2012, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) will fulfill several milestones including: Finalizing the inter-laboratory validation of four Tier 2 assays and 2 potential Tier 1 assays;
82
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/sdwa/
522
Prioritizing and selecting additional chemicals for Tier 1 screening using a process informed to the extent practicable by high throughput approaches such as ToxCast; Issuing Tier 1 Test Orders for the selected chemicals based on publicly-vetted policies and procedures; Evaluating results of Tier 1 screening data submitted for 67 pesticide chemicals, including comparisons with high throughput approaches such as ToxCast, where possible; Completing WoE evaluations to determine which pesticide chemicals have the potential to interact with endocrine systems (Tier 1) and, therefore, should be further tested for effects (Tier 2); and Continue coordination and collaboration with the Research and Development Program to determine the applicability of ToxCast and Tox21 assays as a replacement for Tier 1 assays to assess chemicals potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid systems, including consideration as appropriate of other scientifically relevant information in the existing Tier 1 battery. In FY 2012, the EDSP will continue its work to protect communities from harm from substances in the environment that may adversely affect health through specific endocrine effects. Of note, in FY 2012, the EDSP will continue reviewing data received in response to the first set of test orders issued for the Tier 1 screening of 67 pesticide chemicals. Other activities expected in FY 2012 include the continuation of EDSP work with EPAs Research and Development Program on high throughput approaches to support priority-setting, and to continue building confidence in high throughput approaches so they can be increasingly utilized in the EDSP in the near future. EDSP also will continue to collaborate with international partners, through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), to maximize the efficiency of EPA resource use and promote adoption of internationally harmonized test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals. EPA represents the U.S. as either the lead or a participant in OECD projects involving the development of computer-based and in vitro, non-animal prioritization methods, improvement of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays, and validation of Tier 2 assays. EPAs EDSP also will continue to explore assays for hormone systems other than estrogen (E) androgen (A) and thyroid (T) (e.g., those involved in metabolism and weight regulation) and will also explore non-traditional modes of action for E A and T disruption . For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/endo/.
523

(E01) Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
Chemicals
Measure Type
Measure
(E02) Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
40
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
40
Chemicals
Measure Type
Measure
(E03) Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
2
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
Assays
In FY 2012, the EDSP will have 3 performance measures: Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed Several factors will impact the schedule for completing EDSP decisions including, for example, the number of pesticide cancellations and other actions that will remove a chemical from commerce and/or discontinue manufacture and import, the number of pesticide cancellations involving minor agricultural uses, the number of pre-enforcement challenges to test orders, unforeseen laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen technical problems with completing the Tier 1 assays for a particular chemical. For FY 2012, EPA has set a target of completing 5 EDSP decisions. Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued The annual performance targets for the number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders are issued are subject to obtaining an approved Information Collection Request and the
524
availability of resources for issuing EDSP Tier 1 test orders. For FY 2012, EPA has set a target of 40 chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued. Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached There are several steps within the assay validation process including: preparation of detailed review papers, performance of prevalidation studies, validation by multiple labs, and peer reviews. A decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay could occur during any of these steps while a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs only after all the steps are successfully completed. For FY 2012, EPA has set a target of making 4 validation decisions. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$53.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$300.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$20.0) This reduction is the result of a net change to infrastructure expenses. (-$40.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. (-$50.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a (p); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 42 U.S.C. 300j-17.
525
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $62,696.4

$4,146.4 $66,842.8 470.1

$3,750.0 $66,694.0 467.9

$3,839.0 $62,143.0 447.5

$89.0 ($4,551.0) -20.4
$62,944.0
$3,750.0 $66,694.0 467.9
Program Project Description: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with labeling and common practices, the product will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA defines unreasonable adverse effects on the environment as any unreasonable risk to man or the environment.83 EPAs Pesticides Program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe when used in accordance with the label. As directed by FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 that amended FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA is responsible for registering and re-evaluating pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. To comply with statutory mandates, EPA must conduct risk assessments using the latest scientific methods to determine the risks that pesticides pose to human health, as well as plants, animals, and ecosystems which are not the targets of the pesticide. The risk assessments are peer reviewed and regulatory decisions are posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and that stakeholders, including at-risk populations, are engaged in decisions affecting their health and environment.84 As part of the regulatory process, the Agency must establish tolerances for the maximum allowable pesticide residues on food and feed. In setting these food tolerances, EPA must balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider cumulative and aggregate risks, and ensure the protection of vulnerable, at risk populations including children and tribes. EPA began promoting reduced risk pesticides in 1993 by giving registration priority to pesticides that have lower toxicity to humans and non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants; low
83
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm. 84 The public can see what dockets are currently opened and provide comments at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/.
526
potential for contaminating groundwater; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and compatibility with Integrated Pest Management (IPM).85 Several countries and international organizations also have instituted programs to facilitate registering reduced risk pesticides. EPA works with the international scientific community and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries to register new reduced-risk pesticides and establish related tolerances (maximum residue limits). Through these efforts, EPA can help reduce risks to Americans from foods imported from other countries. The Agencys regional offices provide frontline risk management that ensures the decisions made during EPAs registration and reevaluation processes are implemented in pesticide use. For example, millions of Americas workers are exposed to pesticides in occupations such as lawn care, health care, food preparation, and landscape maintenance. Each year, the risk assessments that EPA conducts yield extensive risk-management requirements for hundreds of pesticides and uses. EPA works to reduce the number and severity of pesticide exposure incidents by promulgating regulations under the Worker Protection Standard, training and certifying pesticide applicators, assessing and managing risks, and developing effective communication and outreach programs. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with FQPA standards and Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act timeframes. To further advance EPAs cross cutting strategy of working for environmental justice and childrens health, EPA will process these registration requests with special consideration given to susceptible populations, especially children. Specifically, EPA will focus on the foods commonly eaten by children in order to reduce pesticide exposure to children where the science identifies potential concerns. Pesticide registration actions focus on the evaluation of pesticide products before they enter the market.86 EPA will review pesticide data and implement use restrictions and instructions needed to ensure that pesticides used according to label directions will not result in unreasonable risk. During its pre-market review, EPA will consider human health and environmental concerns as well as the pesticides potential benefits. During FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement registration review of existing pesticides and develop work plans for pesticides entering the review pipeline. The goal of the registration review process is to review pesticide registrations every fifteen years to ensure that pesticides already in the marketplace meet the most current scientific standards and address concerns identified after the original registration.87 The Agency will strive to meet the programs deadlines within resources. Implementation of the program, as mandated by statute, supports EPAs priorities including assuring the safety of chemicals and protecting Americas waters.
85
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htm. 86 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration Program Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm. 87 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Internet site: www.epa.gov/pesticides/registration_review.
527
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) reflect necessary changes brought to light during the registration review process. As part of RED implementation, EPA will continue to address activities vital to effective real world risk reduction. These activities include reviewing product label amendments that incorporate the mitigation measures from the REDs; publishing proposed and final product cancellations; promoting partnerships which provide fast/effective risk reduction; and approving product reregistrations. On a priority basis, the Agency also will complete certain proposed and final tolerance rulemakings to implement the changes in tolerances and tolerance revocations required in the REDs. The end result of these activities is protecting human health by implementing statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be available and safe when used in accordance with the label. In FY 2012, the Agency is reducing both intramural and extramural resources from this program as a result of increased program efficiencies and reprioritization of activities. Reductions may impact the timing of development and implementation of new risk assessment and policies designed to enhance protection for children and agricultural workers and drinking water policies. Rulemaking in areas such as new information requirements, and product performance will be extended from 2011 2013 to 2012 2015. Additionally, there will be delays in the activities outlined in Section 25(b) of FIFRA, such as publication in the Federal Register of the Secretary of Agriculture comments on the proposed regulation; EPAs response to USDA comments; and final publication of the impact analysis. EPA will continue to provide locally-based technical assistance and guidance by partnering with states and tribes on implementation of pesticide decisions. The Agency will address issues including newer/safer products and improved outreach and education. Technical assistance will include workshops, demonstration projects, briefings, and informational meetings in areas including pesticide safety training and use of lower risk pesticides. In keeping with EPAs priority of expanding the conversation on the environment, the Agency will continue to engage the public, the scientific community, and other stakeholders in its policy development and implementation. This will encourage a reasonable transition for farmers and others from the older, potentially more hazardous pesticides, to the newer pesticides that have been registered using the latest available scientific information. The Agency will continue to review and update, as appropriate, the pesticide review and use policies to ensure compliance with the latest scientific methods keeping true to its commitment of advancing science, research and technological innovation. EPA will continue to emphasize the registration of reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides, in order to provide farmers and other pesticide users with new alternatives. In FY 2012, the Agency, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), will work to ensure that minor use registrations receive appropriate support. EPA also will ensure that needs are met for reduced risk pesticides for minor use crops. EPA will assist farmers and other pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and methods of using existing products through workshops, demonstrations, small grants and materials available on the web site and in print. The Agency will engage states, tribes, and the private sector to ensure improvement in compliance with its decisions with an increase in resources to support additional focus in the
528
implementation and enforcement of pesticides specific rules and decisions made. Additionally, EPA will initiate efforts towards establishing a self-monitoring and/or self-certification process and self-reporting requirements for components of its regulatory programs. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due date).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
99
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
99
99.7
99
Percent
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reducedrisk pesticides.
FY 2010 Target
21
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 10/2012
FY 2011 CR Target
21
FY 2012 Target
22
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to rodenticides.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
10
FY 2012 Target
5
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(266) Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general population.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 10/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
50,50
50, 50
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(J11) Reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphate and carbamate insecticides
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
10
Percent
529
Measure Type
Measure
in the general population.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(J15) Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in children.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
50,50
Units
Percent
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this programs performance measures are program outputs, which represent statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and when used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the optimal measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for realizing benefits in that the programs safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace. In FY 2012, EPA will continue the implementation of FIFRA, FFDCA, ESA, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) in fulfilling the Agencys commitments to protect human health and the environment through our regulatory programs. In order to provide better accountability, the Agency will track these areas through various measures including: (1) reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphates and carbamate insecticides in the general population, (2) reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in children, and (3) reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general population. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,361.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$47.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$72.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program.
530
(-$106.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$30.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. (+$172.0/+0.5 FTE) This reflects an increase for the Agencys Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas Investment for additional focus in the implementation and enforcement of pesticides specific rules and decisions made. The additional resources include 0.5 FTE and associated payroll of $72.0. (-$6,686.0/-8.5 FTE) This reduction of resources is a result of program efficiencies and reprioritization. The reduction may impact the timing of development and implementation of new risk assessment and policies designed to enhance protection for children and agricultural workers and drinking water policies. Rulemaking in areas such as new information requirements, and product performance will be extended from 2011 2013 to 2012 2015. Additionally, there will be delays in the activities outlined in Section 25(b) of FIFRA, such as publication in the Federal Register of the Secretary of Agriculture comments on the proposed regulation; EPAs response to USDA comments; and final publication of the impact analysis. This includes 8.5 FTE and associated payroll of $1,224.0. (+$399.0) This additional funding represents an adjustment to fully fund IT and WCF costs associated with direct FTE support. (+$369.0/+2.0 FTE) This reflects the redirection of pesticide program resources to support core program operations in Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk from the Homeland Security Program. This will affect efficacy testing of chemicals and pesticides for decontamination of food and agricultural facilities and disinfectants for hospital use. This increase includes 2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $311.0. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended, 408 and 409.
531
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $41,584.5

$2,285.9 $43,870.4 334.9

$2,279.0 $44,482.0 301.4

$2,448.0 $40,361.0 288.2

$169.0 ($4,121.0) -13.2
$42,203.0
$2,279.0 $44,482.0 301.4
Program Project Description: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with labeling and common practices, the product will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA defines unreasonable adverse effects on the environment as any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.88 In complying with FIFRA, EPA must conduct risk assessments using the latest scientific methods to determine the risks that pesticides pose to human health, and ecological effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems that are not the targets of the pesticide. The Agencys regulatory decisions are posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and that stakeholders, including at risk populations, are engaged in decisions which affect their environment. Under FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. For food uses of pesticides, this standard requires EPA to determine that food residues of the pesticide are safe. For other risk concerns, EPA must balance the risks of the pesticides with benefits provided from the use of a product. To ensure unreasonable risks are avoided, EPA may impose risk mitigation measures such as modifying use rates or application methods, restricting uses, or denying uses. In some regulatory decisions, EPA may determine that uncertainties in the risk determination need to be reduced and may subsequently require monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects on water sources or the development and submission of additional laboratory or field study data by the pesticide registrant.89
88
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm. 89 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm.
532
In addition to FIFRA responsibilities, the Agency has responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).90 Under ESA, EPA must ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat or result in likely jeopardy to the continued existence of species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened or endangered. Given approximately 600 active ingredients in more than 19,000 productsmany of which have multiple usesand approximately 1,200 listed species with diverse biological attributes, habitat requirements and geographic range, this presents a great challenge. Where risks are identified, EPA must work with FWS and NMFS in a consultation process to ensure these pesticide registrations will meet the ESA standard. EPA has instituted processes for consideration of endangered species issues routinely in EPA and expects that in FY 2012 the Agency will continue to improve compliance with ESA. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Reduced concentrations of pesticides in water sources are an indication of the efficacy of EPAs risk assessment, management, mitigation, and communication activities. Using sampling data collected under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NWQA) program for urban watersheds, EPA will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions for three chemicals of concerndiazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl. In agricultural watersheds, the program will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions on azinphos-methyl and chloropyrifos, and consider whether any additional action is necessary. 91 In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work with USGS to develop sampling plans and refine program goals. To measure program effectiveness, EPA tracks reductions of concentrations for four organophosphate insecticides that most consistently exceeded EPAs levels of concerns for aquatic ecosystems during the last ten years of monitoring by the USGS NWQA program. Registration review decisions and associated Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) implementation for these four compounds will result in lower use rates and the elimination of certain uses that will directly contribute to reduced concentrations of these materials in the nations waters. While review of pesticides currently in the marketplace and implementation of the decisions made as a result of these reviews are a necessary aspect of meeting EPAs goals, they are not sufficient. Attainment of the goal to reduce risks would be significantly hampered without the availability of alternative products to these pesticides for the consumer. Consequently, the success of the Registration program in ensuring lower risk and the availability of effective alternative products plays a large role in meeting the environmental outcome of improved ecosystem protection. Through various means, including workshops, demonstrations, grants, printed materials, and the Internet, EPA will continue to assist pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and methods of using existing products.
90
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)1 and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 Internet site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleQA.html. 91 Gilliom, R.J., et al. 2006. The Quality of Our Nations Waters: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992 2001. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291, p 171. Available on the Internet at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/.
533
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to emphasize protection of threatened or endangered species from pesticide use, while minimizing regulatory burdens on pesticide users. EPA will use sound science and best available data to assess the potential risk of pesticide exposure to federally listed threatened or endangered species and will work with partners and stakeholders to improve complementary information and databases. As pesticides are reviewed throughout the course of the registration review cycle, databases that describe the location and characteristics of species, pesticides and crops will continually be refined with new information to help ensure consistent and efficient consideration of potential risks to listed species. Additionally, during registration review, EPA will endeavor to obtain risk mitigation earlier in the process by encouraging registrants to agree to changes in uses and applications of a pesticide beneficial to protecting endangered species prior to EPA completing consultation with the Services. In FY 2012, the Agency is reducing both intramural and extramural resources from this program as a result of increased program efficiencies and reprioritization of activities. Reductions may impact the timing of development and implementation of new risk assessments and policies designed to enhance protection for children, agricultural workers, and drinking water. The Agency will continue to work towards our commitment in environmental justice and protection of childrens health. The Worker Protection rule will be finalized in 2012, however, the implementation of the rule will be delayed until 2013. The reduction alone may delay registration review milestones for preliminary risk assessments and some regulatory decisions. Due to the lead times involved in conducting risk assessments, impacts will begin with pesticides in the pipeline in 2011. Rulemaking in other areas such as new information requirements and product performance will be extended from 2011 2013 to 2012 2015. The Agency continues to provide technical support for compliance with the requirements of the ESA. In FY 2012, within available resources, EPA will continue the integration of state-of-thescience models, knowledge bases and analytic processes to increase productivity and better address the challenge of potential risks of specific pesticides to specific species. Interconnection of the various databases within the program office will provide improved support to the risk assessment process during registration review by allowing risk assessors to more easily analyze complex scenarios relative to endangered species. EPA will continue to implement use limitations through appropriate label statements, referring pesticide users to EPA-developed Endangered Species Protection Bulletins, which are available on the Internet via Bulletins Live!92 These bulletins will, as appropriate, contain maps of pesticide use limitation areas necessary to ensure protection of listed species and, therefore, EPAs compliance with the ESA. Any such limitations on a pesticides use will be enforceable under the misuse provisions of FIFRA. Bulletins are a critical mechanism for ensuring protection of listed species from pesticide applications while minimizing the burden on agriculture and other pesticide users by limiting pesticide use in the smallest geographic area necessary to protect the species. In FY 2012, EPA is revising Bulletins Live! to provide a more
92
http://www.epa.gov/espp/bulletins.htm
534
interactive and more geographically discrete platform for pesticide users to understand the use limitations necessary to protect endangered or threatened species. In FY 2012, pesticides beginning registration review are expected to require comprehensive environmental assessments, including determining potential endangered species impacts. This may result in an expanded workload due to the necessity of issuing data call-ins (DCIs) and conducting additional environmental assessments for pesticides already in the review pipeline. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(011) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
FY 2010 Target
1,500
FY 2010 Actual
1712
FY 2011 CR Target
1,500
FY 2012 Target
1,200
Units
Decisions
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(164) Number of pesticide registration review dockets opened.
FY 2010 Target
70
FY 2010 Actual
75
FY 2011 CR Target
70
FY 2012 Target
70
Units
Dockets
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(230) Number of pesticide registration review final work plans completed.
FY 2010 Target
70
FY 2010 Actual
70
FY 2011 CR Target
70
FY 2012 Target
70
Units
Work Plans
Measure Type
Measure
(268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
5, 0, 20
6.7, 0, 33
5, 0,10
Percent
535
Measure Type
Measure
(269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern (azinphosmethyl and chlorpyrifos).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
0, 10
0, 8
10
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
5
Units
(276) Percent of
Percent
registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk prior to consultation with DOC and DOI. Some of the measures for this program are program outputs, which when finalized, represent the programs statutory requirements. This is to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with the packaging label, ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk, in that the programs safety reviews prevent dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace. In FY 2012, EPA will continue the implementation of FIFRA, FFDCA, ESA, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA) in the exercise of the Agencys responsibilities for the registration and the registration review activities. As part of EPAs efforts to improve accountability, the Agency will track these areas through three measures. These include: (1) percent of decisions completed in accordance with the PRIA and PRIRA or mutually negotiated times; (2) number of Registration Review dockets opened for each pesticide entering the review process to seek comments on the information the Agency has on the active ingredient; and (3) number of final work plans completed for each active ingredient after comments are evaluated and required data are complete. The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and policy decisions. USGS is currently sampling in its second cycle (Cycle II) from 2002-2012 and
536
is developing sampling plans for 2013-2022. The monitoring plan calls for biennial early sampling in eight urban watersheds and sampling every four years in a second set of nine urban watersheds; and yearly monitoring in eight agricultural watersheds and biennial sampling in three agricultural dominated watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will range from approximately thirteen to twenty-six samples per year depending on the size of the watershed and the extent of the pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is seasonally weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$386.0) This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$31.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$45.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$71.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. (+$18.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (-$4,952.0/-6.0 FTE) This reflects a reduction of resources resulting from program efficiencies and reprioritization in policy, rulemaking, registration review, non-PRIA registration activities, worker safety/certification and implementation electronic regulatory decisions. These resources include -6.0 FTE and associated payroll of $843.0. (+$405.0) This reflects a realignment of regional pesticides implementation resources to correct regional pesticides funding allocations. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
537
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,508.9

$505.1 $14,014.0 99.9

$537.0 $13,682.0 89.7

$544.0 $13,094.0 88.1

$7.0 ($588.0) -1.6
$13,145.0
$537.0 $13,682.0 89.7
Program Project Description: Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of unreasonable adverse effects on the environments expands upon the concept of protecting against unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.93 Through ongoing education and research in environmentally sound pest remediation methods, the Realize the Value of Pesticides Program ensures that effective and safe pesticides are available for regular use and for emergency situations. Examples of actions that lead to societal benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA Section 18. For example, in the event of an emergency such as a severe pest infestation, FIFRA Section 18 provides EPA the authority to temporarily exempt certain pesticide uses from registration requirements. Under Section 18, EPA must ensure that, under the very limiting provisions of the exemption, such emergency uses will not present an unreasonable risk to the environment. In such cases, EPAs goal is to complete the more detailed and comprehensive review for potential unreasonable risk conducted for pesticide registration within three years following the emergency. FIFRA clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human health and the environment from the pesticide registration process. Section 3 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to register products that are identical or substantially similar to already registered products. The entry of these new products, also known as generics, into the market can cause price reductions resulting from new competition and broader access to products. These price declines generate competition that provides benefits to farmers and consumers. The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program has had much success using the Monroe Model in schools. The Monroe Model focuses on IPM in schools and has led to a substantial
93
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
538
reduction in pest control costs and a 90 percent reduction in both pesticide applications and pest problems in participating schools.94 By using this model, the emphasis is placed on minimizing the use of broad spectrum chemicals and on maximizing the use of sanitation, biological controls, and selective methods of application.95 This PESP/IPM implementation serves as an example of how to implement IPM in school districts across the country. The increase in funding to EPAs IPM program in FY 2012 will help support the schools as part of the Promoting Healthy Communities initiative. This will be accomplished through various means, including development and dissemination of brochures: education on potential benefits of IPM implementation, and outreach on successes of IPM to encourage its use. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPAs statutory and regulatory functions for the pesticides program include registration, product reregistration, registration review implementation, risk reduction implementation, rulemaking and program management. During FY 2012, EPA will review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) standards as well as Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA) timeframes. Many of these actions will be for reduced-risk pesticides which, once registered and used by consumers, will increase benefits to society. Working together with the affected user communities, through PESP and IPM and related activities, the Agency plans to accelerate the adoption of these lower-risk products. In FY 2012, EPA will redirect resources from the Strategic Agricultural Initiative to Integrated Pest Management activities to provide additional support for advancing the Administrators priorities in IPM efforts in agriculture and thus enhancing healthy environments efforts. This redirection resulted from the Agencys review of non-regulatory programs. It will provide a more focused effort in IPM to address a wide range of agricultural risk issues in food safety as well as reducing communities exposure to pesticide drift. Through contracts, grants and partnerships, EPA will continue to support implementation of IPM related activities in agriculture. The Agency will continue to develop tools and informational brochures to promote IPM efforts. Additionally, EPA will continue to develop and provide guidance to farmers, other partners, and stakeholders to further the use of IPM strategies in the agricultural sector. Similarly, the Agency will continue its work sharing efforts with its international partners. Through these collaborative activities and resulting international registrations, international trade barriers will be reduced; enabling domestic users to more readily adopt these newer pesticides into their crop protection programs and reduce the costs of registration through work sharing. The Section 18 Program provides exemptions to growers for use of pesticides that are not registered for their crops during emergency situations. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to
94
Lame, M. L., 2008 Assessment and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Schools: Practical Implementation, Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban Entomology and Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban Entomology; Lame, April 5, 2008, Measuring the Impacts of Implementing IPM programs in Schools, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agricultures 5th National IPM Symposium Paper Presentation, St. Louis, MO. D. H. Gouge, M. L. Lame, and J. L. Snyder, 2006, Use of an Implementation Model and Diffusion Process for Establishing Integrated Pest Management in Arizona Schools, American Entomologist 52:3, referred. 95 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm/
539
process exemptions. The economic benefit of the Section 18 Program to growers is the avoidance of potential losses incurred in the absence of pesticides exempted under FIFRAs emergency exemption provisions. EPA will continue to conduct pre-market evaluations of efficacy data for public health claims and ensure that the products will work for their intended purposes. Through the Antimicrobial Testing Program, the Agency will continue to conduct post-market surveillance to monitor the efficacy of hospital disinfectants. Additionally in FY 2012, the Agency is reducing resources from this program to reflect efficiencies in program implementation and to reflect reprioritization of activities. Specifically, resources to support urban pest management activities and the non-regulatory Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Programs will be reduced. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(240) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
FY 2010 Target
45
FY 2010 Actual
50
FY 2011 CR Target
45
FY 2012 Target
45
Units
Days
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$36.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$17.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$24.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$1,020.0/+3.0 FTE) This increase supports Integrated Pest Management in schools as part of the Promoting Healthy Communities initiative. This increase includes 3.0 FTE and $368.0 in associated payroll.
540
(-$16.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. (-$937.0 /-2.5 FTE) This decrease reflects efficiencies in program implementation and a reprioritization of activities. Specifically, resources for urban pest management and the non-regulatory Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program will be reduced. The reduced resources include 2.5 FTE and associated payroll of $354.0. (-$673.0) This reflects a realignment of regional pesticides implementation resources to correct regional pesticides funding allocations. (+$16.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. Statutory Authority: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended, 408 and 409.
541
Science Policy and Biotechnology Program Area: Pesticides Licensing Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $1,349.5

$1,349.5 6.7

$1,840.0 6.3

$1,756.0 6.3

($84.0) 0.0
$1,840.0
$1,840.0 6.3
Program Project Description: The Science Policy and Biotechnology Program provides scientific and policy expertise, coordinates EPA intra-agency, interagency, and international efforts, and facilitates information sharing related to core science policy issues concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals. Biotechnology is illustrative of the work encompassed by this program. Many offices within EPA regularly deal with biotechnology issues and the coordination among affected offices allows for coherent and consistent scientific policy from a broad agency perspective. The Biotechnology Team assists in formulating EPA and United States positions on biotechnology issues, including representation on United States delegations to international meetings. Such international activity is coordinated with the Department of State. In addition, the Science Policy and Biotechnology program provides for independent, external scientific peer review through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP), a federal advisory committee. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated with plant-incorporated protectants including those based on plant viral coat proteins. EPA also will, in conjunction with an interagency workgroup, continue to maintain and further develop the U.S. Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Web Site. The site focuses on the laws and regulations governing agricultural products of modern biotechnology and includes a searchable database of genetically engineered crop plants that have completed review for use in the United States.96 In addition, a number of biotechnology international activities will continue to be supported by EPA. Examples include representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments Working Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and the Task Force on the Safety of Food and Feed.
96
http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
542
The FIFRA SAP, operating under the rules and regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, will continue to serve as the primary external independent scientific peer review mechanism for EPAs pesticide programs. Scientific peer review is a critical component of EPAs use of the best available science. The FIFRA SAP typically conducts eight to 10 reviews each year on a variety of scientific topics. Specific topics to be placed on the SAP agenda are typically confirmed a few months in advance of each session and usually include difficult, new, or controversial scientific issues identified in the course of EPAs pesticide program activities. Notice of the FIFRA SAP meetings are published in the Federal Register. In FY 2012, topics may include issues related to chemical-specific risk assessments and endocrine disruptors, among others. Performance Targets: Currently there are no performance measures specific to this program. Work under this program supports the Chemical and Pesticide Risks objective. Supported programs include the registration of new pesticides and review of existing pesticides. The work in the Science Policy and Biotechnology Program also supports efforts related to toxic substances, specifically, the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program. In addition, science policy and biotechnology activities assist in meeting targets for measures under other programs such as Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program through, for example, the conduct of the FIFRA SAP meetings. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$57.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$7.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$20.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. 136(a),136(c),136(e),136(f),136(g),136(j),136(o),136w(a)(b)(d)(e); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 15 U.S.C. 2604h (5) (A), 2607b; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a, 371; Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5a U.S.C. 9,10,11,12 & 14
543
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
544
RCRA: Waste Management Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $71,171.2

$71,171.2 382.5

$68,842.0 397.0

$66,854.0 372.9

($1,988.0) -24.1
$68,842.0
$68,842.0 397.0
Program Project Description: The Waste Management programs primary focus is to provide national policy direction concerning the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in order to reduce the amount of waste generated; to improve the recovery and conservation of materials by focusing on a hierarchy of waste management options that advocate reduction, reuse, and recycling; and to ensure that wastes which cannot be safely reused or recycled are treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. This program strives to prevent releases to the environment from both non-hazardous and hazardous waste management facilities, reduce emissions from hazardous waste combustion, and manage waste in more environmentally beneficial and costeffective ways. The Waste Management program continues to evolve to address new challenges, such as assessing waste streams from new industrial processes and learning from technological advances in the waste management arena. There is a continued focus on safe disposal practices, the conservation of resources, and regulatory and other reform efforts to strengthen waste management and improve the efficiency of the program. EPA actively participates in waste management and resource conservation efforts internationally. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide assistance to states with establishing permits, permit renewals, or other approved controls at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. However, due to resource reductions, EPA training, contract support, and worksharing to assist states in RCRA permitting will be impacted. Within the constrained fiscal environment for EPA and states, EPA will continue to work with states on meeting the annual target of implementing permits, initial approved controls, and updated controls at 100 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities.97 In addition, the program remains responsible for the continued
97
In addition, EPA will directly implement the RCRA base program in the states of Iowa and Alaska.
545
maintenance of the regulatory controls at 2,467 facilities, including about 10,000 process units (such as incinerators, landfills and storage tanks), in the permitting baseline.98 An important objective in FY 2012 is to ensure that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities and reclamation facilities operating under the definition of solid waste exclusion provide proof of their ability to pay for the cleanup, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities. The Agency is using its RCRA financial assurance and regulatory development expertise to develop proposed regulations under CERCLA Section 108(b). These regulations will impose financial responsibility requirements on the highest-risk classes of facilities managing hazardous substances. In FY 2012, the Agency will propose regulations for the top priority classes of facilities from the hardrock mining and mineral processing, and make significant progress toward a final rule. For the classes of facilities in the chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and electric power generation industries, EPA will develop an Information Collection Request (ICR) and receive information to support a regulatory proposal. The Agency will continue its high priority work on encouraging proper management of coal combustion residuals. EPA will continue to work with interested parties in helping to promote the use of the voluntary Guide for Industrial Waste Management,99 which provides facility managers, state and tribal regulators, and the public with recommendations and tools to better address the management of land-disposed non-hazardous industrial waste. The Agency will continue its efforts in FY 2012 to assist in ensuring safe combustion of both hazardous and solid waste. EPA will meet its court-ordered December 2012 deadline for finalizing revisions to the definition of solid waste. This regulation will promote the recycling of hazardous secondary materials, where it can be done safely. Increased environmentally sound recycling of hazardous secondary materials is an important part of moving toward sustainable industrial production by returning recoverable commodities to the economy, minimizing wasteful disposal of these valuable materials, and minimizing additional raw materials extraction. The Waste Management program will continue working with the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security to prepare for possible terrorist or natural disaster events and threats to the food chain in FY 2012. EPA will work to maintain information on technologies and tools for use in decontamination/disposal operations related to terrorist events, natural disasters, or other disease outbreaks. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to issue Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) disposal approvals and implement the PCB disposal and cleanup program. EPA will work with the U.S. Navy to address the reefing of ships and will work with the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) as it safely dismantles its fleet of obsolete ships that contain equipment using PCBs, asbestos, and other materials.
98 99
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/tsd/permit/pgprarpt.htm http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm
546
EPA will continue to provide limited technical assistance to tribes and tribal organizations for the purpose of addressing solid and hazardous waste problems and reducing the risk of exposure to improper disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Of the 574 federally recognized tribes, 117 have met EPAs internal criteria for having an integrated waste management plan as of FY 2010. During FY 2012, the Agency requests $2 million to begin the development of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system. This funding supports the Administrations goal of reducing the burden on regulated entities where feasible. Once fully implemented, e-manifest will reduce the reporting burden for firms regulated under RCRAs hazardous waste provisions by $200 million to $400 million annually. The system will also make information on hazardous waste movements more readily accessible to EPA, States, and the public, thus supporting the administrations goals of transparency and efficiency. The Agency will submit to Congress a legislative proposal to collect user fees to support the development and operation of the system. In addition, in FY 2012, EPA will finalize the rule that will allow tracking of hazardous waste using the electronic manifest system. In order to provide information system support on emanifest, EPA is re-prioritizing RCRAInfo planned improvements, including work to assure data quality100 and efforts to develop a user-friendly, web-based, searchable data system to provide the public with access to, and ability to sort, data on hazardous waste generation, management, and shipment. In FY 2012, as a result of funding constraints, EPA will not offer Tribal grants for integrated solid waste management planning. Additionally, the Agencys schedules for some rulemakings will slow down due to the reduction of contractor resources. EPA will rely more on in-house staff to complete necessary work. Schedules are predicted to slip 6-12 months for proposed rules and 6-12 months for final rules. Furthermore, EPA will delay analytical methods work for quantification of hazardous constituents until future fiscal years. In addition, EPA is requesting $340.0 and 1.0 FTE as part of the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative to support a change in approach to enforcement. As inspections alone will not solve issues of facility non-compliance, the Agency will examine existing regulatory frameworks to identify additional ways to reduce the associated risks of non-compliance. This investment will help identify rules early in the development process to ensure that electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements are incorporated as necessary to ensure compliance. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(HW0) Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
FY 2010 Target
100
FY 2010 Actual
140
FY 2011 CR Target
100
FY 2012 Target
100
Units
Facilities
100
EPA is developing plans to address data quality issues identified by EPAs Office of Inspector General in a Feb. 2011 report: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110207-11-P-0096.pdf.
547
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
3.75
FY 2012 Target
Units
(HWE) Number of facilities with new or Efficiency updated controls per million dollars of program cost.
3.72
3.91
3.79
Facilities
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,094.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2,744.0 / -19.6 FTE) This reduction, including payroll of $2,744.0 associated with 19.6 FTE, reflects a decrease in resources available to support existing efforts aimed at promoting the reduction, reuse, and recycling of municipal solid waste and industrial materials. Specifically this reduction decreases support provided to the WasteWise, Green Highways, and Pay As You Throw programs. The reduced resources include 19.6 FTE and associated payroll of $2,744.0. (-5.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. ($-2,000.0) As a result of new priorities and funding constraints, in FY 2012 EPA will not offer Tribal grants for integrated solid waste management planning and will delay work on analytical methods for quantification of hazardous constituents. Additionally, the Agencys schedules for rulemaking activities will be extended as EPA relies more on in-house staff than on contractors to complete necessary work. (+2,000.0) This increase supports the Administrations goal of reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses by funding the development of a hazardous waste electronic manifest system. The Presidents Budget includes a legislative proposal for Congress to provide authority to collect fees to support development and operation of the system, consistent with past direction from Congress. (+$340.0 / +1.0 FTE) This increase will support the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative to identify rules early in the development process. This funding also will be used to ensure that electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements are incorporated as necessary to ensure compliance. The additional resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $140.0. (+$1.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a net change between pay and nonpay resources as a result reducing $148.0 in contract costs to fund $144.0 for associated payroll and $5.0 related support costs for an additional 1.0 FTE redirected from BRAC program to the
548
Waste Management program. The additional FTE will provide regulatory preparation and support in the Waste Management program. (-$210.0 / -1.5 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE redirected from the RCRA Waste Management program to RCRA Corrective Action program to address PCB Clean Up and Disposal. (-$255.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$129.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$75.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and Ecosystems program that funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this database in the past. (-$10.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 3004, 3005, 8001 and the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605 et seq. Section 6.
549
RCRA: Corrective Action Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $39,366.0

$39,366.0 228.5

$40,029.0 246.9

$40,266.0 246.4

$237.0 -0.5
$40,029.0
$40,029.0 246.9
Program Project Description: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to implement a hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. An important element of this program is the requirement that facilities managing hazardous waste clean up past releases. The Corrective Action program is largely implemented by authorized states, with leadership, support, and some direct implementation, by EPA and is designed to direct owners and operators to clean up environmental contamination at RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Although the states101 are the primary implementers of the Corrective Action Program, EPA directly implements corrective action in 13 states, and is the lead regulator at a significant number of facilities undergoing corrective actions in authorized states across the country. Key program implementation activities include: development of technical and program implementation regulations, policies and guidance, and conducting corrective action activities including assessments, investigations, stabilization measures, remedy selection, remedy construction/implementation, and technical support and oversight for state-led activities.102 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work in partnership with the states to coordinate cleanup program goals and direction. EPA and the states will continue to develop and implement approaches for constructing final remedies at operating facilities that are protective, as long as the facility remains active. This will ensure protective controls are in place if the use changes in the future. In FY 2012, the RCRA Corrective Action Program will focus on site investigation, identification of interim remedies to eliminate exposures to human health or the environment, and selection of safe, effective long-term remedies.
101
This includes both those states authorized for corrective action and those not authorized for corrective action but contribute through work sharing agreements with their EPA Regional Offices. 102 For more information please refer to http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.
550
Ensuring sustainable future uses for RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in remedy selections and in the construction of those remedies. This is consistent with EPAs emphasis on land revitalization. The Agency will continue to present training that focuses on selecting and completing final remedies to regional and state RCRA Corrective Action staff. In addition, EPA will ensure that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and PCB remediation sites are cleaned up. Specific activities include advising the regulated community on PCB remediation and reviewing and acting on disposal applications for PCB remediation waste. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work toward the calendar year 2020 goal of constructing final remedies at 95 percent of all facilities. As part of overall efforts toward that goal, EPA and states are working toward controlling human exposures to toxins at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities and controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities by 2020. These long-term goals have been set against the 2020 Corrective Action Universe, a baseline that EPA finalized in May 2007 and began implementing in FY 2008, which includes 3,746 facilities requiring corrective action. In FY 2009, the annual targets for RCRA Corrective Action were revised to align with this newly assessed baseline. In FY 2012, the Agency will be working with states to continue developing and implementing program improvements in order to meet the ambitious 2020 goal, and implementing program reforms under the Agencys Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI). In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated the multi-year ICI in FY 2010 to better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities and resources, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By utilizing the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs, including RCRA Corrective Action, EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPAs cleanup programs. In addition, the Agency is using its RCRA cleanup program and regulatory development expertise to develop proposed regulations under CERCLA Section 108(b). These regulations will impose financial responsibility requirements on the highest-risk classes of facilities managing hazardous substances. In FY 2012, the Agency will propose regulations for the top priority classes of facilities from the hardrock mining and mineral processing industries, and make significant progress toward a final rule. For the classes of facilities in the chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and electric power generation industries, EPA will develop an Information Collection Request (ICR) and receive information to support a regulatory proposal.
551

(CA1) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
72
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
69
72
76
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(CA2) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
61
63
64
67
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(CA5) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
FY 2010 Target
35
FY 2010 Actual
37
FY 2011 CR Target
38
FY 2012 Target
42
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(117) Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA Efficiency corrective action facilities per federal, state and private sector costs (annual).
-9.2
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,134.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$204.0 / +1.5 FTE) This change reflects a regional redirection of 1.5 FTE from the RCRA Waste Management program to the RCRA Corrective Action due to a shift of
552
PCB Clean Up and Disposal resources into Corrective Action. This shift involves 1.5 FTE and associated payroll of $204.0. (-$818.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reduces regional oversight and technical assistance to states in support of the RCRA corrective action program. This reduction includes 2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $272.0. (-$131.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$91.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$61.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 3004, 3005, 8001and the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605 et seq. Section 6.
553
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,063.3

$13,063.3 77.2

$14,379.0 82.2

$9,751.0 53.7

($4,628.0) -28.5
$14,379.0
$14,379.0 82.2
Program Project Description: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts (RCRA) objectives include promoting waste minimization and recycling through reducing the amount of waste generated and improving recovery and resource conservation. In support of this goal, EPA built partnerships with government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit organizations to encourage recycling and waste prevention, and leveraged resources to improve energy conservation through the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC).103 Past non-regulatory program accomplishments in the RCC include: 1) business, government, and institutional WasteWise partners reported preventing or recycling more than 160 million tons of materials and municipal solid waste since 1994; 2) 282 National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) partners reported cumulatively reducing the use of over 22 million pounds of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals in industrial, business, and federal, state and local government processes since 2004; 3) 8.2 million pounds of TVs were reported collected from January through August 2009 by Plug-in to eCycling program partners; and 4) partners reported diverting more than 500 thousand pounds of waste in the 2010 Game Day Challenge. Moving forward, EPA recognizes the strategic importance of materials management as a catalyst for society to examine all aspects of the material life cycle that comprise industrial practices and consumer habits. EPA will use past experience with the RCC to inform activities in support of sustainable materials management (SMM), a significant step that will allow EPA to begin to consider the human health and environmental impacts associated with the full life cycle of materialsfrom the amount and toxicity of raw materials extraction, through transportation, processing, manufacturing, and use, as well as reuse, recycling and disposal. This approach will seek to preserve resources by 1) minimizing inefficient or unnecessary waste generation; 2) encouraging the use of materials that are less environmentally impacting; and 3) reducing the total amount of virgin materials consumed.
103
http://www.epa.gov/rcc/.
554
The U.S. consumed 57 percent more materials in the 2000 than in 1975. Today, with less than 5 percent of the worlds population, the U.S. is now responsible for about one-third of the worlds total material consumption.104 Because the U.S. accounts for such a large share of global material consumption and materials management is associated with 42 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,105 EPA believes the U.S.s role in identifying better methods to manage and minimize waste production has global implications. By considering the impacts throughout the entire life cycle, SMM provides a platform for identifying and improving domestic policies, programs, and practices that carefully consider the effect on the amounts and types of materials used and the full system impacts of those choices. EPA will also pursue innovative approaches by leveraging private sector resources. For example, the program will encourage producers and others in the product value chain to shift the current packaging waste management system from one focused on government-funded and ratepayer-financed waste diversion to one that relies on assistance from packaging producers and others to reduce public costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental sustainability. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: As the Agency increasingly focuses on SMM, EPA will initially concentrate efforts in a few targeted industrial sectors that generate large quantities of waste that can be reused or recycled, offer opportunities to reduce waste prior to generation, and can minimize environmental impacts of waste. SMM is structured to look at a larger universe of materials, the products and services they are used for, and analyze materials from all life cycle stages. The SMM approach is not limited to "end of life" as was the main focus of the RCC. SMM reduces the societal impact of materials throughout their life cycle. The implementation of SMM is fundamental to ensuring that adequate resources are available to meet todays needs and those of the future. In FY 2012, EPA, through the RCRA program, will focus on the advancement of the SMM concept and specifically: 1. Provide national leadership and direction on materials management, 2. Ensure the safe and effective reuse/recycling of materials, 3. Convene parties who would otherwise not come togetherindustry, state/local government representatives, Non-Governmental Organizations, and other stakeholdersto pursue solutions to resource conservation, 4. Develop and promote national solutions for waste management, 5. Encourage industry to pursue innovative policies and solutions to non-regulated environmental problems, and
104
Matos, Grecia, and Lorie Wagner. "Consumption of Materials in the United States 1900-1995." November 1998. Online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf 105 U.S. EPA, OSWER, OCPA. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices. September 2009. Online: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_materials_management.pdf
555
6. Provide credible scientific information and data. EPA will continue work on SMM environmental measurement in FY 2012. Development of metrics that assist in identifying data gaps, prioritizing work, and measuring performance is important to implementing SMM strategies, as is EPA investment in developing tools such as the Waste Reduction Model (WaRM) that estimate accrued materials life cycle benefits in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and energy savings. By considering the impacts throughout the entire life cycle (including resource extraction, material processing, product design and manufacturing, product use, collection and processing and disposal), SMM provides a platform for identifying and improving domestic policies, programs, and practices that carefully consider the effect on the amounts and types of materials used and the full impacts of those choices EPAs current measurement approach, as reported in the annual Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Report, has been based on an approach, assumptions, and methodology developed decades ago. Currently, EPA is re-examining the data sources, methods, and assumptions used to estimate U.S. materials throughout their life cycle. As we continue to refocus the program on SMM in FY 2012, EPA will discontinue its support of many RCC partnership programs by FY 2012. This includes Recycling on the Go (ROGO), GreenScapes, and Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), which will be maintained as information resources on the internet and no longer require resources. These are primarily endof-life programs, not directly consistent with the shift to SMM. EPA expects that SMM activities discussed above that will continue to be funded in FY 2012 will achieve substantial, tangible results in coming years. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion ash that is beneficially used instead of disposed.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
1.4
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
1.4
1.4
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(MW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
45
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
22
141
45
Dumps
556
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(MW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan.
FY 2010 Target
23
FY 2010 Actual
23
FY 2011 CR Target
14
FY 2012 Target
5
Units
Tribes
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(MW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled.
FY 2010 Target
20.5
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 12/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
21
FY 2012 Target
22
Units
Pounds (Billions)
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$599.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$2,325.0/ -12.7 FTE) This reflects a decrease in base funding for the program due to the greater focus on sustainable materials management and the discontinuation of several end-of-life focused RCC partnership programs, including Recycling on the Go, Greenscapes, and Carpet America Recovery Effort. The reduced resources include 12.7 FTE and associated payroll of $1,778.0. (-$2,842.0/ -15.8 FTE) This decrease in base funding reflects EPAs discontinuation of the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) program in order to enhance program focus on emerging priorities. The reduced resources include 15.8 FTE and associated payroll of $2,212.0. (-$42.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 1002, 1003, 2002 and 8001.
557
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
558
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $53,458.7

$53,458.7 248.3

$54,886.0 246.1

$70,939.0 251.6

$16,053.0 5.5
$54,886.0
$54,886.0 246.1
Program Project Description: This program is responsible for ensuring the safety of industrial chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including assessing thousands of chemicals already existing in commerce before TSCA took effect, and preventing the introduction into commerce of new chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. Key program efforts include: Assessing the safety of existing chemicals and taking regulatory and non-regulatory actions to eliminate or significantly reduce unreasonable risks, including obtaining and making public to the maximum extent allowed by law the data needed to conduct such assessments and support risk management actions; Reviewing and acting on approximately 1,100 TSCA Section 5 notices, including PreManufacture Notices (PMNs), received annually to ensure that no unreasonable risk is posed by new chemicals before they are introduced into U.S. commerce. There are approximately 2,900 High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals in commerce that are produced at over 1,000,000 lbs per year, and an additional approximately 3,300 chemicals produced at over 25,000 lbs per year. EPA is committed to assessing these chemicals for risk and taking regulatory action to eliminate or significantly reduce unreasonable risks. In September 2009, Administrator Jackson announced a fundamental transformation of EPAs approach for ensuring chemical safety to make significant and long overdue progress in protecting human health and the environment, particularly from existing chemicals that have not been tested for safety. Building off of the Agencys previous approach that largely relied on voluntary chemical data submissions by industry, throughout FY 2010 EPA developed and initiated the Enhanced Chemical Management approach, which is focused on 1) mitigating chemical information gaps on existing chemicals by improving chemical information collection and management; 2) screening and assessing chemical hazards and identifying health and environmental risks; and 3) managing identified chemical risks.106 The need for such a
106
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf
559
transformation was also supported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which identified EPAs processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as an area in need of transformation in its January 2009 High-Risk Series,107 and concluded that EPAs ability to protect public health and the environment depends on credible and timely assessment of the risks posed by toxic chemicals. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: FY 2012 represents a crucial stage in the development of EPAs strengthened approach. As this effort has developed, the agency has begun developing a sound chemical prioritization structure, based on clear, consistent, and objective criteria, for chemical assessment and risk management actions. This budget request will allow EPA to sustain its success in preventing unsafe new chemicals from entering the market, and to continue making substantial progress in its transition to a more aggressive action-oriented approach for assessing and ensuring the safety of existing chemicals, including: Using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and safety data for chemicals already in commerce and increasing transparency and public access to information on TSCA chemicals; Using data from all available sources to develop hazard characterizations on HPV chemicals, and conduct detailed chemical risk assessments on priority chemicals to inform the need for and support development and implementation of risk management actions; Using all available authorities under TSCA to take immediate and lasting action to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop proven safer alternatives. FY 2012 Investments Summary: The FY 2012 Budget proposes a total increase of $16.1 million to more fully implement key aspects of the Agencys strategic approach. EPAs efforts to assess the safety of existing chemicals already in commerce are supported by $15.5 million of this increase are summarized below. The remaining $0.6 million of the increase is for salary increases only in the New Chemicals program. A more complete description of FY 2012 activities and performance supported by the total resources requested for the CRRR program is also provided after the summary. Increase EPAs pace in obtaining and making public TSCA chemical health and safety and other information, (+$2.9 million), including: o Initiate TSCA Section 4 Test Rules covering approximately 75 or more chemicals newly identified as High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals in TCSA Inventory Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011;
107
http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/safety-security/epa_and_toxic_chemicals.php
560
o Increase transparency by reviewing all new TSCA chemical health and safety studies claimed in FY 2012 as Confidential Business Information (CBI), and doubling (from 2,200 to 4,400) the number of retroactive CBI case reviews (submitted prior to 2010), and challenging claims and declassifying studies where appropriate; o Accelerate EPAs pace in digitizing data contained in TSCA documents received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8 increasing to 20,000 the number of documents digitized and making those data, as appropriate, available to the public. Accelerating progress in characterizing the hazards posed by HPV chemicals, and conducting detailed chemical risk assessments on priority chemicals (+$4.9 million), including: o Increase by 67%, from 300 to 500, the number of HPV chemicals for which hazard characterizations will be completed; and o Based on the Agencys chemical prioritization structure, initiate priority detailed chemical risk assessments in FY 2012 that will inform the need for and support future risk reduction actions, with several assessments being completed in FY 2012; o Enhance the Risk Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI) tool to help identify geographic areas with particularly high risk scores associated with toxics releases and the facilities and chemicals responsible for those scores. Undertaking risk management actions on chemicals identified as posing unreasonable human health or environmental risks (+$7.7 million), including: o As previously identified in the Agencys chemical-specific action plans, complete developing and commence implementing regulatory risk management actions initiated in FY 2010, continue developing actions commenced in FY 2011 and consider initiating approximately five new actions in FY 2012. To ensure that childrens health and impacts on minorities, low income and indigenous populations are considered, EPA will exercise its responsibilities under Executive Order 13045. EPA will continue to support the transition away from hazardous existing chemicals promoting use of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices and technologies. In addition to the new resources requested under this investment, EPA is proposing to redirect 5.3 FTEs within the CRRR program currently supporting development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). Work to develop proposed values will be completed in FY 2011, and most proposed values (260 of 277 to be developed through FY 2011) have already been elevated to Interim status. Proposed and Interim AEGL values are immediately put to use by first responders and emergency planners, allowing EPA to shift these resources to instead support the Agencys expanding work to increase transparency in the management of the CRRR
561
program by maximizing the public availability of TSCA health and safety studies to the extent allowed by law. Combined with base program resources, the investment and redirection will support the FY 2012 proposed activities and performance plan below. Existing Chemicals Program: One of EPAs primary responsibilities under TSCA is to assess the safety of industrial chemicals, and address unreasonable risks posed by chemicals already in commerce. These chemicals are employed by U.S. industries to produce widely used items, including consumer products such as cleansers, paints, plastics and fuels as well as industrial solvents and additives, in some cases leading to substantial public and environmental exposure. While these chemicals play an important role in peoples everyday lives, some may adversely affect human health and the environment, requiring EPA to take risk management actions to address unreasonable human health and environmental risks. As noted above, EPA is requesting increases in FY 2012 to continue making long-overdue progress in ensuring the safety of existing chemicals: obtaining, managing and making public chemical information; assessing chemical risks; and reducing chemical risks. Activities proposed to be conducted under these three components of the Existing Chemicals program are described below. Obtaining, Managing and Making Public Chemical Information: In FY 2012, the investments described here will enhance base program resources to enable EPA to use regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and safety data for chemicals already in commerce, improve management of TSCA information resources, and maximize their availability and usefulness to the public by: Consider issuing and implementing TSCA Section 4 Test Rules to obtain data needed to evaluate the safety of existing chemicals, including: o More than 100 HPV chemicals not sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program, which sought to obtain basic hazard data voluntarily from companies for the HPV chemicals known in the late 1990s; o 125 or more chemicals newly identified as HPV chemicals in TCSA Inventory Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011; and o Several other chemicals including environmental releases of bisphenol A (BPA) and certain nanoscale materials Processing submission of 2011 IUR data reports for chemicals produced in volumes of greater than 25 thousand pounds per year. o In August 2010, EPA proposed modifications to the IUR rule under Section 8 of TSCA, presenting a range of options for public comment to make the reporting of
562
chemical use information more transparent, more current, more useful, and more useable by the public. Increasing transparency by reviewing all new TSCA chemical health and safety studies claimed in FY 2012 as CBI and reviewing 4,400 CBI cases submitted prior to 2010, and challenging claims and declassifying studies where appropriate; Digitizing over 20,000 TSCA documents received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8, and making those data, where appropriate, available to the public; and Expanding electronic reporting to include all TSCA health and safety submissions and fully deploying 21st century information technology to more effectively and efficiently store and disseminate TSCA information. EPA will allocate $14.7 million to obtaining and making public chemical information in FY 2012. Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks: As EPAs enhanced chemical management effort has developed, the agency has begun developing a sound chemical prioritization structure, based on clear, consistent, and objective criteria, for chemical assessment and risk management actions. In FY 2012, the investments described here will augment base program resources to enable EPA to assess the risks of priority chemicals to determine what risk management is needed and to inform and support development and implementation of risk management actions, as appropriate, by: Initiating detailed chemical risk assessments of priority chemicals that will inform the need for and support development of risk management actions, with several of the assessments being completed in FY 2012; Developing hazard characterizations for 500 additional HPV chemicals using the data obtained through TSCA test rules, the TSCA IUR and previous voluntary industry submissions, bringing the cumulative total by the end of FY 2012 to 2,165 of the 2,900 HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR; Increasing use of intelligent testing approaches to improve our ability to understand chemical risks; Developing methodologies and tools to better assess risks from high priority chemicals to support risk management actions on these chemicals; Analyzing the data EPA has received through its Nanoscale Materials program to understand which nanoscale materials are produced, in what quantities they are produced, and what other risk-related data are available. EPA will use this information to understand whether certain nanoscale materials may present risks to human health and the environment and warrant further assessment, testing or other action; and
563
Enhancing the RSEI tool to help identify geographic areas with particularly high risk scores associated with toxics releases and the facilities and chemicals responsible for those scores. EPA will allocate $15.6 million to assess chemicals in FY 2012. Reducing Chemical Risks: In FY 2012, the investments described above will augment base program resources to support the Agencys rapidly accelerating portfolio of risk management actions, including: Advancing consideration and implementation of risk management actions initiated in FY 2010 and continued in FY 2011, including: o Consideration of Section 6 use restrictions addressing long chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), lead wheel weights, and mercury used in switches and certain measuring devices; o Consideration of Section 5 Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) addressing: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates, elemental mercury in products, benzidine dyes, certain short chain chlorinated paraffins, certain phthalates and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD); and o Consideration of Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings addressing eight phthalates, potential effects of bisphenol A (BPA) in aquatic species, and PBDEs. Consider initiating as appropriate new risk management actions in FY 2012, including potential Section 6 use restrictions/prohibitions, potential Section 5 Significant New Use Rules and potential Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings, informed and supported by priority detailed chemical risk assessments to be initiated and developed during FY 2012 (see Assessment section below); Proposing, evaluating public comments on, and developing two final regulations implementing ten actions mandated under the recently enacted TSCA Title VI (Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Act) establishing national emission standards for formaldehyde in new composite wood products - the statute requires EPA to finalize and promulgate these regulations by January 1, 2013; Initiating stewardship activities including commitments from industry to adopt viable safer alternatives, safer best practices, voluntary withdrawal of dangerous chemicals and/or products from the market, and stewardship programs to reduce emissions; Promoting development of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices and technologies by assessing the risks and efficacy of alternatives to existing chemicals which present significant risks; and,
564
Improving rulemaking and increasing electronic reporting under TSCA to bolster compliance at high-risk chemical manufacturing facilities under the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative. EPA will continue to work closely with other federal agencies to coordinate efforts on addressing identified chemical risks. EPA will allocate $26.4 million to undertaking existing chemicals risk management actions in FY 2012. For more information on EPAs efforts to assess and act on existing chemicals, see http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/. New Chemicals Program: In FY 2012, EPA will continue preventing the entry into the U.S. market of chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. The PMN Review component of EPAs New Chemicals Program reviews and manages the potential risks from approximately 1,100 new chemicals, products of biotechnology, and new chemical nanoscale materials prior to their entry into the marketplace. In January of 2010, EPA published a final rule that enables and, by April 6, 2012, requires manufacturers and importers to submit Pre-Manufacture Notifications (PMNs) and other TSCA Section 5 documents to EPA electronically via the Internet. The Agency developed software to assist companies in preparing and executing their electronic submissions and is conducting training sessions via webinar and other means to help companies prepare to comply with these new requirements. These activities will continue through FY 2012. Many of the chemical information management system improvements supported by the FY 2012 proposed investment that were previously described in the Existing Chemicals Section also will directly benefit the New Chemicals Program, providing additional information and improved tools and automating science review work flows to further improve EPAs ability to quickly, effectively, and efficiently review and act on new chemical submissions. To measure performance under the New Chemicals Program, EPA, in FY 2006, adopted a measure reflecting the programs statutory mission, establishing a zero tolerance performance standard for the number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. EPA will allocate $14.3 million to the New Chemicals Program in FY 2012. For more information, see www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.
565

(C18) Percentage of historical CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
20
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(C19) Percentage of CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate, as they are submitted.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
100
100
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(HC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
300
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
230
270
500
Hazardous Units
Measure Type
Measure
(247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
100
Data Avail 10/2011
100
100
Percent
566
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(281) Reduction in the cost per submission of managing PreManufacture Notices (PMNs) Efficiency through the Focus meetings as a percentage of baseline year cost per submission.
61
50
61
65
Percent
EPA is using the measures described below as well as implementing the previously mentioned toxics program enhancements to evaluate program performance. EPA will make all health and safety studies available to the public for chemicals in commerce, to the extent allowed by law. Between the enactment of TSCA in 1976 and January 21, 2010, a total of 21,994 CBI cases of TSCA health and safety studies were submitted for chemicals potentially in commerce. In recent years, hundreds of such cases have been submitted annually. To achieve this measure, EPA must complete the following actions for new and historical submissions by the end of 2015: 1) determine if a challenge to the CBI claim is warranted; 2) execute the challenge if warranted; and 3) where legally defensible, declassify the information claimed as CBI. In FY 2012, EPA will review and challenge 100% of all CBI health and safety information as they are submitted. In addition, EPA will review and challenge 20% (4,400) of the 21,994 historical TSCA CBI claims that have not yet been reviewed and challenged, where appropriate. The cumulative and annual measures tracking the percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, illustrate the effectiveness of EPAs new chemicals program as a gatekeeper. This measure analyzes previously reviewed new chemicals with incoming TSCA 8(e) notices of substantial risk. TSCA requires that chemical manufacturers, importers, processors and distributors notify EPA within thirty days of new information on chemicals that may lead to a conclusion of unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Information from approximately thirty 8(e) notices each year is used to check the accuracy of New Chemicals analytical tools and to make process improvements for future review of new chemicals. The Agency has achieved the 100 percent goal in all four years that the measure has been tracked (FY 2006 to FY 2009). The Agency recognizes that this measure does not involve systematic sampling and testing of all PMN-reviewed chemicals that have entered U.S. commerce, but believes nonetheless that it represents an efficient approach for using available information to assess and improve the effectiveness of EPAs new chemicals risk screening tools and decisionmaking processes. EPA continues to explore more robust options for tracking the performance of the New Chemicals Program.
567
In FY 2012, EPA will track the number of HPV chemicals with completed hazard characterizations. These hazard characterizations summarize the adequacy of data received through the HPV Challenge, identify remaining data needs, and present hazard data in a concise and uniform way. These hazard characterizations present EPAs perspective on data regarding ecotoxicity, acute toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, environmental fate, and physical/chemical properties. EPA has completed hazard characterizations for 1,365 chemicals through FY 2010 and is targeting completion of hazard characterizations for 300 additional chemicals in FY 2011 and 500 in FY 2012, bringing the cumulative total to 2,165 of the 2,900 HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,853.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$699.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$35.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects our effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel conferencing. (-$14.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$43.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agency-wide. (-$22.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. (+$14,913.0/+5.5 FTE) This investment will more fully implement the Administrators Enhancing Chemical Safety initiative, providing increased support for: initiating, continuing and completing actions to reduce chemical risks; assessing chemical risks; and obtaining needed information on potentially hazardous chemicals while maximizing its availability to the public. Embedded in this change is $100.0 and 0.5 FTE rulemaking resources attributed to the initiative Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas. The total additional resources include $814.0 associated payroll for 5.5 FTE.
568
(+$100.0) This investment supports the Agency initiative Sustainability through Green Chemistry and Engineering by enhancing the RSEI tool to help identify geographic areas with particularly high risk scores associated with toxics releases and the facilities and chemicals responsible for those scores. Statutory Authority: Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. -- Sections 1-31.
569
Pollution Prevention Program Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $18,014.5

$18,014.5 75.6

$18,050.0 86.6

$15,653.0 72.7

($2,397.0) -13.9
$18,050.0
$18,050.0 86.6
Program Project Description: The Pollution Prevention Program (P2) is one of EPAs primary tools for encouraging environmental stewardship by federal and state governments, industry, communities, and individuals. The P2 program is designed to eliminate or reduce waste at the point of generation by encouraging cleaner production processes and technologies; promoting the development and use of safer, greener materials and products; and supporting the implementation of improved practices such as the use of conservation techniques, and the reuse of materials in lieu of their placement into the waste stream. As a result of the P2 program, EPA and its partners have achieved significant reductions in the use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reductions in the generation of greenhouse gases; savings in production, operation and waste management costs; and increases in the use of safer chemicals and products. These efforts will strengthen the mission of the Agency by advancing the Administrators priorities to take action on climate change and reduce chemical risks. The P2 Program is augmented by a counterpart P2 grant program in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. The program accomplishes its mission through several centers of results, including those described below. For more information about EPAs Pollution Prevention Program, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program One goal of the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) program is to assist federal agencies in complying with green purchasing requirements and, in doing so, to stimulate market demand for products and services that are more environmentally benign. The energy savings for this program also support the federal objectives for reducing energy use under Executive Order 13514.108 As a result, the federal government can serve as a model to state and
108
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
570
local governments, businesses and private individuals by encouraging them to take the environment into consideration in making routine purchasing decisions. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), adding new partners and measuring the resulting benefits of this partnership program. The FEC encourages federal facilities and agencies to purchase greener electronic products, reduce their impacts during use, and manage obsolete electronics in an environmentally safe way. Through the federal governments commitment to lead by example, EPAs EPP program is increasingly influencing the broader marketplace to move to greener products. EPP efforts also will continue to promote the use of procurement tools, such as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), designed to help institutional purchasers compare and select desktop computers, laptops, monitors, and other equipment based on environmental attributes such as energy savings that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as quantified109 through a peerreviewed electronics environmental benefits calculator.110 In FY 2012, EPEAT will continue to develop new manufacturing standards for additional electronic products, including mobile devices and servers, through a consensus-based stakeholder process. These EPP programs have achieved significantly measurable environmental benefits. For example, in 2009 FEC partners reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 46,259 metric tons, the equivalent of removing 31,000 passenger cars from the road for one year. Equally significant, EPP programs serve as models to encourage the adoption of environmentally preferable purchasing polices in the private sector, along with expanding the marketplace for such products. The EPP program also will continue to provide technical assistance and tools for the broader marketplace. The EPP program will continue its partnership with GSA to encourage green travel and green meetings across the federal government by integrating environmental considerations into the Federal Travel Regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to engage in the development of policies and the advancement of programs, working with stakeholders to strengthen EPAs role in the movement toward greener products in the Federal government as well as the private sector and consumer markets. EPA will allocate $3.4 million to this work area in FY 2012. EPP resources are reduced in FY 2012 by 6.3 FTE and associated salary in order to support other high priority EPA activities. See http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/about/about.htm for more information about the EPP Program. Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) Initiative Under the Pollution Prevention Act, EPA is authorized to facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques by businesses. EPA promotes this objective through programs such as the Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and the Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) Initiative. Through the GSN, EPA partners with large manufacturers to help small and medium-sized suppliers identify opportunities to lean and clean their operations. These activities help suppliers save money and reduce their environmental impacts. The GSN will continue to partner
109 110
http://www.epeat.net/FastBenefits.aspx http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm
571
with the National Institute of Standards and Technologys (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program as well as state pollution prevention programs to deploy the program across the nations largest manufacturing supply chains. In recent years, the GSN program has expanded and evolved in ways that led to the formation of the E3 Initiative. GSN has grown steadily in terms of the number of manufacturing concerns that are participating in lean and clean assessments. In FY 2010, EPA began to phase out the federal cost share of these assessments, thereby saving funds for other protective uses. In FY 2011, the energy efficiency component of GSN has taken on greater prominence, driven by increasing recognition that both environmental and economic gains depend on reduced energy consumption. The awareness of these linkages acted as a catalyst for the integration of GSN with the broader E3 Initiative, which seeks to promote energy efficiency and environmental and economic assessment more holistically. While GSN focuses on the supply chain, E3 concentrates on community-based work with manufacturers, including suppliers, and adds an energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction component to GSN. E3 is a cooperative initiative involving federal and local partners. Through this effort, manufacturers are provided with customized, hands-on assessments and technical assistance aimed at reducing energy consumption, minimizing their carbon footprint, reducing the generation and use of hazardous materials, increasing economic productivity, and driving innovation. E3 is also a community-based initiative which helps foster a smarter and more efficient green workforce, promote sustainable manufacturing and growth through innovative technology, improve the regional economy by retaining jobs, and reduce environmental impacts while regaining competitive advantage. The initiative has evolved from pilot projects conducted in FY 2009 and FY 2010 in Columbus, Ohio and San Antonio, Texas to include additional efforts initiated in FY 2010 in Alabama, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and parts of Michigan and North Carolina. Statewide expansions of E3 efforts in Ohio and Texas are now occurring. In FY 2012, the GSN program will continue to operate within the framework of E3, focusing on lean and clean assessment work with suppliers. In FY 2012, GSN will work with its federal partners to strengthen technical assistance offerings, especially in the energy efficiency and environmental areas which will support federal energy use objectives under Executive Order 13514. Also in FY 2012, GSN will continue to strengthen its results algorithm to support the reporting of more rigorous and transparent program results. The program will rely on private and social Return on Investment estimations as incentives to drive the program forward. As a core component of E3, GSN will continue to place particular emphasis on collaboration, working in close cooperation with other federal departments and agencies including the Department of Energy, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Labor in addition to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program of the Department of Commerce. As of September 2010, more than 200 small businesses had taken part in GSN assessments, and several hundred more had benefited from the application of GSN lean and clean principles by state and local programs helping small businesses reduce their environmental impacts. In addition, in FY 2010, 30 businesses completed E3 assessments and in FY 2011, GSN and E3
572
assessments together are expected to reach some 100 additional firms. In FY 2012, this combined total is expected to triple. EPA will allocate $3.3 million to this work area in FY 2012. For more information on the Green Suppliers Network and E3 activity, visit http://www.greensuppliers.gov/gsn/home.gsn and www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/e3.html. Green Chemistry The Green Chemistry Program fosters the design and marketplace acceptance of chemicals and chemical processes that reduce adverse environmental and human health impacts as well as costs. In promoting the reduction or elimination of hazardous chemicals and generation of waste, Green Chemistry substitutes also help reduce workplace exposure to dangerous chemicals and manufacturing and production processes as well as the need for end-of-pipe controls. Green Chemistry also has shown results in achieving energy savings and reducing greenhouse gases through the development of more environmentally benign alternatives.111 One of the programs primary strategies for achieving its results is the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, with its associated awards. Businesses and academic non-profit institutions compete for recognition in five categories annually. In FY 2012, the program will focus on the development of environmentally preferable substitutes for priority chemicals. Also, in FY 2012, the program will conduct communication and outreach through information postings on the Green Chemistry website to promote safer chemicals. Additionally, in FY 2012, Green Chemistry will continue to seek to leverage resources for the development of safer substitutes through the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPAs Research and Development research strategies, such as influencing federal grant solicitations for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants. EPA will allocate $1.2 million to this work area in FY 2012. Green Chemistry program resources are reduced in FY 2012 by $900,000 to support other high priority EPA activities, reducing support for communications and outreach efforts. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/. Design for the Environment The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program works in partnership with a broad range of stakeholders to reduce chemical risks to people and the environment by promoting the development and assessment of safer alternatives. The program provides hazard information on potential substitutes for priority chemicals and assists companies in making product design improvements that will help reduce risks. DfE convenes partners, including industry representatives and environmental groups, to evaluate the human health and environmental considerations, performance, and cost of traditional and alternative technologies, materials, and processes. As incentives for participating in the program and driving change, DfE offers
111
http://www.epa.gov/gcc/pubs/pgcc/technology.html#renewableResources
573
technical tools, methodologies, and expertise. DfE also allows companies making products that are safer for the environment to communicate their leadership to customers through the use of a DfE logo. This is especially important to small businesses that do not have the broad range of scientific and technical expertise needed to conduct a hazard assessment. EPA's DfE Program helped companies reduce or eliminate the use of more than 460 million pounds of hazardous chemicals in calendar year 2009 alone.112 In FY 2012, DfE will continue to collaborate with industry and non-governmental organizations to reduce risk from chemicals. DfE's Safer Product Labeling Program differentiates products that are safer for people and the environment. The program is growing quickly and currently allows use of its logo on more than 2,000 products, primarily in the cleaning sector, that are safer than other similar products in the marketplace. DfE is working on enhancements to its Standard for Safer Products that, in addition to the stringent requirements that currently apply to a full range of toxicological and environmental endpoints, will also require ingredient disclosure as a condition for products to carry the label. In FY 2012, DfE will continue the Best Practices for Auto-Refinishing project. The best practices developed through that project in collaboration with small business allowed for safer use of diisocyanates and formed the basis of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for area sources engaged in paint stripping and surface coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment. DfE in FY 2012 will continue to provide compliance assistance training to auto-refinishing shops and career/technical schools in complying with that regulation, which took effect in January 2011. DfE is developing a life-cycle assessment of nanomaterials in lithium-ion batteries for hybrid electric vehicles. The assessment is scheduled to be made final at the beginning of FY 2012, a slight delay from its originally scheduled completion in FY 2011. The goal of this work is to identify those materials and processes within a products lifecycle which are likely to pose the greatest impacts to public health and the environment. Industry provides in-kind technical support to DfEs lifecycle assessment work and is responsible for furnishing accurate and comprehensive information as well as undertaking portions of the needed analysis. As nanotechnology is employed in lithium-ion battery products, this effort also will promote nanotechnology innovations in advanced batteries that will reduce overall environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions.113 The Green Engineering Program (GE), a component of DfE, provides leadership in the development of sustainability education materials and incorporation of environmentally beneficial approaches and tools such as life-cycle assessment, risk-based tools, and advanced design techniques in engineering education. In FY 2012, the GE program will continue its outreach efforts to maximize adoption of the updated GE Textbook by universities in the U.S. and other countries. EPAs goal for the fiscal year is that at least 10-20 new chemical engineering departments in the U.S. will employ the GE Textbook and that other university departments at home and abroad will adopt it as well.
112 113
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/product_label_consumer.html#consumers http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternative_assessments.html#
574
The GE program also encourages the adoption of green engineering approaches that will help chemical manufacturers reduce their environmental footprint, with a particular focus on promoting the reuse of solvents. In FY 2012, GE will continue providing technical support to a solid waste rulemaking effort under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) with the aim of facilitating a green engineering exclusion supporting solvent remanufacture. This exclusion would help to expand opportunities to apply GE approaches within manufacturing facilities in the pharmaceuticals, paints and coatings, organic chemical manufacturing, and plastics & resins industries, and in surrounding communities. Program implementation is expected to reduce pollution, save energy, and conserve water by achieving efficiencies in solvent distillation and reducing the need for incineration and the manufacture of virgin solvents. A pilot effort with the pharmaceutical industry is anticipated to be conducted in FY 2013. EPA will allocate $2.2 million to this work area in FY 2012. DfE resources are reduced by $1,311,000 and 3.0 FTE in FY 2012 to support other high priority EPA activities, reducing partnerships including those with the photovoltaic and automotive refinishing industries. For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dfe/ and http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/ Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH) This voluntary program, formerly known as Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), with more than 1,250 hospital partners, became an independent non-profit organization in calendar year 2006. This program was the first to do so in the history of EPA voluntary programs, significantly reducing EPAs costs for administering the program. Under the PSH program, EPA will continue to coordinate agency work that improves the environmental performance of the healthcare sector by providing technical expertise and facilitating cooperative working relationships with other programs such as Energy Star, Green Suppliers Network and EPEAT. The independent PSH organization continues to provide outreach, education, and recognition programs. Also, in its current capacity, PSH is participating in EPA rulemaking workgroups in the area of pharmaceutical waste management. In FY 2012, EPA, through the PSH program, expects to start up new GSN- or E3-related efforts and promote the use of additional safer products in the health care sector. EPA will allocate $0.2 million to this work area in FY 2012. For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm. Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance As directed by the Pollution Prevention Act, the P2 program devotes considerable effort towards assisting industry (primarily small and medium sized businesses), government, and the public in implementing pollution prevention solutions to chemical risk and other environmental protection challenges. In addition to the P2 grants to states and tribes and the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange Programs, described under the companion Categorical Grants: Pollution Prevention Program, resources are made available to a wide variety of applicants through Source
575
Reduction Assistance (SRA) grants issued annually on a competitive basis. In FY 2012, EPA expects to award 20 to 30 grants, ranging between $10-$100 thousand. SRA grants support pollution prevention solutions resulting in energy and water conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, and a wide variety of reductions in the use of hazardous materials and generation of other pollutants. Projects in the past have included the Healthy Schools initiatives, toxics use reduction training, home and business light bulb replacement, mining operation improvement, state agency staff training, safer health care delivery, groundwater protection, and greening meetings, conferences, and buildings. EPA will allocate approximately $5.3 million to this work area in FY 2012, complementing the $5.0 million of P2 Categorical Grant resources. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(P25) Percent increased in use of safer chemicals
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
7
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(262) Gallons of water reduced through pollution prevention.
FY 2010 Target
26.2
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
28.6
FY 2012 Target
27.8
Units
Gallons (Billions)
Measure Type
Measure
(263) Business, institutional and government costs reduced through pollution prevention.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
1,042
FY 2012 Target
Units
Dollars Saved (Millions)
Outcome
1,060
950
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced through pollution prevention.
FY 2010 Target
1,625
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
1,549
FY 2012 Target
1,000
Units
Pounds (Millions)
576
Measure Type
Measure
(297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset through pollution prevention.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
5.9
5.7
MTCO2e (Millions)
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
1.89
FY 2012 Target
Units
(298) Energy savings per dollar invested in Efficiency the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) program.
1.89
2.32
BTUs per M/$
The P2 program aggregates results from all of the programs described above. The program strives to ensure that a transparent and consistent measurement framework is applied across the program. In September 2008, the P2 program consulted with EPAs Science Advisory Board on the issue of recurring results. Based on its feedback, each component of the P2 program beginning in FY 2010 commenced counting recurring results for an appropriate and reasonable timeframe to fully realize the ongoing benefits of program activities. Under this approach, annual performance targets are set by estimating each programs ability to generate new annual results in the budget year using resources allocated for that year. Prior years recurring results are then added to the new annual results to provide a basis for setting aggregate performance targets. The recurring results component of these measures frequently increases from year to year as additional years of prior results are added (recently obtained FY 2009 actuals, in this case) or when more recent prior results are greater than older prior results that are dropped from the calculations at the end of their recurring life cycle. Therefore, GPRA targets, which combine the new annual and the recurring results, can increase even when budget reductions decrease the new annual results for the budget year. Although PSH became an independent non-profit organization in calendar year 2006, new annual targets will continue to contribute to recurring P2 measures through FY 2011 due to the four year recurring result life cycle for PSH. In 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the P2 program reduced 494 million pounds of hazardous materials, saved $ 276.5 million dollars, and conserved 4.7 billion gallons of water and 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. In 2012, the program has set targets to reduce 1,064 billion pounds of hazardous materials, save $847 million dollars, conserve 27.8 billion gallons of water, and reduce 6.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. EPA will improve P2 efficiency by increasing energy savings per dollar invested in the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) program by 2.32 BTUs per dollar in FY 2012. The Design for the Environment (DfE) chemicals of concern efficiency measure ended in FY 2010. This measure
577
tracked the annual reductions of DfE chemicals of concern per federal dollar invested in the DfE program. Beginning in FY 2012, EPA will track the percent increase in the use of safer chemicals from the 2009 baseline of 476 million gallons. EPA expects to achieve a 7% increase in FY 2012, contributing to achievement of the P2 Programs commitment in EPAs new Strategic Plan to increase use of safer chemicals by 40% by 2015. GE new annual targets have been reduced to zero for FY 2011 and FY 2012 due to the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rulemaking that is critical to industry partners implementation of re-use of solvents. The DSW rule was finalized in October 2008 and throughout 2008 EPA had partnership discussions with the pharmaceutical industry to launch a pilot; however, the rulemaking was remanded by the courts in 2009 based on a petition by the Sierra Club. The settlement agreement required ORCR to revise the rulemaking. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$705.0/-4.5 FTE) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE, and a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$914.0/-6.3 FTE) Thisreduction to the Environmental Purchasing program will eliminate provide support to EPAs Office of Administration and Resources Management to green the Agencys facilities and procurement actions. The program will eliminate its outreach and education efforts on green purchasing. The decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately 31 percent, including anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, other hazardous substances, and payroll. The reduction includes -$914.0 in payroll associated with -6.3 FTE. (-$20.0/-0.1 FTE) This represents a general reduction to the Green Suppliers Network in support of EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The reduction includes -$14.0 in payroll associated with -0.1 FTE. (-$900.0) This reduces the Green Chemistry programs communications efforts, resulting in fewer nominations received combined with the publication and marketing of award-winning technologies, possibly limitations on the technology transfer and adoption of these technologies. will diminish environmental results by approximately 28 percent. and outreach reduction in resulting in The decrease
(-$756.0/-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects the termination of ongoing Design for the Environment partnerships including those with the photovoltaic and automotive refinishing industries. The decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately 28 percent, including anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, and other hazardous substances. The reduction includes -$142.0 in payroll associated with -1.0 FTE.
578
(-$539.0/-2.0 FTE) This reflects a decrease in the Green Engineering program resources. The reduction includes -$284.0 in payroll associated with -2.0 FTE. (+$181.0) This increase supports enhanced national coordination of the Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance program centers. (-$113.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$7.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$17.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$17.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems that funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. Statutory Authority: Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. et seq. -- Sections 6601-6610; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. -- Section 10.
579
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $7,193.0

$7,193.0 37.0

$6,025.0 33.4

$6,105.0 33.0

$80.0 -0.4
$6,025.0
$6,025.0 33.4
Program Project Description: The Chemical Risk Management (CRM) Program supports national programs aimed at mitigating chemical risk and exposure through reductions in use and safe removal, disposal and containment of certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals, known generally as legacy chemicals. Some of these chemicals were used widely in commerce and introduced into the environment before their risks were known. The CRM Program currently focuses on providing assistance to federal agencies and others with responsibility for ensuring proper use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and limiting exposures to them in buildings such as schools, reducing or eliminating the use of products containing mercury, and implementing statutory requirements to address asbestos risks in schools.
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Use authorizations for PCBs are over thirty years old and the Agency is revisiting some of them. In FY 2010, the Agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and held six public meetings to take comment on whether some existing uses need to be phased out through a regulatory effort. In FY 2011, EPA plans to initiate the development of a proposed rule related to PCB manufacture, processing, use, and distribution in commerce. In FY 2012, the Agency will propose the rule, augmented by voluntary options as appropriate. Caulk and fluorescent light ballasts, containing PCBs, were used in some buildings, including schools, in the 1950s through the 1970s and may pose risks over time. To minimize the risk of PCB exposure, EPA provides school administrators and building managers with information and recommendations about managing PCBs in caulk and ballasts and provides tools to help minimize possible exposure among both children and adults. These efforts will continue in FY 2012. The Agency also will assist communities and building and facility managers in identifying potential problems and, if necessary, assist with the development of plans for PCB testing and removal. EPA is conducting research to better understand the risks posed by caulk containing PCBs. To address harmful exposures from PCBs in caulk, the CRM program is working closely
580
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery and the Research and Development Programs, which will jointly have the lead on reviewing caulk removal and disposal plans. For more information on PCBs in caulk see http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/ and for PCBs in light ballasts see http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/ballasts.htm. Mercury In FY 2012, EPA will continue to promote the reduction of mercury use in products, both domestically and internationally, as a component of its strategy to prevent mercury releases to air, water, and land. These releases may occur during manufacturing and industrial processes, during use or during the disposal or recycling of mercury-containing products and wastes. Domestically, EPA is focusing its reduction efforts on switches, relays, and measuring devices because those sectors represent the majority of mercury use in products and because costeffective alternatives are generally available. In FY 2010, the Agency finalized a significant new use rule (SNUR) under TSCA Section 5(a) for flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers -- mercury products that are no longer manufactured or imported. In FY 2011, the Agency will propose a SNUR for additional mercury products including manometers, barometers, and hygrometers. The Agency also is considering regulatory and voluntary options for other mercury products, specifically button cell batteries, switches, relays, flame sensors and non-fever thermometers. Work on developing these options will result in the issuance of a proposed rule expected to occur in FY 2012. In addition, the Agency has been working in collaboration with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the American Petroleum Institute, and ASTM International to promote the use of non-mercury thermometers in industrial settings and throughout the federal government. The Agency maintains a mercury use and products database114 to identify products containing mercury and associated non-mercury product alternatives. To date, the database includes 4,677 products (4,522 mercury containing and 155 non-mercury containing alternatives) produced by 553 manufacturers in 16 industry sectors. The database supports identification of opportunities for risk reduction including collaborative efforts to reduce the use of mercury. For example, the database has been used to support development of the TSCA Section 5(a) SNUR on various types of meters (described above) and was used to support a tri-national (U.S./Canada/Mexico) mercury products partnership sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. In FY 2012, updates and expansion of the mercury use and products database are planned to support the Agencys development and implementation of the regulatory and voluntary options selected for other mercury products and for negotiating the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) mercury effort. The majority of the mercury deposition in the U.S. originates outside of our borders. In February 2009, the UNEP Governing Council adopted a mandate for the initiation of negotiations on a legally binding agreement to develop a comprehensive and suitable approach to mercury, including provisions to reduce the supply, demand, international trade in, and emissions of mercury. At that meeting, the U.S. delegation agreed to support this mandate. Negotiations regarding the agreement will proceed until February 2013. In the interest of meeting the mandate, in FY 2012, the Agency will continue to support voluntary reductions in the use of
114
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/database.htm
581
mercury through existing partnerships. In FY 2010, the Agency supported and organized the initial meeting of the UNEP Mercury-Containing Products Partnership Area (Products Partnership) which was held in Washington, DC. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to implement a range of UNEP mercury partnerships, including a mercury waste partnership and a storage and supply partnership, to address the use, storage and disposal of mercury in developing countries. Particular emphasis will be placed on reductions of mercury use in health care settings and schools and the development of options for proper mercury waste storage in those institutions. The program will continue to track mercury reductions from the UNEP mercury partnerships and build from successful pilots and lessons learned from these projects. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/mercury/. Asbestos/Fibers Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986 and the Agency finalized the implementing regulations in 1987. For schools, AHERA requires, among other things, an original asbestos inspection, an asbestos re-inspection every three years for schools that contain asbestos, the development and maintenance of an asbestos management plan, custodial training on asbestos, and a requirement that schools use trained professionals to perform asbestos inspections and abatement work. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue providing outreach and technical assistance under the asbestos program for schools in coordination with other federal agencies, states, and organizations to help schools understand and comply with AHERA requirements.115 These efforts are aimed at helping to ensure that children will be protected from the possibility of exposure to asbestos in school buildings. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide federal oversight and assistance for the following: Interpreting regulatory requirements to delegated state and local asbestos programs,116 Responding to tips and complaints (e.g., calls from concerned parents and teachers) regarding asbestos in schools by conducting onsite inspections or coordinating with delegated states,117 Responding to public requests for assistance regarding asbestos in schools,118 and Helping asbestos training providers comply with the Model Accreditation Plan requirements by providing regulatory interpretation of its requirements.119 The Agency will continue to provide assistance in addressing risks related to some vermiculite insulation. A mine near Libby, Montana was the source of over 70 percent of all vermiculite sold in the U.S. from 1919 to 1990. Due to a naturally-occuring deposit of asbestos at that mine, the vermiculite from Libby is contaminated with asbestos. In FY 2010 and FY 2011, the Agency provided technical assistance and advice to the public regarding vermiculite that potentially contains asbestos. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue outreach activities to the public related to identifying and taking appropriate precautions in dealing with asbestos-contaminated
115 116
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/index.html. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/help.html#role), 117 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html 118 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/regioncontact.html 119 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/ndaac.html
582
vermiculite. For more information on EPAs efforts to reduce asbestos risk, see http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/verm.html. Performance Targets: Work under this program project supports EPAs objective to manage risks from well known nationally recognized chemicals. Currently, the program measures progress through a suite of internal measures. In FY 2012, the program will continue to explore options for an external measure to reflect progress under this program project. There are no specific measures for this program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$134.0) This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.4 FTE) This reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$37.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$6.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Sections 1-31. Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA), 20 U.S.C. 4011 et seq. Sections 502-512. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq. Sections 201-216.
583
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,429.3

$13,429.3 81.9

$14,329.0 87.0

$14,332.0 85.8

$3.0 -1.2
$14,329.0
$14,329.0 87.0
Program Project Description: Recent data show significant progress in the continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has historically measured progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher. Data released in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning has declined from approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006.120 These results show that the federal government is making greater than expected progress and well on track toward achieving its goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern, at those blood levels, by 2010.121 However, given the low number of children with blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher as reported in the CDC data, it is statistically impossible to continue to provide an estimate of that number. Results of recent studies indicate adverse health effects to children at blood levels lower than the CDCs recognized threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter.122 In response to this new information and the fact that the potential for exposure posed by lead-based paint still exists in approximately 38 million homes built before 1978,123 EPA is now targeting reductions in the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher. The lead
120
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2009. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp. 121 Presidents Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf 122 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823 4 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J.Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, D.A.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, D.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W. (2002). The prevalence of lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606 Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16):1515-1516 http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and childrens intellectual function: an international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
584
program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and nonlow-income children. The program uses these performance measures to track progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations. EPAs Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by implementing the Lead Renovation Repair and Painting standard, including: Establishing standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices and maintaining a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement those standards; Providing information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and take actions about lead hazards in their homes; Establishing work practice standards and training and certification requirements for leadbased abatement, inspection and risk assessment activities and for renovation, repair and painting projects in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint; and Establishing a national pool of certified firms and individuals who are trained to carry out renovation and repair and painting projects while adhering to the lead-safe work practice standards and to minimize lead dust hazards created in the course of such projects. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/lead. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA plans to continue implementing the lead-based paint abatement program and the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, which took effect April 22, 2010. The Agency will work to fulfill a federal court settlement agreement entered into in August 2009 between the U.S. EPA and the Sierra Club (and other public interest groups) requiring, among other things, the U.S. EPA to issue a proposed rule for renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings by December 15, 2011, to take final action on the exterior rule by July 15, 2013, to determine, after consulting with the Science Advisory Board, whether renovations on the interior of public and commercial buildings create lead-based paint hazards and, if so, issue a proposed rule regulating these renovations within 18 months after receiving the SAB report. The Agency will also work to revisit the lead dust standard and definition of lead-based paint, as announced in response to a petition from the Sierra Club and other public interest groups; and continue providing education and outreach. Information on state and tribal grants for implementation of lead programs, including targeted grants for the most at-risk communities, is presented in the Categorical Grants Lead Program. Revise and Implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule to address lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes and child-
585
occupied facilities124. As of January 19, 2011, 10 states have become authorized to enforce and administer this program. In the remaining non-authorized states, tribes and territories, EPA will continue to accredit training providers, track training class notifications (i.e., classes scheduled, classes cancelled and renovators certified), and certify renovation firms. EPA also will assist in the development and review of state and tribal applications for authorization to administer training and certification programs, provide information to renovators and homeowners, provide oversight and guidance to all authorized programs, and disseminate model training courses for lead-safe work practices. As of January 19, 2011, EPA has accredited 472 training providers who have conducted more than 26,400 courses, trained an estimated 558,500 workers, and EPA has certified more than 75,500 renovation firms. Shortly after its promulgation, several petitions were filed challenging the RRP rule. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with environmental and childrens health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. The agreement calls for the Agency to undertake two separate rulemakings to revise provisions of the RRP rule and two additional rulemakings, including an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), to address work in public and commercial buildings not covered by the RRP rule. In FY 2012, EPA will focus on completing and implementing these rulemakings as described below. Revise Provisions of the RRP Rule #1: Opt-out Rule On April 22, 2010, EPA issued a final rule removing the provision in the RRP rule that allowed homeowners to opt out of the rule if: 1) they occupy the housing to be renovated, 2) no child under six or pregnant woman lives there, and 3) no child under six is present on a regular basis. The result is that the RRP rule now covers an estimated 50 percent more renovations, greatly increasing the number of children and adults protected against exposures to lead-based paint hazards, but also increasing the scope of the implementation and compliance efforts facing the Agency and the states. Rule #2: Clearance Rule On April 22, 2010, the Agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to require renovation firms to conduct quantitative dust wipe sampling at the conclusion of a subset of renovations that typically create large amounts of leaded dust and to demonstrate through quantitative dust wipe sampling that they have achieved the established dust-lead clearance standards. In FY 2011, the agency will respond to comments on the NPRM and complete any additional analysis necessary to issue a final rule by July 15, 2011, as stipulated in the settlement agreement. Changes to existing agency outreach and training materials will be identified to address the final action to be published in July 2011. Revised materials will be developed, printed and disseminated via the National Lead Information Center in FY 2012.
124
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/faq2.htm
586
Extend RRP to Public and Commercial Buildings Rule #3: Exterior Rule By December 15, 2011, the Agency must issue an NPRM to establish work practice requirements for renovations on the exterior of public and commercial buildings other than childoccupied facilities. Final action on the Exterior NPRM must be taken by July 15, 2013. In FY 2011 and FY 2012, the Agency will be conducting technical and economic data analysis for the NPRM in order to meet the December 2011 deadline. In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Agency will be responding to public comments on the NPRM and conducting the analysis necessary to take final action by July 15, 2013, as stipulated in the settlement agreement. Rule #4: Interior Rule By September 30, 2011, the Agency must consult with the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) on a risk assessment methodology to evaluate the hazards posed by renovations in the interior of public and commercial buildings not covered by the final RRP rule. In July and December 2010, the Agency consulted with the SAB on this issue. Within 18 months after receiving the final SAB report, the Agency must either issue a NPRM to establish work practice requirements for interior renovations in public and commercial buildings or conclude that these activities do not create lead-based paint hazards. In FY 2012, the Agency will evaluate the results of the SAB review and conduct the additional analysis necessary to make a final determination on issuing proposed work practice requirements for this category of renovations. Additionally, a compliance assistance and outreach effort to support the RRP regulation and to increase public awareness about preventing childhood lead poisoning will continue in FY 2012. This effort includes a national public service advertising initiative with the Ad Council and a companion marketing effort to target awareness messages to audiences affected by the RRP and those at particular risk. A print version of the public service announcement appeared in the October and November 2010 editions of more than 200 consumer magazines around the country. This effort includes: Education efforts aimed at all regulated parties including training providers, contractors and landlords; Outreach to states, tribes, and territories to encourage delegation of authorized programs; Public awareness efforts targeted at homeowners, parents, educators and others to encourage use of lead-safe work practices when renovating; and Compliance assistance to contractors that are subject to the rule and to states and tribes to ensure that they comply with the RRP rule requirements. Revisit the Lead Dust Standard and Definition of Lead-Based Paint On August 10, 2009, EPA received a TSCA Section 21 petition requesting the Agency to lower
587
lead dust hazard standards and to modify the definition of lead-based paint in its regulations promulgated under sections 401 and 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, petitioners requested that EPA: Lower lead dust hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area (g/ft2) to 10 g/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 g/ft2 to 100 g /ft2 or less for window sills. Modify the definition of lead-based paint at 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied facilities, public buildings and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. The petition was filed by the National Center for Healthy Housing, the Alliance for Healthy Homes, the Sierra Club and others.125 On October 22, 2009, EPA responded to the petition and agreed to revisit the current lead dust hazards standard and to work with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reconsider the definition of lead-based paint in its regulations. In July and December 2010, the Agency consulted with the SAB on the hazard standard issue. In 2011, EPA will initiate risk analysis. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue its risk analyses to determine if it will lower the dust lead hazard standards and work with HUD to determine if the definition of lead-based paint should be modified. Provide Education & Outreach In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide education and outreach to the public on the hazards of lead-contaminated paint, dust and soil. Particular emphasis will be placed on lowincome communities in support of the programs goal to reduce disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and other children, (low-income was defined at a Poverty Income Ratio (PIR) of less than or equal to 1.3 as defined by the Center of Disease Control). Additionally, the program will continue to provide technical and policy assistance to states, tribes, and other federal agencies to help facilitate compliance with federal requirements such as the lead disclosure standards that are applicable to sales and rentals of pre-1978 housing. Finally, EPA will continue to provide support to the National Lead Information Center (NLIC) to disseminate information to the public through a telephone hotline and in electronic form.
125
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-06/t23929.pdf
588

(008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 11/2012
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
3.5
1.5
Percent
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(009) Cumulative number of certified Renovation Repair and Painting firms
FY 2010 Target
100,000
FY 2010 Actual
59,143
FY 2011 CR Target
100,000
FY 2012 Target
140,000
Units
Firms
Measure Type
Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
28
Data Avail 10/2012
13
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(10A) Annual percentage of leadbased paint certification and refund Efficiency applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process.
92
96
92
95
Percent
Nationally, lead-based paint exposure from deteriorated paint or renovation, repair and painting activities is the single largest source of lead poisoning. EPA historically has tracked the number of children aged one to five years with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL > or = 10 ug/dL). Recent data indicate that the incidence among children of blood lead levels at 10 ug/dL or higher
589
has declined from approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006. Given the low number of children with blood lead levels at 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher as reported in the 2010 CDC data, it is statistically impossible to continue to provide an estimate of that number. At the same time, results of recent studies indicate adverse health effects to children at blood levels lower than the CDCs recognized threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter.126 In response to this new information and the fact that the potential for exposure posed by lead-based paint still exists in approximately 38 million homes built before 1978, EPA now is targeting reductions in the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher. In FY 2012, EPA will work towards reducing the percentage of children with blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL to 1.5 percent. Data are collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is recognized as the primary database in the United States for national blood lead statistics. The Lead Program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and non-low-income children. The program uses this performance measure to track progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations. EPA's long-term goal, as reflected in the FY 2011-2015 draft Strategic Plan, is to close the gap between the geometric mean blood lead levels among low income children versus non-low-income children, from a baseline percentage difference of 43.6 percent (1999-2002) to a difference of 10 percent by FY 2015, with an interim target for FY 2012 of 13 percent. According to the NHANES data, an overall downward trend with some variation has been observed with recent data showing a percent difference of 35.6 percent from 2003-2006 and 23.4 percent from 2005-2008. In FY 2010, the Lead program introduced a supporting output measure that tracks the number of firms certified in Renovation, Repair and Painting activities. This measure will not be subject to the data lags of the biomonitoring measures described above. It will show the total programmatic impact as the number of firms certified. EPAs goal is to increase the number of certified firms from zero in FY 2009 to 140,000 in FY 2012. The Lead programs annual efficiency measure tracks improvements in processing time for certification applications for lead-based paint professionals and for refund applications. Certification work represents a significant portion of the lead budget and overall efficiencies in management of certification activities will result in numerous opportunities to improve program management effectiveness. Since 2004, the percent of certification applications processed under 20 days has increased from 77 to 92 percent, with most recent progress in 2009 significantly increasing to 97 percent. The FY 2012 targets sustain this high level of achievement.
126
U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823
590
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$321.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$121.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$2.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$46.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$181.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (+$219.0) This reflects an increase to improve EPAs ability to implement the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule, which took effect April 22, 2010, and to fulfill a federal court settlement agreement and an Agency response to a TSCA citizens petition binding EPA to undertake several additional Lead rulemaking actions. (-$187.0/-1.2 FTE) This reflects redirection of FTE and payroll to enhance implementation of Agency-wide top priorities, including safety of chemicals. Statutory Authority: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Sections 401-412.
591
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
592
LUST / UST Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Budget Authority Recovery Act Budget Authority Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $12,833.9

$17,901.7 $12,949.8 $4,951.9 $30,735.6 120.5

$11,613.0 $11,613.0 $0.0 $24,037.0 132.0

$11,982.0 $11,982.0 $0.0 $24,848.0 127.0

$369.0 $369.0 $0.0 $811.0 -5.0
$12,424.0
$11,613.0 $11,613.0 $0.0 $24,037.0 132.0
Program Project Description: EPA works with states, tribes, and intertribal consortia to prevent, detect, and clean up leaks from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and hazardous substances. Potential adverse effects from the use of contaminants of concern such as benzene, methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), alcohols, or lead scavengers in gasoline underscore the emphasis the Agency and its state partners place on promoting compliance with all UST requirements, including the requirements described in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 127 of 2005. In support of this goal, EPA provides technical information, forums for information exchanges, and training opportunities to states, tribes, and intertribal consortia to encourage program development and/or implementation of the UST program.128 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The EPAct contains numerous provisions that significantly affect federal and state UST programs. The EPAct requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release prevention programs through such activities as: mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage tanks, operator training, prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities, and secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers.129 In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work to bring all UST systems into compliance and keep them in compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements. These activities include assisting states in conducting inspections, enforcing violations discovered during the inspections, and assisting other federal agencies to improve their compliance at UST facilities.
127
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf Energy Policy Act of 2005; Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513. 128 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/ustsystm/index.htm 129 For more information on these and other activities please refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm.
593
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to support core development and implementation of state and tribal UST programs; strengthen the network of its federal, state and local partners, specifically communities and vulnerable populations; and provide technical assistance, compliance assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST facilities compliance. To more effectively prevent releases from USTs, and to fully implement the EPAct provisions, EPA has been working with its state and tribal partners, the regulated community, and other interested stakeholders to update EPAs regulations in FY 2010 and FY 2011. EPA expects to issue a final regulation in FY 2012 to ensure full implementation of the EPAct requirements. EPA will provide training opportunities and assistance tools to better prepare UST inspectors and better inform UST owners. EPA will explore the opportunities for financial assurance mechanisms to create incentives for improved compliance by tank owners and operators. EPA has the primary responsibility to implement the UST Program in Indian country and to maintain information on USTs located in Indian country. EPA will continue implementing the FY 2006 UST tribal strategy130, engaging and protecting those most vulnerable, including developing regulatory requirements for secondary containment, delivery prohibition, and operator training in Indian country. EPA also will continue to work to improve compliance rates in Indian country. The Agency and states also will continue to use innovative compliance approaches, relying on sound science and emerging technology, along with outreach and education tools, to bring more tanks into compliance and to prevent releases. EPAs UST program will continue its commitment to scientific integrity through support for research on emerging issues, such as alternative fuels. To ensure an effective and safe transition to alternative fuels and to identify potentially widespread and avoidable environmental and health impacts, EPA will work with states and tribes to assess and ensure UST compatibility with alternative fuels. This issue is particularly important given EPAs approval of additional ethanol mixtures, such as E15 for use in certain vehicles, which will result in certain petroleum retailers storing E15 and/or E85 in their USTs.131 In FY 2012, EPA staff will continue to respond to the increased use of biofuels by providing guidance and technical assistance on compatibility issues and evaluating the functionality of leak detection equipment. The EPA also will continue to focus resources on responding to the increased use of biofuels by assessing and ensuring biofuel compatibility, and evaluating functionality of leak detection equipment. Additionally, there are an unknown number of petroleum brownfields sites (estimated to be at least 200 thousand) that are predominately old gas stations that blight the environmental and economic health of surrounding neighborhoods. The EPA Underground Storage Tanks program and the EPA Brownfields program jointly focus attention and resources on the cleanup and reuse of petroleum-contaminated sites. In FY 2008, EPA developed a new plan of action to promote reusing petroleum brownfields.132 The plan outlines EPAs commitment to cleaning up petroleum-contaminated sites and fostering their reuse. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to bolster
130
Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529off the EPAct of 2005, August 2006, EPA-510-F06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/tribalst.htm 131 Ethanol fuel mixtures have "E" numbers which describe the percentage of ethanol in the mixture by volume, for example, E85 is 85% anhydrous ethanol and 15% gasoline. 132 Petroleum Brownfields Action Plan, http://www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/petrobfactionplan.htm
594
communication and outreach to petroleum brownfields stakeholders; provide targeted technical assistance to state, tribal, and local governments; evaluate policies to facilitate increased petroleum brownfields site revitalization; and continue to pursue corridor and Smart Growth projects with the states to promote investment in and the sustainable reuse of petroleum brownfields. In FY 2012, EPA also will analyze tools that promote assessment, cleanup and reuse of petroleum brownfields; disseminate a petroleum brownfields community workbook; support the reuse of petroleum brownfields within the context of area wide considerations; and continue cross-media and geographic multi-site petroleum brownfields projects. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$326.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$340.0/ +2.5 FTE) This reflects an increase in support for program activities focused on determining UST compatibility with alternative fuels. This includes 2.5 FTE and associated payroll of $328.0. (-$131.0/ -1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of resources from the LUST/UST program to the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs to improve National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data quality. The reduced resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $131.0. (-$75.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue it work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Section 8001 and Sections 9001 -9011.
595
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
596
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways Program Area: Water: Ecosystems Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $29,796.8

$29,796.8 44.6

$32,567.0 48.1

$27,058.0 47.4

($5,509.0) -0.7
$32,567.0
$32,567.0 48.1
Program Project Description: The goal of the National Estuary/Coastal Waterway program is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of estuaries of national significance and coastal watersheds by protecting and restoring water quality and living resources.133 Major project efforts include: Aligning NEP/coastal waterways policy with the Executive Order on Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes; integrating the NEP/coastal waterways program into federal agency implementation of that Executive Order; maintaining and forming partnerships with other federal agencies with responsibility to implement that Executive Order; Supporting the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs) continued implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) as well as implementation of Clean Water Act (CWA) core programs in their estuarine watersheds; Monitoring and assessing coastal water quality conditions, results of which are described in the National Coastal Condition Reports (NCCR); Continuing enhanced monitoring and assessment of Gulf of Mexico water quality, sediment, and fish tissue conditions that began in FY 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident; Supporting enhancement of the NEPs capacity to develop and implement climate change adaptation strategies; and Addressing threats such as hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico in non-NEP estuary/coastal watersheds.
133
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries for more information.
597
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Estuarine and coastal waters are among the most environmentally and economically valuable natural resources in the nation. Resources in FY 2012 will support: (1) continued implementation of the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes (National Ocean Policy134; (2) EPAs goal of protecting estuaries of national significance and other estuarine/coastal watersheds; and (3) protecting and restoring additional acres of habitat in NEP study areas. This work will be undertaken in partnership with states, tribes, coastal communities and other partners. The National Estuary Program In FY 2012, EPA will continue support of the National Estuary Program by providing $16.8 million in CWA Section 320 grants for the 28 NEPs ($600 thousand per NEP). Continued support of this flagship watershed protection program will help address continuing and emerging threats to the nations estuarine resources.135 EPA will continue support of NEP CCMP implementation as well as implementation of CWA core programs. Specifically, EPAs activities include: Supporting the 28 NEP continued efforts to exercise local and regional leadership by targeting protection and restoration of estuarine resources and promoting environmental sustainability, including sustainable land practices, through CCMP implementation. EPA oversight of NEP CCMP implementation includes the ongoing review of the NEPs environmental programs, projects, and results, and of the NEP leveraging of partner resources; and Supporting efforts to achieve EPAs goal of protecting and restoring 100,000 additional acres of habitat in FY 2012, and promoting alignment of NEP restoration goals with those of federal, tribal, state, regional, and local agencies. The effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns, increases in intensity of and damage from storms, and changes in commercially- and ecologically-significant species distribution, as well as the impacts of coastal development, are a growing concern in U.S. coastal watersheds. EPA will continue working with our NEP and non-NEP partners to identify, develop, and promote strategies aimed at: (1) improving the resilience of coastal watershed communities and ecosystems, and (2) enhancing those communities capacity to adapt to emerging climate change impacts. The program will continue implementing its enhanced NEP data reporting and tracking system. The system tracks progress in NEP efforts to meet ambitious annual and long-term habitat protection and restoration targets.
134 135
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans The means and strategies outlined under the Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters sub-objective must be viewed in tandem with the means and strategies outlined for achieving the Increase Wetlands sub-objective. The Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters sub-objective contains strategic measures for ocean and coastal programs that are integral to the Agencys efforts to facilitate the ecosystem-scale protection and restoration of natural areas.
598
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment In FY 2012, the program will lead the effort to strengthen knowledge of our coasts and oceans by monitoring and assessing the nations coastal waters. Along with federal, state, and local partners, EPA will continue to track and report on coastal waters health and progress toward meeting NEP/Coastal Watershed strategic targets by issuing future editions of a National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR), supporting efforts to monitor and assess U.S. coastal waters, and developing additional indicators of coastal ecosystem health. The NCCR is the only statisticallysignificant measure of coastal water quality that covers both national and regional scales. The NCCR includes indices covering coastal water quality, sediment quality, benthic condition, coastal habitat, and fish tissue contamination. The fourth NCCR, based largely on EPAs Research and Development National Coastal Assessments (NCA) data from 20032006, is expected to be released in FY 2012. Information on coastal ecological conditions generated by the NCCR can be used by resource managers to efficiently and effectively target water quality actions and manage those actions to maximize benefits. The NCCR is based on data gathered by various federal, state, and local sources using a probability design that allows extrapolation to represent all coastal waters of a state, region, and the entire U.S. Other Coastal Watersheds In FY 2012, EPA will continue other coastal watershed work, including: Gulf Hypoxia: EPAs role in implementing the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Plan) will not only require overall leadership in coordinating activities among federal and state agencies, but also places EPA in the lead role for several specific actions in the plan. A key goal is to improve water quality in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico by implementing sustainable land use practices. One important action involves federal approaches that provide a framework for state nutrient strategies. EPAs role in this action will include the identification of strategies, as well as the coordination of existing EPA efforts. These strategies may include TMDL, nutrient criteria, and standards development, as well as point source, wetlands, and air deposition activities that are aligned with the need to reduce the size of the Gulf Dead Zone. EPA staff leads the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force Communications Sub-Committee and in FY 2012 will continue to develop annual operating plans and annual reports that track progress and increase awareness about Gulf of Mexico hypoxia-related progress and barriers along with other stakeholder outreach and education efforts. Other critical activities requiring ongoing EPA leadership and coordination include providing support for the sub-basin teams, coordinating Mississippi River-Atchafalaya River Basin monitoring activities, and enhancing research and modeling to identify the highest opportunity watersheds for nutrient reductions. Resources in this program are particularly focused on support for the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, and complement other coordination and implementation supplement resources in the Geographic program: Mississippi River Basin, Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico, and Surface Water Protection Program.
599
Large Aquatic Ecosystems: EPA will foster collaboration among the Agencys ecosystem-based efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and national water programs with the goal of improving the health of the nations large aquatic ecosystems and strengthening links among these programs and to the national water programs. These coordination activities complement resources in other program projects for individual ecosystems (e.g. Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and San Francisco Bay). Climate Ready Estuaries: EPA will continue to strengthen the capacity of NEPs and other coastal watershed entities to lead coastal communities adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The Agency will provide technical assistance to the NEPs as they: (1) develop and implement Climate-Ready Estuary models assessing watersheds vulnerabilities to climate change; (2) develop and implement climate adaptation strategies; (3) engage and educate stakeholders about climate change impacts in their coastal areas; and (4) share lessons learned with other coastal managers. The Agency also will help promote increased resilience among NEPs and enhance the climate adaptation capacity of NEPs and other coastal watershed communities through partnerships with other federal agencies. The partnerships will provide tools, training, and scientific expertise to communities working to build their capacity to prepare for and manage climate change impacts. Further, EPA will support implementation of the July 19, 2010 Executive Order that establishes the first comprehensive national policy for stewardship of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. The Executive Order strengthens ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(202) Acres protected or restored in National Estuary Program study areas.
FY 2010 Target
100,000
FY 2010 Actual
89,985
FY 2011 CR Target
100,000
FY 2012 Target
100,000
Units
Acres
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$196.7) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$100.0) This decrease reflects a programmatic effort to use more web- and electronicbased tools and material for public outreach and communication. (-$175.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources from the Coastal America program to the Wetlands Protection Program to support clarifying the definition of
600
Waters of the U.S. It is critical to establish sound policy relating to the definition of Waters of the U.S., including potential rulemaking. (-$1.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$5,600.0) This reduces Congressionally-directed funding in FY 2010 for the Clean Water Act Section 320 grants. (+$276.0) This reflects an increase to support for protecting and enhancing water quality and living resources in estuaries and coastal watersheds. (-$261.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas. (+$155.3 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and agency priorities. These resources are shifting to support the National Estuary Program. This includes +1.0 FTE and +$155.3 in associated payroll. (-1.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act (CWA); Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection and Restoration Act of 1990; North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA); Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 CanadaU.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; Coastal Wetlands Planning; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
601
Wetlands Program Area: Water: Ecosystems Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $27,130.2

$27,130.2 155.2

$25,940.0 159.1

$27,368.0 160.4

$1,428.0 1.3
$25,940.0
$25,940.0 159.1
Program Project Description: Wetlands improve water quality, recharge water supplies, reduce flood risks, provide fish and wildlife habitat, and support valuable recreational and commercial fishing and shellfish industries. EPAs Wetlands Protection Program relies on partnerships with other programs within EPA and with other federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments; private landowners; and the general public to improve protection of our nations valuable wetland resources. Working with our partners, EPA ensures a consistent and effective national approach to wetlands protection. EPAs Wetlands Program operates under the national goal of no net loss of wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 regulatory program. Major activities of the Wetlands Protection Program include development and dissemination of rules, guidance, information and scientific tools to improve management and public understanding of wetland programs and legal requirements, and management of financial assistance to states and tribes to support development of strong wetland protection programs. Beginning in FY 2009, the EPA significantly enhanced collaboration with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to reduce the harmful environmental effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations. EPA works with the Corps to implement the provisions of Section 404 of the CWA to protect wetlands and other waters of the U.S. EPA also works in partnership with nongovernmental organizations and state, tribal, and local agencies to conserve and restore wetlands and other waters through watershed planning approaches, voluntary and incentive-based programs, improved scientific methods, information and education, and building the capacity of state and local programs.136
136
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ or http://www.cfda.gov for more information.
602
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will work with its state and tribal partners to strengthen their wetland programs in the areas of monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, regulatory programs (including CWA 401 certification), and wetland water quality standards. The Agency will assist states and tribes to develop and implement broad-based and integrated monitoring and assessment programs that improve wetland data for decision-making on wetlands within watersheds, address significant stressors, report on conditions, and geo-locate wetlands on the landscape. In support of state and tribal wetland programs, EPA will continue to administer Wetland Program Development grants, with a strengthened focus in FY 2012 on working more efficiently with states and tribes to develop aspects of their programs to achieve program development outcomes, and providing targeted technical assistance to states and tribes. EPA is encouraging states and tribes to prepare wetland program plans to focus EPAs capacity-building activities. The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) is one of a series of National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) that are designed to assess the condition of our nations waters while advancing state capacity to monitor and assess aquatic resources. Development of the NWCA builds on the accomplishments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their production of national reports on status and trends in wetland acreage. When taken together, the NWCA and the USFWS Wetland Status and Trends results will, over time, be used to measure progress toward attainment of the national goal to increase the quantity and quality of the nations wetlands. In FY 2011, states, tribes, and other partners will be sampling 900 randomly selected and 100 targeted reference sites for an array of biotic and abiotic indicators. In FY 2012, EPA will compile and organize raw data, conduct laboratory analyses, and implement quality assurance procedures. The Agency also will initiate the data analysis process by assembling a team of experts from EPA, states, tribes, academia, and other federal agencies. The National Wetland Condition Assessment will be published in 2013 and will represent the first ever statistically valid survey of national wetland condition. EPA will continue to implement the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Action Plan (IAP) that was signed with the Department of Interior and the Department of the Army on June 11, 2009, to significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations.137 Coordinating with the Corps, states, resource agencies, and the public, EPA will review CWA Section 404 permits of concern and negotiate resolution to outstanding environmental issues with the Corps and mine operators. In addition, the Agency will work with federal partners to develop guidelines for compensatory mitigation for stream impacts. Based on its review in 2010 of existing regulatory authorities and procedures, EPA will improve interagency coordination and collaboration and strengthen watershed-scale and cumulative impact assessment of proposed surface coal mines. More rigorous analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 also will be important to reduce environmental impacts of surface coal mining projects. The Agency, working with the Corps and other partners, will implement the joint Corps-EPA Compensatory Mitigation Rule finalized in FY 2008, which was designed to: (1) improve the
137
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/ wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11-09.pdf).
603
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation to replace lost aquatic resource functions and area; (2) expand public participation in compensatory mitigation decision making; and (3) increase the efficiency and predictability of the mitigation project review process. EPAs support will help avoid or minimize aquatic resource losses and provide for full compensation for unavoidable losses of functions through restoration and enhancement, using a watershed approach and tools such as mitigation banking. Greater emphasis will be placed on assessment and monitoring of aquatic resource function, developing functionally based crediting and debiting protocols, and achieving ecological performance standards at compensation sites. EPA will continue to focus on wetland and stream corridor restoration to regain lost aquatic resources. In addition, EPA and the Corps will provide technical trainings on the requirements of the rule and implementation approaches in targeted regions, in addition to providing our annual training course on mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs for interagency review teams. Another key activity that EPA will be implementing in FY 2012 is the 2006 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Rapanos and Carabell cases. The decision in Rapanos resulted in an increased demand on EPA and the Corps for case-by-case decisions on whether specific streams and wetlands are within the scope of jurisdiction under the CWA. These thousands of case-bycase decisions have increased the amount of training needed for EPA and Corps field staff and the frequency of interagency analysis and coordination, including site visits. EPA, in partnership with the Corps, is fully exploring administrative opportunities to optimally address current jurisdictional challenges. As part of its review of non-regulatory activities, some small incentive programs will be eliminated in FY 2012 to increase support for other statutory requirements. Although wetland acreage is increasing nationally, wetlands in coastal watersheds are declining. Reports by the USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)s National Marine Fisheries Service found that coastal wetlands in the Eastern U.S. are decreasing by 59,000 acres per year (Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004, available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands). This is a concern since wetlands are nurseries for many fish and shellfish of commercial and recreational importance and play key roles as storm buffers and floodwater storage. EPA leads an Interagency collaboration with other federal agencies including USFWS, NOAA, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Corps, and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to better understand the factors contributing to wetland losses and identify actions that could reduce or reverse trends in coastal wetland loss. In FY 2012, EPA anticipates optimal use of each agencys existing wetland program resources and authorities to improve coastal wetland resource protection and restoration in several target areas. The Gulf of Mexico also will remain an area of emphasis and attention, in light of documented wetland losses and the additional impacts from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. EPA will work with our federal partners to accelerate the completion of the digital Wetlands Data Layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory (NSDI). This baseline data is essential for local, state, tribal, regional and national agencies so they can better manage and conserve wetlands in the face of challenges imposed by climate change and other stressors.
604

(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
No Net Loss
No net loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Acres
Measure Type
Measure
(4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
Acres
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$158.9) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-3.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$94.0) This reflects a redirection from the NEP/Coastal Waterways program to support efforts to clarify the definition of Waters of the U.S. This shift is a result of the Agencys review of non-regulatory activities. (-$100.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for state/tribal technical assistance, cease EPA's lead agency role in National Wetlands Awards Programs and reduce support for American Wetlands Month activities/products. This shift is a result of the agencys review of non-regulatory activities. (+$6.0.) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (+$1,644.9 / +4.9 FTE) This reflects an increase to support implementation of the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan by providing additional Section 404
605
permit reviewers and issuing guidance to implement plan recommendations. This includes +4.9 FTE and $620.9 in associated payroll. (-$123.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$65.0) This reflects an increase in travel. Statutory Authority: 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act (CWA); Coastal Wetlands Planning, Restoration and Restoration Act of 2002 (CWPPR); Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA); Wetlands Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA); 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
606
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
607
Beach / Fish Programs Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $2,981.4

$2,981.4 7.8

$2,944.0 7.7

$2,708.0 7.7

($236.0) 0.0
$2,944.0
$2,944.0 7.7
Program Project Description: This program supports the Agencys efforts to protect people from contaminated recreational waters and contaminated fish and shellfish. Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. However, swimming in some recreational waters, or eating locally caught fish or shellfish, can pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial pathogens or other pollutants. Beach Program: The Beach Program protects human health by reducing exposure in coastal and Great Lakes recreational waters to fecal pathogens or pathogen indicators. Agency activities include: 1) issuing guidance to improve state beach monitoring and public notification programs, including effective strategies to communicate public health risks to the public; 2) developing and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment methods and criteria for use in evaluating recreational water quality, prioritizing beach waters for monitoring, and notifying beach users of health risks or closure of beaches; 3) promulgating federal water quality standards where a state or tribe fails to adopt appropriate standards to protect coastal and Great Lakes recreational waters; and 4) providing publicly accessible Internet-based information about local beach monitoring and notification activities.138 Fish Contamination Program: The Fish Contamination Program includes fish advisories and fish tissue contamination studies. The fish advisory program provides sound science, guidance, technical assistance, and nationwide information to state, tribal, and federal agencies on the human health risks associated with eating locally caught fish with contaminants at levels of concern. The Agency pursues the following activities to support this program: 1) publishing criteria guidance that states and tribes can use to adopt health-based water quality standards, assess their waters, and establish permit limits; 2) developing and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment methodologies and
138
See http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/beaches/ for more information.
608
guidance that states and tribes can use to sample, analyze, and assess fish tissue in support of waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories, or to determine that no consumption advice is necessary; 3) developing and disseminating guidance that states and tribes can use to communicate the risks of consuming chemically contaminated fish; and 4) gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information to the public and health professionals that inform decisions on when and where to fish, and how to prepare fish caught for recreation and subsistence. Mercury contamination in fish and shellfish is a special concern, and EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a joint advisory concerning eating fish and shellfish. Mercury contamination of fish and shellfish occurs locally as well as in ocean-caught fish. At higher levels, it causes adverse health effects, especially in developing fetuses and young children. The fish tissue contaminant studies sample and analyze fish tissue in different types of waterbodies in fish caught and consumed by recreational and subsistence fishers for chemicals that are of concern for human health. The program tracks the concentrations of persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic compounds (PBTs) that are known to be present in U.S. waters. The studies also are a surveillance tool for detecting contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), such as pharmaceuticals, polybrominated dipehnyl ethers (PBDE)s, and perfluorinated compounds (PFC). Agency activities include: 1) designing and implementing independent or collaborative statistically-representative human health fish tissue studies; 2) analyzing data and preparing reports; and 3) disseminating reports and data that help to inform the public (especially recreational and subsistence fishers) and the states, where states might decide to conduct additional monitoring to determine if fish have contamination levels that warrant issuing a fish consumption advisory. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will pursue the following: Beach Program: States and territories monitored 3,819 beaches in FY 2009. To continue making progress on improving beach monitoring and notification in FY 2012, EPA expects to: Make grant funds available to all 35 eligible states and territories, as well as all eligible tribes, to monitor beach water quality and to notify the public of beach advisories and closings; Oversee beach program implementation and grant expenditures; Fully implement improvements to the eBeaches information management system that will make it easier for states to submit monitoring and notification data and enable EPA to provide this information to the public in a more timely manner, including an annual report;
609
Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to address monitoring issues; and Continue to work with states, territories, and tribes to obtain input on implementation issues associated with new recreational water quality criteria, which will be issued in October 2012, to ensure a smooth transition in the use of the new criteria in the beach monitoring and notification program. Fish Contamination Program: Continue to address total blood mercury concentrations through ongoing work with the FDA on joint guidance issued to the public, and encourage and support the states implementation of their fish advisory programs through such measures as convening the National Forum on Contaminants in Fish and publishing the biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories; Continue to distribute outreach materials related to the joint guidance issued by EPA and FDA for mercury in fish and shellfish and assess the publics understanding of the guidance; Continue to update science and public policy to assess and manage the risks and benefits of fish consumption, including updating national guidance for assessing the safety of consuming recreationally and subsistence caught seafood, and tracking blood mercury levels in women of childbearing age in an effort to assess the effectiveness of the national mercury advisory; Continue to provide technical support to states in the operation of their monitoring programs, determining acceptable levels of contaminant concentrations, and development and management of fish advisories; Continue to work with FDA to investigate the extent and risks of contaminants in fish, including the potential need for advisories for other pollutants; Develop a report on the urban river study of pharmaceuticals, PFCs, and musks in fish tissue as part of EPAs National Rivers and Streams Assessment. The Agency anticipates completing this activity by September 2012; and Develop a database and perform statistical analyses for the human health study of mercury, Omega-3 fatty acids, PFCs, pharmaceuticals, and PBDEs in fish tissue in the Great Lakes as part of EPAs National Coastal Assessment. The Agency anticipates completing this activity by September 2012.
610

(fs1) Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 3/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
4.9
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
5.1
4.9
Percent Women
Measure Type
Measure
(ss1) Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-year average.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
Data Avail 3/2011
Outbreaks
Measure Type
Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
95
95
95
95
Percent Days/Season
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$13.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$147.0) This decrease reflects a shift from non-regulatory to regulatory work. EPA will no longer sponsor an annual beach conference. Instead, it will shift resources to help fund one of the Agency's highest priorities - addressing excessive nutrients in the nations waters.
611
(-$102.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA); Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000. 33 USC 1313.
612
Drinking Water Programs Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $99,394.2

$3,889.3 $103,283.5 598.2

$3,637.0 $105,861.0 589.4

$3,787.0 $108,403.0 585.3

$150.0 $2,542.0 -4.1
$102,224.0
$3,637.0 $105,861.0 589.4
Program Project Description: EPAs Drinking Water Program is based on the multiple-barrier approach to protect public health from unsafe drinking water. Under this approach, EPA protects public health through: (1) source water assessment and protection programs; (2) promulgation of new or revised, scientifically sound National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs); (3) training, technical assistance, and financial assistance programs to enhance public water systems capacity to comply with existing and new regulations; (4) underground injection control programs; (5) and the implementation of NPDWRs by state and tribal drinking water programs through regulatory, non-regulatory, and voluntary programs and policies to ensure safe drinking water.139 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Safe drinking water is critical to protecting human health. More than 290 million Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by public water systems that are subject to national drinking water standards.140 In FY 2012, EPA will continue to protect sources of drinking water from contamination by: (1) developing new and revising existing drinking water standards; (2) supporting states, tribes, and water systems in implementing standards; (3) promoting sustainable management of drinking water infrastructure; and (4) implementing the underground injection control program. For FY 2012, the Agencys goal is that 91 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. As part of the Administrators priority to protect Americas waters, the Agency will continue to implement the Drinking Water Strategy in FY 2012.141 The Strategy is EPAs new approach to expand public health protection for drinking water. In FY 2012, the Agency will use the input provided by stakeholders in FY 2010 and FY 2011 to identify better ways to:
139 140
See http://www.epa.gov/safewater and https://www.cfda.gov for more information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED), http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/index.cfm. 141 See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm for additional information.
613
Address contaminants in groups; Spur innovations in drinking water technology; Leverage authorities of other environmental statutes to protect drinking water where appropriate; and Work with partners to share more data from public water system (PWS) monitoring. A central component of the Strategy is to strengthen our state and tribal partnerships by sharing better information on the water quality in public water systems. Building stronger partnerships will improve how states, tribes, and EPA share information, allow more rigorous oversight of the drinking water program to improve public health, and enable consumers to gain greater confidence in water quality in their own systems. EPAs water program will work with states and tribes and pursue data system upgrades necessary to obtain all compliance monitoring data submitted by PWSs to states rather than only violation data. Drinking Water Implementation In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work with states to implement requirements for riskbased rules to ensure that systems install appropriate levels of treatment. These include provisions to protect against Cryptosporidium (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule or LT2), to control disinfection byproducts (Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule or Stage 2), and to ensure quality water from groundwater sources (Ground Water Rule). EPA will assist states in implementing public water system health requirements for high-priority drinking water contaminants, including those covered under the Arsenic Rule and revised Lead and Copper Rule. By FY 2012, most water systems should be in compliance or on schedule to install treatment or develop alternative solutions to reduce their arsenic levels below the standard. A number of small water systems have difficulties developing a path to compliance due to funding or technical limitations. EPA will implement its small systems approach to help these systems. EPA and the states will continue extensive and detailed oversight of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The Agency will continue to work with the states to improve their capacity development programs to ensure effective and ongoing compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA will coordinate with the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) Rural Utilities Service Funding Program to target funding and promote system sustainability. EPA also will further promote water system partnerships initiated by states, including voluntary restructuring of unsustainable water systems. Finally, EPA, in concert with the states, will continue to focus on rule compliance and system sustainability. As part of the Drinking Water Strategy and the agency-wide Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas, EPA will invest an additional $1.2 million for its Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). This funding will be used to replace obsolete and expensive-to-maintain drinking water information system technology and will:
614
Reduce EPAs total cost of ownership; Enable faster implementation of drinking water rules and provide tools to ensure consistent determinations for compliance with drinking water rules; and Support efficient sharing of drinking water compliance monitoring data between states and EPA. The increase also will enable EPA to develop the capability to post more drinking water compliance monitoring data on the Internet. This will instill confidence that Americas drinking water meets stringent EPA standards and is safe for public consumption. In addition, the investment will allow for better targeting of federal and state funding and technical assistance resources, improve data quality, and support statutorily required reviews of existing regulations. Specifically, EPA will be able to review data related to existing drinking water regulations with reduced burden on its regulatory partners. EPA will use the increased funding in concert with the states to collect and display all compliance monitoring data as part of implementing the Drinking Water Strategy. This will improve transparency and efficient data management operations. Also, an increase in resources, under the Public Water System Supervision Grant Program (PWSS), is being requested to support improvements in state drinking water data management, data quality, and compliance monitoring data collection and transfer. EPA will fund the state share of the joint effort with the State and Tribal Assistance Grants appropriation. Specific activities associated with the state funding are described in the PWSS state grant narrative of the budget. EPA also will continue the following activities in order to facilitate compliance with rules: Continue to direct national Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program efforts by establishing priorities, developing guidance, measuring program results, and administering the PWSS Grants; Continue direct implementation of the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, which will affect 63 airlines and over 7,000 aircraft; Carry out the drinking water program where EPA has primacy (e.g., Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and tribal lands), and where states have not yet adopted new regulations; Continue to provide guidance, training (including webcasts), and technical assistance to states, tribes, laboratories and utilities on the implementation of drinking water regulations, especially the Ground Water Rule, revised Lead and Copper Rule, and Total Coliform Rule, as well as on simultaneous compliance issues. Monitoring under the Ground Water Rule began in FY 2010. EPA will promote best practices related to operation and maintenance of small systems in support of long-term compliance success with existing regulations;
615
Provide training and technical assistance to states and to water systems that need to increase their treatment to comply with Stage 2 and LT2. Compliance with new health based standards will begin in 2012 for the first group of systems (largest systems); and Support states in their efforts to assist small systems in attaining and maintaining the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to consistently meet regulatory requirements through the use of cost-effective treatment technologies, proper disposal of treatment residuals, and compliance with contaminant requirements, including monitoring under the arsenic and radionuclide rules and rules controlling microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts. Drinking Water Standards As part of the Drinking Water Strategy, the Agency will focus on regulating groups of drinking water contaminants to more effectively address potential risks. In addition, EPA will expand its communication with states, tribes, and communities thereby improving confidence in the quality of drinking water. The Agency will continue to assess the available information on health effects and occurrence data in drinking water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) contaminants have sufficient information to make a determination whether or not to regulate the contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA will make such preliminary determinations for at least five CCL 3 contaminants by 2012. The Agency also will continue to evaluate and address drinking water risks though other activities to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) including: Publishing the final revised Total Coliform Rule in 2012; Developing analytical methods that can be utilized by laboratories across the U.S. to test for the presence of new and emerging contaminants in drinking water; Continuing to evaluate the long-term issues identified in the national review of the revised Lead and Copper Rule; Proposing a rule to regulate perchlorate in drinking water; Proposing a regulation to address 16 volatile organic compounds as part of the Drinking Water Strategy; and Collaborating with stakeholders to better understand water quality issues in distribution systems. Sustainable Infrastructure and Effective Utility Management With the aging of the nations infrastructure and a growing need for investment, the drinking water and wastewater sectors face a significant challenge to sustain and advance the
616
achievements attained in protecting public health and the environment. EPAs sustainable infrastructure efforts are designed to promote more effective management of water utilities in order to continuously improve their performance and achieve long-term sustainability in their infrastructure, operations and other facets of their business. EPA will continue to encourage drinking water utilities to be sustainable through successful business practices by providing funding and technical assistance including the following: Providing states with funds, through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants, for low-interest loans to assist utilities with financing drinking water infrastructure needs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work in concert with the states to ensure federal financial assistance supports utility compliance with SDWA standards and achieves public health protection objectives of SDWA. EPA also will work with utilities to promote technical, financial, and managerial capacity as a critical means to meet infrastructure needs, to further enhance program performance and efficiency, and to ensure compliance; Continuing to provide effective oversight of the DWSRF funds; Partnering with states and utility associations as part of the Agencys Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy to promote system-wide planning processes to help ensure that projects are environmentally and financially sustainable, as well as collaborative and partnership relationships between more capable and less capable utilities where appropriate; Continuing to partner with states to leverage capacity development programs to facilitate the voluntary adoption of sustainable practices by drinking water utilities including asset management and source water protection approaches to manage water resources; and Continuing to work with states, other agencies, and stakeholders to address operator workforce issues, to promote water and energy efficiency, and to identify options for utilities in response to climate change impacts and water resource limitations. Additionally, in FY 2012, the Agency will analyze data collected in 2011 for the required fifth Needs Survey and begin drafting the survey report for publishing in 2013. The survey reports infrastructure needs that are required to protect public health, such as projects to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The survey will document 20-year capital investment needs of public water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF monies approximately 53,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit non-community water systems. EPA also will obtain data concerning the drinking water infrastructure needs of tribes and Alaskan Native Villages as a special focus of this survey. As directed by the SDWA, EPA will use the results of the survey to allocate DWSRF funds to the states and tribes beginning in FY 2014.
617
Source Water Protection EPA will continue supporting state and local efforts to identify and address current and potential sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts are integral to the sustainable infrastructure effort because source water protection can reduce the need for additional drinking water treatment and the associated additional cost, infrastructure, and energy usage. In FY 2012, the Agency will: Continue to work to promote source water protection for better management of sources of contamination (e.g. nutrients, septic systems) by providing training, technical assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and localities; Continue to work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and the multipartner Source Water Collaborative to encourage watershed level connections of state and local level source water protection actions; Continue working with states and other stakeholders to characterize current and future pressures on water availability, variability and sustainability (WAVS), including the potential effects of climate change. Underground Injection Control (UIC) The UIC program safeguards current and future drinking water from the underground injection of contaminants. The UIC program regulates the construction, operation, permitting, and closure of injection wells that place fluids underground for storage or disposal. In FY 2012, the Agency will: Work to meet emerging permitting demands: o Injection of uranium solution mining fluids and produced water disposal associated with energy exploration activities; and o Injection of fluids for aquifer storage and recovery, stormwater, and desalination associated with water supply needs. Implement the new Class VI Geologic Sequestration (GS) rulemaking: o Continue work on guidance documents and implementation materials for the rule; o Review and approve primacy applications from states and tribes; o Initiate development of a data management system to support evaluation of GS permit and project data and inform modifications to the GS program, if appropriate; and o Provide technical assistance to states to analyze complex modeling, monitoring, siting, and financial assurance data for new GS projects; Continue to direct national UIC program efforts to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW) by establishing priorities, developing guidance, measuring program results, administering the UIC Grants; and
618
Continue activities to work with the states to fully populate the UIC database, targeted to include 68 UIC programs and 500,000 wells by 2012. EPA will support mapping of each state's data for initial submissions and transition from paper reporting to electronic reporting for states that pass quality assurance/quality control parameters. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
87
87.2
87
87
Percent Population
Measure Type
Measure
(aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment & source water protection.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
92
91
91
Percent Population
Measure Type
Measure
(aph) Percent of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance.)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
95
87
95
95
Percent CWSs
619
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
89.6
90
90
Percent Systems
Measure Type
Measure
(dw2) Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
95
97.3
95
95
Percent Months
Work under this program supports the Agencys High Priority Performance Goal (Priority Goal), addressing water quality. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. For a detailed description of the EPAs Priority Goals (implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit www.Performance.gov. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$992.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$1,200.0) This increase supports the agency-wide Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas investment which will expand the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) to improve compliance monitoring and data flow and quality. Improvements to SDWIS will provide the necessary accountability and transparency controls to deliver timely information to the public and instill greater confidence that American drinking water meets stringent EPA standards and is safe for public consumption. (-$119.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$200.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephones, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.
620
(+$1,101.0) This increase will enable EPA to work with the states to implement UIC regulations for Geologic Sequestration (GS) of carbon dioxide including: completing guidance, training permit writers, and providing communication and outreach as part of the Clean Energy and Climate Change Initiative. (-$982.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-3.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-0.3 FTE) This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. Statutory Authority: SDWA; CWA.
621
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
622
Marine Pollution Program Area: Water Quality Protection Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,783.7

$9,783.7 41.5

$13,397.0 44.1

$13,417.0 43.0

$20.0 -1.1
$13,397.0
$13,397.0 44.1
Program Project Description: The goals of the marine pollution programs are to ensure marine ecosystem protection by controlling point-source and vessel discharges, managing dredged material and ocean dumping, developing regional and international collaborations, monitoring ocean and coastal waters, and managing other marine issues, such as marine debris, invasive species, and the marine transportation system. EPA works to integrate its management of the oceans and coasts across federal agencies and with state, tribal, and local governments.142 Major areas of effort include: Developing and implementing regulations and technical guidance to control pollutants from vessel operational discharges and point-source ocean discharges, and issuing permits for materials to be dumped in ocean waters; Designating, monitoring, and managing ocean dumping sites and implementing provisions of the National Dredging Policy; Participating with other federal agencies (including: U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Navy) in international marine protection programs, to develop international standards that address vessel-related transport of aquatic invasive species, harmful antifoulants, operational discharges from vessels, dumping of wastes at sea, and marine debris. EPA is Head of the U.S. Delegation for the London Convention / London Protocol (LC / LP) Scientific Group, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation for the LC / LP Consultative Meeting of the Parties, and a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Marine Environmental Protection Committee;
142
See http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/programs/index.cfm for more information.
623
Increasing our knowledge of the oceans and coasts by operating the Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold to monitor ocean and coastal waters. This includes supporting ocean disposal site management and conducting baseline and trend assessments (e.g., Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, climate change indicators, and coral reefs); and Working with a wide variety of stakeholders to develop and implement ecosystem-based management tools, strategies, and plans for coastal ecosystems in order to restore and maintain the health of coastal aquatic communities on a priority basis, including promotion of dredged material management in a watershed context. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Ocean and coastal waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the nation. To protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis, EPA will support implementation of the National Policy for Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts143, and Great Lakes by working with states, tribes, agencies, and stakeholders on enhancing the quality of our valuable coastal and ocean resources and applying sustainable marine and land use practices. The health of ocean and coastal waters, as well as progress toward meeting strategic targets, will be tracked through periodic issuance of National Coastal Condition reports, which are a cooperative project with federal and state agencies, and by using the OSV Bold to increase our knowledge of our oceans and coasts. Key FY 2012 actions include: Controlling Vessel Operational Discharges Develop management practices and associated performance standards for discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels; Evaluate and respond to rulemaking requests to revise EPA vessel sewage standards under the Clean Water Act; Support of implementation and reissuance of the Vessel General Permit (Clean Water Act, Section 402); Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and with other EPA offices on activities related to the control of sewage discharges from vessels; Participate in site visits and the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects; Coordinate and support the USCG activities to develop and implement ballast water discharge standards;
143
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes
624
Participate on the U.S. delegation to the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop international standards and guidance under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and other IMO conventions addressing operational discharges from ships; Support a nationally consistent policy for the designation of no discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage. Increase awareness and understanding of the no discharge zone program by disseminating NDZ mapping information via EPAs website; and Evaluate the environmental impacts of sewage and graywater discharges from cruise ships. Managing the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) / Ocean Dumping Management Program (including Dredged Material) The Agency will monitor active dredged material ocean dumping sites to ensure achievement of environmentally acceptable conditions, as reflected in Site Management and Monitoring Plans (SMMPs): On an annual basis, EPA regional offices will determine whether dredged material ocean dumping sites are achieving environmentally acceptable conditions, as defined by each SMMP. Corrective actions will be taken by the appropriate parties should a site not achieve acceptable conditions. As co-chair of the National Dredging Team, EPA will continue working with the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA regional offices to implement a tracking system for beneficial use of dredged materials (as an alternative to dumping in ocean or coastal waters). Work with other federal agencies and the international community to develop guidance on sub-seabed carbon sequestration and address any requests for carbon sequestration in the sub-seabed or by ocean fertilization, including any required permitting under MPRSA. Ensure that U.S. policy and procedures regarding ocean dumping are consistent with the London Convention of 1972 and 1996 London Protocol. Manage the ocean dumping vessels tracking system that is used to determine compliance with a general permit under MPRSA for ocean dumping of vessels in the United States. Monitoring and Assessment During FY 2012, the OSV Bold will continue to support the following types of activities: Collect environmental data from several offshore areas for use in the designation of: (1) dredged material disposal sites; (2) periodic environmental monitoring of the 65 active
625
ocean disposal sites; (3) monitoring of offshore discharge sites (e.g., outfalls) or wastewater outfalls; and (4) monitoring of significantly impacted or important coastal waters or National Estuary Programs such as the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, Florida coral reefs, Puget Sound, New York/New Jersey Harbor, and Long Island Sound. Reducing Marine Debris Work with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC) to assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris per the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006. Lead an EPA workgroup tasked with developing a comprehensive approach to address the types, sources, movement, and impacts of marine debris. Interagency Collaborations for Ocean and Coastal Protection Continue to participate in the implementation of the objectives laid out in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force, which were adopted by Executive Order 13547. The National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and Great Lakes, and the Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning strengthen the work that the federal government conducts with states, tribes, and stakeholders to protect vital resources in our waters. Continue to participate on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force by supporting coral reef ecosystem protection through ongoing efforts to reduce impacts from land-based sources of pollution, rising water temperatures, ocean acidification, and vessel discharges. Participate on the Cabinet-level Committee on the Marine Transportation System to identify strategic goals and actions required to meet the present and future needs of the users of the marine transportation system. EPA promotes the environmentally sound integration of marine transportation with other modes of transportation and with other ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses, such as dredging and dredged material management, reducing pollutant sources during operations and cargo handling, reducing environmental impacts, and responding to accidents. Participate on an interagency work group tasked to review and make recommendations in a report to Congress on best management practices for the storage and disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the federal government.
626

(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
98
90.1
98
95
Percent Sites
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$199.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$1.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements. (+$15.0) This reflects an increase to support marine ecosystem monitoring and protection. (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$195.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
627
Statutory Authority: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Boating Act (PL 110-288); Clean Water Act (CWA); Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Liberty Ship Act (16 U.S.C. 1220, et seq.), Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006 (MDRPRA); Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA); Marine Pollution Research Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Section 3516; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 102; NISA of 1996; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988; Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA); (Pension Protection Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Shore Protection Act (SPA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.
628
Surface Water Protection Program Area: Water Quality Protection Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $201,136.3

$201,136.3 1,081.3

$208,626.0 1,106.5

$212,069.0 1,094.4

$3,443.0 -12.1
$208,626.0
$208,626.0 1,106.5
Program Project Description: The Surface Water Protection Program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly supports efforts to protect, improve, and restore the quality of our nations rivers, lakes, and streams. EPA works with states and tribes to make continued progress toward the clean water goals identified in EPAs Strategic Plan by implementing core clean water programs, including accelerating innovations that implement programs on a watershed basis. This program also includes the Urban Waters program which is part of the Americas Great Outdoors program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will focus its work with states, interstate agencies, tribes and others in key areas of the National Water Program. The main components and requested funding levels are: water quality standards and technology ($49 million); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ($42 million); water monitoring ($24 million); Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ($28 million); watershed and nonpoint source management ($31 million); sustainable infrastructure management ($19 million); water infrastructure grants management ($13 million); and CWA Section 106 program management ($7 million). Water Quality Criteria and Standards: Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water quality protection programs under the CWA. The criteria define which waters are clean and which waters are impaired, and thereby serve as benchmarks for decisions about allowable pollutant loadings into waterways.144 In FY 2012, EPA will continue to support state and tribal programs by providing scientific water quality criteria information, which will include conducting scientific studies and developing or improving criteria for nutrients, pathogens, and chemical pollutants in ambient water. EPA will continue to work with state and Tribal partners to help them develop standards that are
144
See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information
629
approvable under the CWA, including providing advance guidance and technical assistance, where appropriate, before the standards are formally submitted to EPA. EPA expects that 85 percent of state submissions will be approvable in FY 2012. Excessive nutrients continue to be one of the leading causes for impaired waters. A key element to making progress is the development of numerical nutrient water quality standards. However, many states lack the technical and financial resources to develop them. EPA will place a higher emphasis on assistance to the states to accelerate adoption of numerical nutrient standards and to support federal determinations or promulgations. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement and support the core water quality programs that control point source discharges. The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be permitted and requires pretreatment programs to control discharges from industrial and other facilities to the nations wastewater treatment plants. EPA is working with states to structure the permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis and also support the recent increases in the scope of the program arising from court orders and environmental issues. EPA will focus on several other key strategic objectives for the NPDES and effluent guideline programs: Conduct regional program assessments and permit quality reviews to ensure the health and integrity of the NPDES program, continue to address workload concerns in permit issuance, focus resources on priority permits that have the greatest benefit for water quality, encourage trading and watershed-based permitting, and foster efficiency in permitting program operations through the use of electronic reporting and other streamlining tools. The foundation of these efforts is to reinforce nationally the importance of strong science and the adherence to the law; Collaborate with partner organizations to promote the use of green infrastructure in stormwater permits and in plans to control overflows in combined and separate sanitary sewer systems; Implement strategies to improve management of pretreatment programs. Strategies include: implementation of pretreatment program results; a Measures Handbook for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that will be finalized in FY 2011 to discuss the environmental links between the regulation, their oversight activities, and their watershed impact; and updated checklists and guidance for POTW program development; Continue to work with states and permitees to resolve issues related to overflows in separate sanitary sewer systems and bypasses at the treatment plant to ensure that water quality is protected during wet weather events; Provide assistance to states to develop technology and water quality based permit conditions that address new waste streams, such as Flue Gas Desulfurization;
630
Issue the annual plan that describes the CWA-mandated review of industrial categories to determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted; and Assist states to address permitting issues arising from unconventional oil and gas extraction, such as shale gas and coal-bed methane, in a timely manner that is consistent with state standards and technology requirements. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to focus on a number of relatively new NPDES, effluent guideline, and nonpoint source program areas. These areas of increased environmental concern emphasize the need to engage the network of federal, state, and local partners to take actions that are needed to protect the environment. The CWA regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) were revised in 2003 and further revised in 2008 in response to a 2nd Circuit Court ruling. This effort continues to evolve as a result of litigation. EPA will conduct a regulatory effort to obtain information from all CAFOs, pursuant to a settlement agreement on litigation arising from the 2008 regulatory revisions. EPA expects to continue to develop implementation guidance and work with states and tribes to fully implement the CAFO rule to assure that all CAFOs that discharge waste obtain NPDES permit coverage. EPA also will work with permitting authorities to identify which CAFOs need to obtain permit coverage and provide the tools and information needed to prevent discharges. In addition, EPA will monitor the number of facilities covered by stormwater and CAFO permits. The Agency is developing a rule to strengthen stormwater regulations. This rulemaking will propose requirements for stormwater discharges from, at minimum, newly developed and redeveloped sites. As part of this effort, EPA will consider redefining the area subject to federal regulation. In late 2008, the National Academies of Sciences / National Research Council issued an assessment of the national stormwater program and made recommendations to better address pollution from stormwater. EPA intends to propose this rule in the Fall of 2011, and take final action in November, 2012 (FY 2013). Stormwater is a main contributor of nutrients and sediments, which are two of the top three pollutants impairing waters in the United States. In response to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 13508 and settlement agreement, EPA will conduct significant new regulatory, permitting, modeling, reporting and planning efforts to protect and restore the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Examples of these actions include the development of Chesapeake Bay-specific provisions in the national stormwater regulation, and the revisions of CAFO implementation guidance and regulations. In addition, EPA will continue to support states and EPA Regional Offices in effectively implementing the NPDES program to improve the health of the watershed. o EPA will build a record to support options for going beyond national stormwater requirements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA is
631
considering more stringent requirements within the Chesapeake basin, such as: more extensively redefining municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)-regulated areas, establishing more stringent post-construction requirements, and applying these requirements to smaller sites. o The Agency intends to propose regulations for CAFOs to more effectively address pollution reductions necessary to achieve the objectives of the TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA may consider expanding the universe of CAFOs and requiring more stringent standards for permits (e.g. better nutrient management planning) for CAFOs in the Bay. Additionally, options for a streamlined designation process and better off-site manure management may be considered for the Bay or nationally. As a result of a 2006 court ruling, approximately 70 thousand vessels that were previously exempt from permitting are now covered by an NPDES permit. On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a new NPDES general permit to regulate 26 types of discharges from vessels operating in U.S. waters. EPA will develop tools and training to implement the vessel permit, to review and approve state vessel permitting programs, and to provide outreach to the regulated community. In addition, EPA is developing scientific protocols and models to determine how to more effectively control the introduction of numerous aquatic invasive species into our nations waters from ballast water discharges. Ballast water discharges have introduced numerous aquatic invasive species, resulting in severe degradation of many ecosystems and billions of dollars of economic damages. As a result of a January 7, 2009 court ruling, EPA is required to issue permits to pesticide applicators that discharge to waters of the U.S. EPA will issue and develop a precedent setting general permit for the application of pesticides to waters of the U.S. EPA proposed the permit in calendar year 2010 and will finalize the permit in 2011. EPA must assist and oversee 44 authorized states in developing their own general permits and assist in a national effort to educate the pesticides application industry regarding how to comply with the new permits. As a result, EPA will collect data for future permits and will conduct inspections for a large universe of pesticide applications. EPA also must develop and assist states in implementing changes to their enforcement programs for pesticides. Pesticides that are applied to wateror that enter water as a result of off-target application of specific pesticidesmay be highly toxic and may cause fish kills, die-offs of crabs, lobsters, bird deaths and human illnesses. Monitoring: In FY 2012, EPA will continue working with the states and tribes to implement the Monitoring Initiative, begun in 2005, which includes enhancements to state and interstate monitoring programs consistent with their individual monitoring strategies, and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nations waters. The EPA / State Monitoring and Assessment Partnership is working on approaches to integrate state-scale and national surveys, to optimize the value of surveys to state programs, and to develop recommendations to advance state and national monitoring and assessment. In FY 2012, EPA, states, and tribes will collaborate to
632
conduct field sampling for the second National Lakes Assessment to determine changes since the first report. This second lakes survey will be conducted in FY 2012 and the assessment will be completed in FY 2014. A report of the second National Streams Assessment coupled with a baseline condition of rivers will be released in FY 2012, and the fifth report on national coastal condition also will be issued in FY 2012. The Coastal Condition report will include analysis of impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Analytical work for the National Wetland Condition Assessment will take place during FY 2012 for a report to be issued in FY 2013. FY 2012 CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds will be allocated for sampling for the second National Rivers and Streams Assessment. In FY 2012, EPA will work closely with states as they continue to enhance their monitoring programs. EPA stresses the importance of using statistical surveys to generate statewide water quality assessments, targeted monitoring approaches to develop and evaluate local protection and restoration activities and the transmission of water quality data to the national storage and retrieval (STORET) warehouse using the new Water Quality Exchange (WQX) protocol. The publicly accessible STORET data warehouse, using the Water Quality Exchange (WQX) framework, makes it easier for states, tribes and other organizations to submit water quality data and share the data over the Internet. EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strategies appropriate to their water quality programs and encourage tribes to provide data in a format accessible for storage in EPA data systems. EPAs goal is to achieve greater integration of federal, regional, state, and local monitoring efforts and to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic scales, in a costefficient and effective manner, so that scientifically defensible monitoring data is available to address issues and problems at each of these scales. EPA will continue to work with states, tribes, and other partners to address research and technical needs related to sampling methods, analytical approaches, and data management. EPA will continue to promote application of monitoring and assessment tools to support state and tribal management of nutrient pollution. Total Maximum Daily Loads: Development and implementation of TMDLs for 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies is a critical tool for meeting water quality restoration goals. TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental goals and establish a pollutant budget, which is then implemented via permit requirements and through local, state, and federal watershed plans and programs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to encourage states to organize schedules for TMDLs to address all pollutants on an impaired segment when possible. Where multiple impaired segments are clustered within a watershed, EPA encourages states to organize restoration activities across the watershed (i.e., apply a watershed approach). To assist in development of watershed TMDLs, EPA developed two tools: 1) Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs145; and 2) a checklist for developing mercury TMDLs where the source is primarily atmospheric deposition.146 To assist in developing TMDLs for waters impaired by stormwater-source pollutants, EPA released a number of documents, including: 1) Incorporating Green Infrastructure Concepts into Total Maximum Daily Loads
145 146
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/ draft_handbook.pdf www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/document_mercury_tmdl_ elements.pdf
633
(TMDLs)147, and 2) updated guidance on how to more effectively address stormwater impairments under two CWA Programs: 303(d) TMDL and NPDES Stormwater. The updated guidance will assist in the translation of TMDL WLAs into NPDES Stormwater permits, as well as support innovative approaches, such as Impervious Cover TMDLs, to address the considerable number of waterbodies polluted by stormwater discharges. For waters impaired by problems for which TMDLs are not appropriate, EPA will work with partners to develop and implement activities and watershed plans to restore these waters (e.g., TMDL alternatives). Cumulatively, states and EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs, and have completed more than 46,000 total TMDLs through FY 2010. Nonpoint Source Management: Nonpoint source management is the integral piece to addressing most of the remaining water quality problems and threats in the United States. Protection and restoration of water quality on a watershed basis requires a careful assessment of the nature and sources of pollution, the location and setting within the watershed, the relative influence on water quality, and the amenability to preventive or control methods. In FY 2012, EPA will support efforts of states, tribes, other federal agencies, and local communities to develop and implement watershed-based plans that successfully address all of these factors to enable impaired waters to be restored through the national Nonpoint Source Program (Section 319) while also continuing to protect those waters that are healthy. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide nonpoint source program leadership and technical support to states, municipalities, watershed organizations and concerned citizens by: Creating, supporting, and promoting technical tools that states and tribes need to accurately assess water quality problems and analyze and implement solutions; Implementing the Web-based tool to support watershed planning, Watershed Central, including the integration of the Watershed Plan Builder within Watershed Central 148. Watershed Central is an outreach tool designed to assist users to develop and implement effective watershed management programs. The site includes guidance, tools, case studies, and data sets to help share information, analyze data, and identify opportunities to initiate or strengthen watershed efforts; Assuring accountability for results through (1) use of EPAs nonpoint source program grants tracking system (GRTS), which will continue to track the nationwide pollutant load reductions achieved for phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment and (2) tracking the remediation of waterbodies that had been primarily impaired by nonpoint sources and that were subsequently restored so that they may be removed from the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters149;
147 148
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/stormwater/pdf/tmdl_lid_final.pdf http://www.epa.gov/watershedcentral 149 www.epa.gov/nps/success
634
Focusing on the development and dissemination of new tools to promote Low Impact Development (LID), thereby preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly including analyses designed to assist in EPAs efforts to promulgate an effective stormwater rule designed to minimize post-development runoff. LID is an innovative, comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of maintaining and enhancing the pre-development water quality and flow in urban and developing watersheds.150 Implementing the Healthy Watersheds Strategy, in cooperation with states, academia, and non-governmental organizations, that focuses on protection of the watersheds of healthy waters (as well as healthy components of other watersheds). This strategy will include the publication of a guide to protect aquatic ecosystems, the publication of a detailed Healthy Watersheds agenda with both short-term and long-term components, and enhancement of EPA's Healthy Watersheds Website151, which is replete with tools for assessment of healthy watersheds and implementation of approaches to maintain their health, as well as information on successful state and local approaches that are already underway; Continuing coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that federal resources, including grants under Section 319 and Farm Bill funds, are managed in a coordinated way to maximize water quality improvement in impaired waters and protection in all others. Also, EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies with land management responsibilities to address water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring National Forest System watersheds; Targeting efforts within critical watersheds to implement effective strategies that can yield significant progress in addressing nonpoint source nutrient pollution. Specifically, EPA will continue to support state efforts to design and implement nutrient reduction strategies and to design watershed plans; promote sustainable agricultural practices; collaborate to leverage and focus the most effective nutrient and sediment reduction practices; work to leverage resources of federal and state partners to address development and wetland restoration; and support critical monitoring needs to inform decision-making; and Providing oversight of states development and implementation of effective accountability frameworks for point and nonpoint sources, provide guidance to permit writers on how to implement criteria in NPDES permits, and promulgate numeric nutrient standards for a state(s) as appropriate and/or necessary. Additionally, EPA is currently initiating a project to work with state partners to complete a detailed evaluation of how states are using CWA S. 319 grant resources, including implementation of TMDLs and restoring impaired waters, with the goal of beginning to implement study recommendations in FY2012. A key emphasis will be on improving program
150 151
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds
635
accountability and ensuring that States are using cost effective approaches to protect and restore their waters. In FY 2012, EPA will begin to implement some program reforms, including incentives to states to implement more effective nonpoint source management programs. Sustainable Infrastructure: EPA will continue to implement its Sustainable Infrastructure Strategy and work with its partners to facilitate the voluntary adoption of effective management practices by water sector utilities. EPA will provide a limited amount of training and technical support to water and wastewater utilities, local communities, and municipalities as they strive to achieve the long-term sustainability of their operations and infrastructure. The Agency will work with other key partners such as local officials and academia to help increase public understanding and support for sustaining the nations water infrastructure. One of the key components of the Agencys broader efforts to ensure long-term sustainable water infrastructure is its water-efficiency labeling effort called WaterSense. WaterSense gives consumers a reference tool to identify and select water-efficient products with the intent of reducing national water and wastewater infrastructure needs by reducing demands and flows, allowing for deferred or downsized capital projects. Through FY 2010, the Agency had issued voluntary specifications for four water-efficient service categories (certification programs for irrigation system auditors, designers, and installation and maintenance professionals) and four product categories (residential High-Efficiency Toilets (HETs), bathroom faucets and accessories, commercial flushing urinals, and residential showerheads). In late 2009, the program released a new homes specification that provides benchmark criteria for water-efficient new homes, designed to save water indoors as well as outdoors. Product specifications include water efficiency as well as performance criteria to ensure that products not only save water but also work as well as standard products in the marketplace. Products may only bear the WaterSense label after being tested by an independent laboratory to ensure that they meet WaterSense specifications. In FY 2012, the Agency expects to release a final specification for pre-rinse spray valves (in collaboration with ENERGY STAR) and a draft specification for residential water softener systems. The Agency will continue to research other product and service categories including residential plumbing and irrigation, commercial kitchens, and laboratories, and may move to develop specifications based on the outcome of that research. In less than five years, WaterSense has already become a national symbol for water efficiency among utilities, plumbing manufacturers, and consumers. Awareness of the WaterSense label is growing every day. At the end of 2010, approximately 620 different models of high-efficiency toilets, more than 2,300 faucet models and accessories, 44 models of flushing urinals, and 245 models of showerheads had earned the WaterSense label. Cumulative savings in the program due to products shipped through the end of 2009 (the most recent year for which there are data) exceeds 47 billion gallons and $343 million in savings. The program is continuing to build participation in its labeling program for residential new homes, which has not progressed as quickly as hoped due to downturns in the housing market. As of December 2010, the program had signed up more than 35 builders, including one national builder which completed the first
636
WaterSense labeled homes in the fall of 2010. The program anticipates that the market for water efficient homes will improve as market surveys indicate that construction of green homes is recovering from the economic downturn more quickly than standard homes. In addition to working with manufacturers, retailers, and builders to deliver labeled products and homes to consumers, EPA continues to partner with utilities, irrigation professionals, and community organizations to educate consumers on the benefits of switching to water-efficient products. By the end of 2010, the program had more than 2,100 partners, including utilities from across the country, that are adopting WaterSense as a key component of their water-efficiency, energy efficiency, and climate adaptation efforts. The partners are a key to building a strong network of stakeholders across the Nation to build awareness of the need for efficient use of water. WaterSense also is working within the federal government to ensure that it leads by example through the use of water-efficient products and practices as part of supporting efforts to implement Executive Order 13154, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Policy and oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs), which provide low interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects, are supported by this program. In managing the CWSRF, EPA continues to work with states to meet several key objectives: Fund projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach to sustain communities, encourage and support green infrastructure, and preserve and create jobs; Link projects to environmental results through the use of water quality and public health data; Maintain the excellent fiduciary condition of the funds; Continue to support states efforts in developing integrated priority lists to address nonpoint source pollution, estuary protection, and wastewater projects; and Work with state and local partners to implement a sustainability policy including management and pricing to encourage conservation and to provide adequate long-term funding for future capital needs. In FY 2012, states will complete voluntary submission of data and documents for review and potential inclusion in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2012 Report to Congress. The CWNS documents capital needs and compiles technical information for publicly-owned wastewater collection and treatment facilities, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) control facilities, stormwater management facilities, decentralized wastewater (septic) treatment systems, and nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control. CWNS data supports funding prioritization and outreach activities as well as permitting and other watershed-based management activities.
637
The Agency also will provide oversight and support for Congressionally mandated projects related to water and wastewater infrastructure as well as management and oversight of grant programs, such as the Section 106 grants, the U.S-Mexico Border program and the Alaska Native Village program. Healthy Communities Initiative: In FY 2012, EPA will implement the Urban Waters program. Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens, excess nutrients, and contaminated sediments that result from sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from urban landscapes, and legacy contamination. Under this initiative, EPA will assist communities, particularly underserved communities, in restoring urban waterways and the surrounding land through partnerships with governmental and non-governmental organizations. Areas of focus may include innovative civic engagement and public outreach, risk screening, environmental education, sustainable financing, technical support and training, and development of a local urban waters vision plan. Under the Urban Waters program, which is part of the Americas Great Outdoors program, EPA will provide grants and technical assistance to communities to accelerate measurable improvements in water quality. The Agency also will provide targeted technical assistance to showcase communities and small grant recipients to help them achieve their water restoration and community engagement goals. The implementation of grant programs will build on lessons learned through place-based federal partnership efforts. In addition, EPA plans to address urban water issues by reorienting existing programs. EPA will take regulatory actions to address water quality problems impacting urban waters: for example, propose and implement the pesticides general permit and post-construction stormwater rule, and develop recreational water quality criteria. EPA will promote green infrastructure such as expanding successful low impact development and green streets pilot programs and at the same time encourage the incorporation of skills training and employment opportunities as part of these projects. EPA will engage both underserved communities near urban waters and the practitioners who assist them via expanded outreach efforts that utilize both traditional and innovative methods (e.g., social media, Watershed Central). Regaining Ground Initiative: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas: The requested increase in funding will allow EPA to review new and existing rules. EPA will ensure that electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements are incorporated as necessary to ensure compliance. Surface Coal Mining: EPA will continue to implement the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan (IAP) that was signed with the Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers on June 11, 2009, to significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations.152 Sections 404 and 402 activities will include development of program guidance, strengthened interagency coordination, project reviews, training and technical assistance. Based on its review in 2011 of existing regulatory authorities and procedures, EPA will consider
152
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11-09.pdf
638
regulatory and/or policy modifications to better protect the environment and public health from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining. Improved watershed-scale/cumulative impact analysis and increased attention to impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged communities are areas identified for future policy refinement. In FY 2009 and FY 2010, EPA completed several of the short term actions under the June 11, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), including publishing an interim guide to the states on effective use of CWA Section 401 certification and conducting a permit quality review of issued Section 402 permits. Substantial progress was made in improving interagency coordination with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and US Army Corps of Engineers. EPA also released interim guidance to the Regional offices on the review of surface coal mining applications under CWA Section 402 and 404, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.153 Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(bpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from States and Territories that are approved by EPA.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
85
90.9
85
85
Percent Submissions
Measure Type
Measure
(bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDL] 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.]
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
44,560
46,817
49,375
51,923
TMDLs
153
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/appalachian_mtntop_mining_detailed.pdf for more information.
639
Measure Type
Measure
(bpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
95
138
100
100
Percent Permits
Measure Type
Measure
(uw1) Number of urban water projects initiated addressing water quality issues in the community.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
Projects
Measure Type
Measure
(uw2) Number of urban water projects completed addressing water quality issues in the community.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
Projects
Measure Type
Measure
(L) Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
2,809
2,909
3,073
3,273
Segments
Measure Type
Measure
(wq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
9,016
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
8,512
8,446
9,566
Causes
640
Measure Type
Measure
(wq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
141
168
208
238
Watersheds
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
371
FY 2010 Actual
n/a
FY 2011 CR Target
371
FY 2012 Target
381
Units
(bpr) Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed Efficiency per program dollar expended.
Pounds
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$3,072.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE (-$808.0 / -4.1 FTE) This reflects a redirection of Mountaintop Mining resources for the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan from Surface Water Protection to the Wetlands program to accommodate the need for additional CWA S. 404 permit review. This includes -4.1 FTE and -$534.0 in associated payroll. (-$1,218.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$5,000.0 / +6.0 FTE) This increase will support the Urban Waters program which is part of the Americas Great Outdoors program. EPA will provide grants and technical assistance to communities to accelerate measurable improvements in water quality. This assistance will support monitoring, studies, planning, training and related outreach activities while simultaneously promoting community revitalization and equitable community improvements. Social and economic benefits will be a result of reductions in pollution in urban waters and on adjacent lands. This includes +6.0 FTE and +$795.0 in associated payroll. (-$851.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
641
(+$443.0 / +1.0 FTE) This increase supports the Regaining Ground initiative: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas. It will allow EPA to review new and existing rules to ensure that electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements are incorporated as necessary to ensure compliance. This includes +1.0 FTE and +$143.0 in associated payroll. (-$2,195.0 / -0.4 FTE) This decrease represents reductions in EPA technical support to states for TMDLs, NPDES permits and Water Quality Standards. The impact of these reductions will be mitigated by the increases in direct funding to states through the 106 program. This includes -0.4 FTE and -$43.0 in associated payroll. (-14.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTE to better reflect utilization rates Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Various Sections 1251 to 1387
642
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Inspector General Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 645 Program Projects in IG ............................................................................................................ 645 Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations ........................................................ 646 Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations ................................................................................ 647
643
644
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Inspector General Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Inspector General Budget Authority Total Workyears $44,791.0 296.0 FY 2010 Actuals $49,164.4 283.3 FY 2011 Annualized CR $44,791.0 296.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget $45,997.0 300.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $1,206.0 4.0
Bill Language: Office of Inspector General For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $45,997,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013. Note. A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
Program Projects in IG (Dollars in Thousands)

Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations TOTAL, EPA
$44,791.0 $44,791.0 $44,791.0
$49,164.4 $49,164.4 $49,164.4
$44,791.0 $44,791.0 $44,791.0
$45,997.0 $45,997.0 $45,997.0
$1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0
645
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
646
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
$44,791.0 $0.0 $9,975.0 $54,766.0 361.8
FY 2010 Enacted Inspector General

Budget Authority Recovery Act Budget Authority Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $49,164.4

$42,238.8 $6,925.6 $9,337.9 $58,502.3 335.5
FY 2012 IG Request $49,591.0

$49,591.0 $0.0 $11,175.0 $60,766.0 373.8

$45,997.0 $0.0 $10,009.0 $56,006.0 365.8

$1,206.0 $0.0 $34.0 $1,240.0 4.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0 $0.0 $9,975.0 $54,766.0 361.8
Program/Project Description: EPAs Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor operations, and by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Agencys programs. OIG activities add value and enhance public trust by providing the Agency, the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help management resolve risks and challenges, achieve opportunities for savings, and implement actions for safeguarding EPA resources and accomplishing EPAs environmental goals. OIG activities also prevent and detect fraud in EPA programs and operations, including financial fraud, contract lab fraud, and cyber crime. In addition, the EPA Inspector General serves as the IG for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the OIG with $20 million in additional Budget Authority for oversight activities in FY 2009 available for obligation through FY 2012. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health risks by making recommendations to improve program operations, save taxpayer dollars, and identify and resolve major management challenges. In FY 2012, the OIG will continue focusing on areas associated with risk, fraud, waste, and cyber intrusions, and will make recommendations to improve operating efficiency leading to greater transparency, secured and trustworthy systems, and the cost effective attainment of EPAs strategic goals and positive environmental
647
impacts. The OIG plans to examine issues related to grants and contracts, computer infrastructure, homeland security, efficiencies, financial management, internal controls/risk assessment, enforcement, program management, measurement data verification, project management, effective resource management, EPA efforts to implement the Recovery Act, research, and follow-up on OIG recommendations. Audits Audits will be focused in six areas: (1) assistance agreements and contracts; (2) financial statement audits and other audits of Agency financial management; (3) risk assessment, internal controls, and program performance; (4) forensic audits of EPA grantees and contractors; (5) efficiencies in Agency operations; and (6) security of EPA network infrastructure and EPA capability to respond to network-based attacks. Planned work will focus on: collections of amounts due EPA; justification for, and oversight of, subcontracts; prevention of cost overruns and project delays; Agency oversight of Recovery Act funds; price/cost reasonableness and maximization of fixed price competitive contract awards; Agency oversight of interagency agreements; Agency efforts to identify and prevent improper payments; grantee and contractor compliance with grant and contract terms and conditions; identification of efficiencies in the Agencys infrastructure and business processes; workforce planning and utilization; implementation of centralized identification and authentication services for network access; the Agencys Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR); the Agencys new Financial Management System and Facility Access Systems; the Agencys Quality Management Program; the Agencys risk assessment process; use of program performance measurement to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Boards investigative activities. A significant portion of audit resources will be devoted to mandated work assessing the financial statements of EPA and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. OIG work also will include assessing the information security practices of EPA and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as required by the Federal Information Security Management Act and oversight of audits of EPA assistance agreement recipients conducted pursuant to the Single Audit Act. Evaluations Evaluations are conducted through five product lines: (1) air and research; (2) land; (3) water and enforcement; (4) cross-media; and (5) special reviews. Specific areas of evaluation will include:
648
integration of sustainability criteria in all Agency programs and activities; various Agency Recovery Act activities and projects; use of interagency and assistance agreements to augment the Agencys research mission; Agency oversight of State and Regional penalty assessments; Agency oversight of investigations and reviews that document environmental conditions at Brownfield sites; the effectiveness of quality assurance in the Brownfields program; the Agencys Environmental Results Program; the Agencys oversight of the Clean Air Act Settlement Agreements; how the Agency responds to emerging trends; potential approaches for leveraging, controlling, and allocating Agency program resources to reduce duplication; the Agencys organizational methods and policies; the Agencys program data and performance results; the process EPA used to develop its greenhouse gas endangerment finding; progress in implementing the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program for assessing health risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; the budgeting, use, and management of research funds; and EPAs oversight of Recovery Act diesel emissions reductions. Investigations The majority of investigative work is reactive in nature and some allegations of fraud, waste or mismanagement are received through the OIG Hotline Program. The OIG will prioritize its work by evaluating allegations to determine which investigations may have the greatest impact on Agency funds, network infrastructure, the integrity of EPA programs and operations, and produce the greatest deterrent effect. Investigations assist EPA in meeting its strategic goals by helping to protect the Agencys scarce resources from fraudulent or criminal activities, so that they can be used to protect the environment and human health. The OIG will conduct investigations and seek prosecution of criminal activity and serious misconduct in EPA programs and operations that undermine Agency integrity, the public trust, and create imminent environmental risks as well as seek civil judgments to obtain recovery and restitution of financial losses. Investigations will focus on: (1) fraudulent financial activities in the award, performance, and payment of funds under EPA contracts, grants, and other assistance agreements to individuals, companies, and organizations; (2) intrusions into and attacks against EPAs network, as well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property or sensitive data; (3) infrastructure/terrorist threat; (4) criminal activity or serious misconduct affecting EPA program integrity or involving EPA personnel which could undermine or erode the public trust; (5) laboratory fraud relating to payments made by EPA for compromised environmental testing data and results that could undermine the bases for EPA decision-making, regulatory compliance, and enforcement actions; and (6) release of, unauthorized access to, or use of sensitive or proprietary information.
649
Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics, techniques, and procedures that are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain EPAs information for their own geopolitical, geoeconomic, or geo-environmental motives. The OIG will directly assist EPA senior leadership as well as federal cyber criminal, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism communities through collaboration with OIG counterparts in other federal agencies. Analyzing the intruded systems along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if systems are under attack and whether key information has been exfiltrated. It will enable the OIG to understand and anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to EPA and other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies. On November 13, 2009, EPAs Computer Security Incident Response Capability Center (CSIRC) provided email to the OIG identifying 14 compromised computer systems that are associated with an ongoing OIG investigation. On December 20, 2009, the OIG was provided a spreadsheet, associated with the same investigation, which identified 628 unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (USCERT) reported suspicious domains. On January 12, 2010, the Agency reported 1,589 unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with suspicious external computer domains. By June 2010, the Agency reported that more than 6,000 unique computers were attempting to communicate with USCERT reported suspicious domains. These systems extend to every EPA Regional office and Headquarters component and account for roughly 24 percent of the Agencys entire computer network, as reported based on methodologies determined by (CSIRC). Until the OIG has confirmed information to the contrary, the entire reported potential compromise event must be considered as a crime scene, subject to the adherence of rules for properly processing and preserving the scene for evidence of a crime. EPA reported that it was not able to identify the owners of approximately 10 percent of the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that were identified as being potentially compromised from within its own domain IP space. EPA also reported information related to internet traffic representing a significant amount of data being exfiltrated from the Agency originating from these potentially compromised systems. The EPA is faced with its limitations to effectively respond to these external network threats as reported by the OIG in the Fiscal Year 2010 Management Challenges report. Additional resources in FY 2012 will strengthen the OIGs ability to investigate cyber attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy. Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations to determine if appropriate actions have been taken and intended improvements have been achieved. This process will serve as a means for keeping EPA leadership apprised of accomplishments, opportunities for needed corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from OIG operations. OIG also conducts reviews and analysis of proposed and existing policies, rules, regulations and legislation to identify vulnerability to waste, fraud and abuse. These reviews also consider possible duplication, gaps or conflicts with existing authority, leading to recommendations for improvements in their structure, content and application.
650

(35B) Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
903
FY 2012 Units Target
Output
903
945
993
Recommendations
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
FY 2010 Target
75
FY 2010 Actual
115
FY 2011 CR Target
80
FY 2012 Target
85
Units
Actions
Measure Type
Measure
(35A) Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
334
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
334
391
375
Actions
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a Efficiency percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations.
120
30
120
110
Percent
651
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$421.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$1,000.0/+4.0 FTE) This increase in resources will support specialized OIG cyber investigation and homeland security staff and equipment to assist in the essential protection of EPA infrastructure and intellectual property, national infrastructure, and to provide data inputs to the counterintelligence/counterterrorism/counter cyber terrorism intelligence community and Agency senior leadership. The additional resources include $680.0 associated payroll for 4.0 FTE. (-$103.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$14.0) This change reflects a realignment of the Agencys IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$94.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agency wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$4.0) This reflects a realignment of OIG contract resources between the IG and Superfund appropriations. Statutory Authority: Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; Reports Consolidation Act; Single Audit Act; CFO Act; GMRA; PRIA; RCRA; FFMIA; FISMA; FQPA; TSCA. Inspector General Reform Act: The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General Reform Act: the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is $60,766,000 ($49,591,000 Inspector General; $11,175,000 Superfund Transfer); the aggregate request in the Presidents Budget for the operations of the OIG is $56,006 ($45,997,000 Inspector General; $10,009,000 Superfund Transfer); the portion of the aggregate request in the Presents Budget needed for training is $900,000;
652
I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2012. The OIGs requested budget for FY 2012 represents a $6,000,000 increase over the OIGs portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $60,766,000). The additional funding is necessary for the following reasons: Congress and the President have expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of the Federal IT infrastructure to timely address known and potential cyber security threats requiring highly specialized detection, prevention and enforcement skills and tools. Additional resources in FY 2012 are needed to strengthen the OIGs ability to investigate cyber attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy. The current OIG cyber security investigative teams limited resources and specialty skills are impeding the OIGs ability to effectively investigate cyber attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy to assist the Agency in securing their networks from attack and address the current and increasing risks. The investment in cyber investigation and Homeland security will result in essential identification, investigation, mitigation, and deterrence of risks and acts of harm, disruption, theft or terror against EPAs resources, intellectual property, and network infrastructure that could compromise public safety and personal property. Analyzing intruded systems along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if systems are under attack, what key information has been exfiltrated, understand and anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to EPA as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies. The Inspector General has submitted comments setting forth the Inspector Generals conclusion that this Budgets request for the Office of Inspector would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office under Section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. A copy of the Inspector Generals official statement to the Director of OMB is included in the Appendix section of the congressional justification.
653
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 656 Program Projects in B&F ........................................................................................................ 656 Program Area: Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 657 Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure ................................. 658 Program Area: Operations and Administration .................................................................... 660 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 661
654
655
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Building and Facilities Budget Authority Total Workyears $37,001.0 0.0 FY 2010 Actuals $39,548.8 0.0 FY 2011 Annualized CR $37,001.0 0.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget $41,969.0 0.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $4,968.0 0.0
Bill Language: Buildings and Facilities For construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,$41,969,000, to remain available until expended. Note. A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. Program Projects in B&F (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Homeland Security Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations TOTAL, EPA
$8,070.0
$9,652.1
$8,070.0
$8,038.0
($32.0)
$28,931.0 $28,931.0 $37,001.0
$29,896.7 $29,896.7 $39,548.8
$28,931.0 $28,931.0 $37,001.0
$33,931.0 $33,931.0 $41,969.0
$5,000.0 $5,000.0 $4,968.0
656
657
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology $6,369.0 $593.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$6,300.3 $593.0
$6,369.0 $593.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$5,978.0 $579.0

($391.0) ($14.0)
Building and Facilities

$8,070.0
$1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0
$9,652.1
$1,194.0 $17,739.4 3.3
$8,070.0
$1,194.0 $16,226.0 3.0
$8,038.0
$1,172.0 $15,767.0 3.0
($32.0)
($22.0) ($459.0) 0.0
Program Project Description: This program ensures that EPAs physical structures and assets are secure and that certain physical security measures are in place in the event of an emergency to help safeguard staff and protect the capability of EPAs vital infrastructure assets. This program also includes protecting national security information through construction and build-out of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), protecting the personnel security clearance process, and protecting any classified information. The work under the Building and Facilities appropriation supports larger physical security improvements to leased and owned space. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to mitigate vulnerabilities, in accordance with the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities guidelines, at its 175 facilities nationwide. Additionally, the Agency will ensure that new construction, new leases, and major modernization projects meet federal physical security requirements, expand or realign existing laboratories for homeland security support activities, and protect critical infrastructures. The Agency also will continue to implement the Smart Card program through upgrading or replacing physical access control systems and the ancillary infrastructure.
658
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$32.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629). Currently, there are no
659
660
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology $315,238.0 $72,918.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$310,238.8 $72,841.7
$315,238.0 $72,918.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$324,965.0 $76,521.0

$9,727.0 $3,603.0
Building and Facilities

$28,931.0
$904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$29,896.7
$871.9 $489.4 $76,052.0 $490,390.5 410.6
$28,931.0
$904.0 $505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$33,931.0
$916.0 $536.0 $81,431.0 $518,300.0 408.5
$5,000.0
$12.0 $31.0 $2,949.0 $21,322.0 -2.6
Program Project Description: Buildings and Facilities (B&F) appropriation activities include design, construction, repair, and improvement projects for buildings occupied by EPA, whether Federally owned or leased. Construction and alteration projects costing more than $85 thousand must use B&F funding. Deferring maintenance often increases the eventual cost of maintenance projects and may worsen other repair issues. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, B&F resources will be used for facility-related construction and repair and improvement (R&I) of EPAs real estate inventory. EPAs inventory includes WWII era buildings, such as research facilities (most being 30 or more years old) that have been modified to meet evolving research requirements and other programmatic needs, and which continue to deteriorate with time. Good stewardship practices ensure that physical conditions, functionality, and research capabilities are not compromised. In addition, resources will be used to comply with various requirements and Agency goals set out in Executive Orders (EO) 13514 and 134231, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy
1
Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13423/, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.
661
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), new alternative fuel regulatory requirements, and regulatory mandates associated with soil and water pesticides testing. The Agency will apply funds to meet Federal facility environmental objectives related to energy efficiency (annual energy use reductions of three percent per year through FY 2015), water conservation (annual water use reductions of two percent per year through FY 2020), advanced metering, storm water management, upgrading 15 percent of EPAs existing real estate portfolio to meet the standards of high performance sustainable green building standards by FY 2015, and reducing fossil fuel use in new buildings. Agency Building and Facility projects for FY 2012 include: National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab (NVFEL) Modernization in Ann Arbor, MI. This project enables EPA to meet the demands of new science testing and research methods. EISA legislation requires the Agency to begin testing 4Wheel Drive vehicles by 2011 and heavy duty vehicles soon thereafter. Only by making significant modifications to the NVFEL Lab will the Air and Radiation program be able to meet these new testing requirements while still maintaining their other mandated testing programs. Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC) Infrastructure Replacement Project Phase 5, the final phase of the mechanical system replacement. This project will provide all new fume hoods and mechanical fans and ductwork which will serve the AWBERC facility for the next 30 years. It also will renovate outdated casework and laboratory systems to meet current research functions of the Agency. Build-out of the Region 9 new office lease. The Agency has set aside funds for missionrelated improvements of the new Regional office in San Francisco such as conferencing facilities, emergency operations center, teleworking center, public information center and library, as well as the use of commissioning and other energy and water reduction strategies which are not included in GSAs standard office build-out allowance, but which are necessary for Region 9 to carry out its environmental mission. Renovations at Research Triangle Park (RTP), NC, Main Laboratory. This project will reallocate lab and office space to allow researchers in the Reproductive Toxicology Division to move out of a leased facility and into labs adjacent to their fellow researchers. This move will save the Agency over $2 million annually in rent and utility costs and will pay back in ten years. Retrofitting the air handling system and infrastructure in a wing of the Environmental Effects Research Lab in Narragansett, RI. The current air handling system is at the end of its useful life and will potentially impact science research and the health and safety of staff. The required additional funds will permit continuity in quality research by the Program and Regional Offices so as to comply with regulatory and enforcement missions. This project also will reduce energy usage to help the Agency meet its target of 3% energy reduction per year pursuant to EO 13514.
662
Design and construction of ground source heat pumps at the Environmental Effects Research Lab in Narragansett, RI. These projects will reduce energy and utility costs as well as allow the Agency to meet the goals described in the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, the Agencys plan to implement the requirements of EO 13514. Replacement of fume hoods and air handlers at the Air and Radiation lab in Montgomery, AL. This project will significantly reduce energy usage. Improving operating efficiency and sustaining safe work environments at facilities in Corvallis, OR, Narragansett, RI, and RTP, NC. These projects will lower energy usage and the emission of greenhouse gases. The funding requested is essential to the Agencys ability to comply with the relevant Executive Orders, EISA, and the Energy Policy Act. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program under the EPM appropriation and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$5,000.0) This investment provides resources for three Agency objectives as described in the narrative. First, it helps the Agency to meet its infrastructure demands associated with aging lab facilities and the increasing operations and maintenance needs of EPAowned facilities. Second, these resources will allow the Agency to begin and continue work on critical projects designed to assist the Agency in meeting its energy reduction and conservation targets developed in response to EO 13514. Finally, these resources will position the Agency to conduct highest priority new science testing and environmental methods that require remodeling or construction of EPA facilities, such as investing in the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab Modernization initiative to accommodate new or revised compliance and research functions. Of the $5 million increase to the B&F appropriation, $3.5 million will be utilized for modifications to the Ann Arbor, MI lab facility. The remaining $1.5 million will address infrastructure demands associated with aging facilities and energy conservation activities. Statutory Authority: Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA; TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive Orders 10577, 12598, 13150, 13423, and 13514; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
663
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Superfund Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 666 Program Projects in Superfund............................................................................................... 666 Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation.............................................................................. 670 Radiation: Protection ........................................................................................................... 671 Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations ....................................................... 673 Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations ................................................................................ 674 Program Area: Compliance ..................................................................................................... 679 Compliance Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 680 Program Area: Enforcement ................................................................................................... 682 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 683 Superfund: Enforcement ...................................................................................................... 685 Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement .......................................................................... 690 Criminal Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 692 Enforcement Training ........................................................................................................... 695 Forensics Support.................................................................................................................. 696 Program Area: Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 698 Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection ........................................................ 699 Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery .............................................. 700 Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure ................................. 704 Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach................................................................ 706 Exchange Network ................................................................................................................ 707 Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security ................................................................. 710 Information Security ............................................................................................................. 711 IT / Data Management .......................................................................................................... 714 Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review ........................................ 720 Alternative Dispute Resolution ............................................................................................. 721 Legal Advice: Environmental Program ................................................................................ 723 Program Area: Operations and Administration .................................................................... 725 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 726 Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management .................................................................. 730
664
Acquisition Management ...................................................................................................... 732 Human Resources Management ........................................................................................... 735 Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance ........................................................................... 738 Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities ............................................................ 741 Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities ................................................................ 742 Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability ........................................... 747 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 748 Program Area: Superfund Cleanup ........................................................................................ 751 Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal .................................................................. 752 Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness .......................................................................... 757 Superfund: Federal Facilities ............................................................................................... 760 Superfund: Remedial ........................................................................................................... 766 Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies ................................................................... 776 Program Area: Research Land Protection ............................................................................. 779 Research: Land Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 780 Program Area: Research Sustainable Communities ............................................................. 783 Research: Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 784
665
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Hazardous Substance Superfund Budget Authority Total Workyears FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
$1,306,541.0 3,193.3
$1,414,791.3 3,070.2
$1,306,541.0 3,193.3
$1,236,231.0 3,071.9
($70,310.0) -121.4
Bill Language: Hazardous Substance Superfund (including transfers of funds) For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611) $1,236,231,000, to remain available until expended, consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund on September 30, 2011, as authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to $1,236,231,000 as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $10,009,000 shall be paid to the Office of Inspector General appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2013, and $23,016,000 shall be paid to the Science and Technology appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2013. Note. A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. Program Projects in Superfund (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Indoor Air and Radiation Radiation: Protection Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$2,495.0
$2,586.2
$2,495.0
$2,487.0
($8.0)
$9,975.0
$9,337.9
$9,975.0
$10,009.0
$34.0
666
Program Project
Compliance Compliance Incentives Compliance Monitoring Subtotal, Compliance
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$0.0 $1,216.0 $1,216.0
$14.4 $1,181.8 $1,196.2
$0.0 $1,216.0 $1,216.0
$0.0 $1,222.0 $1,222.0
$0.0 $6.0 $6.0
Enforcement Environmental Justice Superfund: Enforcement Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement Criminal Enforcement Enforcement Training Forensics Support Subtotal, Enforcement $795.0 $172,668.0 $10,570.0 $8,066.0 $899.0 $2,450.0 $195,448.0 $891.0 $174,821.5 $9,196.2 $8,417.3 $756.5 $2,727.0 $196,809.5 $795.0 $172,668.0 $10,570.0 $8,066.0 $899.0 $2,450.0 $195,448.0 $600.0 $169,844.0 $10,530.0 $8,252.0 $0.0 $2,389.0 $191,615.0 ($195.0) ($2,824.0) ($40.0) $186.0 ($899.0) ($61.0) ($3,833.0)
Homeland Security Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Decontamination Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Laboratory Preparedness and Response Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Subtotal, Homeland Security $10,798.0 $9,626.0 $6,087.1 $5,111.1 $10,798.0 $9,626.0 $5,908.0 $5,635.0 ($4,890.0) ($3,991.0) $198.0 $89.6 $198.0 $0.0 ($198.0)
$1,562.0
$1,179.9
$1,562.0
$0.0
($1,562.0)
$1,760.0
$1,269.5
$1,760.0
$0.0
($1,760.0)
$33,156.0
$40,360.7
$33,156.0
$29,119.0
($4,037.0)
$53,580.0 $1,194.0 $56,534.0
$51,558.9 $1,194.0 $54,022.4
$53,580.0 $1,194.0 $56,534.0
$40,662.0 $1,172.0 $41,834.0
($12,918.0) ($22.0) ($14,700.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach Exchange Network $1,433.0 $1,438.6 $1,433.0 $1,433.0 $0.0
667
Program Project
IT / Data Management / Security Information Security IT / Data Management Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$785.0 $17,087.0 $17,872.0
$524.3 $16,498.3 $17,022.6
$785.0 $17,087.0 $17,872.0
$728.0 $15,352.0 $16,080.0
($57.0) ($1,735.0) ($1,792.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Alternative Dispute Resolution Legal Advice: Environmental Program Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review $893.0 $746.0 $1,639.0 $863.5 $658.7 $1,522.2 $893.0 $746.0 $1,639.0 $927.0 $750.0 $1,677.0 $34.0 $4.0 $38.0
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Acquisition Management Human Resources Management Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Subtotal, Operations and Administration $44,300.0 $3,397.0 $8,299.0 $22,486.0 $78,482.0 $2,945.0 $24,684.0 $5,580.0 $27,490.0 $139,181.0 $44,239.0 $2,630.9 $7,633.1 $21,549.0 $76,052.0 $3,240.9 $23,820.8 $4,332.7 $28,192.2 $135,638.6 $44,300.0 $3,397.0 $8,299.0 $22,486.0 $78,482.0 $2,945.0 $24,684.0 $5,580.0 $27,490.0 $139,181.0 $47,112.0 $3,765.0 $8,282.0 $22,272.0 $81,431.0 $3,243.0 $24,097.0 $7,046.0 $22,252.0 $138,069.0 $2,812.0 $368.0 ($17.0) ($214.0) $2,949.0 $298.0 ($587.0) $1,466.0 ($5,238.0) ($1,112.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Human Health Risk Assessment Superfund Cleanup Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal $202,330.0 $225,840.0 $202,330.0 $194,895.0 ($7,435.0) $3,404.0 $3,169.1 $3,404.0 $3,342.0 ($62.0) $21,264.0 $22,525.3 $21,264.0 $17,706.0 ($3,558.0)
668
Program Project
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness Superfund: Federal Facilities Superfund: Remedial Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies Subtotal, Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup TOTAL, EPA
FY 2010 Enacted
$9,632.0 $32,105.0 $605,438.0 $6,575.0 $6,575.0 $856,080.0 $1,306,541.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$9,667.5 $33,605.0 $693,835.2 $6,575.0 $6,575.0 $969,522.7 $1,414,791.3
$9,632.0 $32,105.0 $605,438.0 $6,575.0 $6,575.0 $856,080.0 $1,306,541.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$9,263.0 $26,242.0 $574,499.0 $5,858.0 $5,858.0 $810,757.0 $1,236,231.0

($369.0) ($5,863.0) ($30,939.0) ($717.0) ($717.0) ($45,323.0) ($70,310.0)
669
670
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$11,433.3 $1,962.1
$11,295.0 $2,095.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$9,629.0 $2,096.0

($1,666.0) $1.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund

$2,495.0
$15,885.0 88.6
$2,586.2
$15,981.6 84.2
$2,495.0
$15,885.0 88.6
$2,487.0
$14,212.0 76.1
($8.0)
($1,673.0) -12.5
Program Project Description: This program addresses potential radiation risks found at some Superfund and hazardous waste sites. Through this program, EPA ensures that Superfund site clean-up activities reduce and/or mitigate the health and environmental risk of radiation to safe levels. In addition, the program makes certain that appropriate clean-up technologies and methods are adopted to effectively and efficiently reduce the health and environmental hazards associated with radiation problems encountered at these sites, some of which are located near at-risk communities. Finally, the program ensures that appropriate technical assistance is provided on remediation approaches for National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPAs National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, and Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada, will continue to provide analytical support to manage and mitigate radioactive releases and exposures. These nationally recognized laboratories routinely provide analytical and technical support for the characterization and cleanup of Superfund and Federal Facility sites. Laboratory support focuses on providing high quality data to support Agency decisions at sites across the country. Both of these laboratories also provide specialized technical support on-site, including field measurements using unique tools and capabilities. In addition, both laboratories provide data evaluation and assessment, document review, and field support through ongoing fixed and mobile capability. Thousands of radiochemical and mixed waste analyses are performed annually at NAREL on a variety of samples from contaminated sites. NAREL is EPA's only laboratory with this in-house mixed waste analytical capability. R&IE also provides field-based analytical capability for screening and identifying radiological contaminants at NPL and non-NPL sites across the country, including mobile scanning, in-situ analysis, and air sampling equipment and expert personnel.
671
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Radiation: Protection program found under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$10.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986.
672
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
673
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
$44,791.0 $44,791.0 $0.0
FY 2010 Enacted
Inspector General Budget Authority Recovery Act Budget Authority $44,791.0 $44,791.0 $0.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$49,164.4 $42,238.8 $6,925.6
FY 2012 IG Request
$49,591.0 $49,591.0 $0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$45,997.0 $45,997.0 $0.0

$1,206.0 $1,206.0 $0.0

$9,975.0
$54,766.0 361.8
$9,337.9
$58,502.3 335.5
$9,975.0
$54,766.0 361.8
$11,175.0
$60,766.0 373.8
$10,009.0
$56,006.0 365.8
$34.0
$1,240.0 4.0
Program/Project Description: EPAs Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor operations, and by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Agencys Superfund program. OIG activities add value, promote transparency and enhance public trust by providing the Agency, the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help management resolve risks and challenges, achieve opportunities for savings, and implement actions for safeguarding EPA resources and accomplishing EPAs environmental goals. OIG activities also prevent and detect fraud in EPA programs and operations, including financial fraud and contract lab fraud. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health risks and save taxpayer dollars by making recommendations to improve Superfund program operations and identify and resolve major management challenges. In FY 2012, the OIG will focus on long term safety at Superfund sites, environmental data used to support actions and reported results, Superfund claims, amounts reported in financial statements, and areas associated with risk, fraud, waste, and cyber intrusions which can erode the public trust placed in EPA. The OIG will further identify high risk areas and make recommendations to mitigate those risks and improve operating efficiency and the security and trustworthiness of the data within EPA networks leading to positive environmental impacts and the cost effective attainment of
674
EPAs goals related to the Superfund program. Major themes of OIG assignments will include: assessing the adequacy of internal controls in EPA and its grantees and contractors to protect resources; project management to ensure that EPA and its grantees and contractors have clear plans and accountability for performance progress; enforcement to evaluate whether there is consistent, adequate and appropriate application of the laws and regulations across jurisdictions with coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement activities; and grants and contracts to verify that grants are made based upon uniform risk assessment and capacity to account and perform, and that contractors perform with integrity and value. Audits and Evaluations OIG audits and evaluations related to the Superfund program will identify program and management risks and determine if EPA is efficiently and effectively reducing human health risks; taking effective enforcement actions; cleaning up hazardous waste; restoring previously polluted sites to appropriate uses; and ensuring long-term stewardship of polluted sites. The OIG will evaluate how effectively EPA and other federal agencies have addressed and resolved human health and environmental risks at facilities on the National Priorities List and other sites that are supported by Superfund resources. Prior audits and evaluations of the Superfund program have identified numerous barriers to implementing effective resource management and program improvements. Therefore, the OIG will review: the reliability and validity of environmental data EPA receives from third parties; Agency actions to ensure long-term safety and appropriate reuse of Superfund sites; whether required five-year reviews have been completed for Federal Facility Superfund sites; the use of remote sensing data to assess environmental contamination at delisted Superfund sites; the oversight of states stewardship of land use restrictions and institutional controls; actions for preventing cost overruns and project delays, including the use of fixed-price contracts; costs claimed by contractors for compliance with contract terms and conditions; Agency efforts to monitor and reward contractor performance; and the accuracy of Superfund claims. The OIG also will evaluate ways to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse, and maximize results achieved from its Superfund contracts and assistance agreements.
675
Investigations OIG investigations focus on identifying criminal activity pertaining to the Superfund program. The OIG will conduct investigations into allegations, and seek prosecution of: 1) fraudulent practices in awarding, performing, and payment on EPA Superfund contracts, grants, or other assistance agreements; 2) program fraud or other acts that undermine the integrity of, or confidence in, the Superfund program and create imminent environmental risks; 3) contract laboratory fraud relating to Superfund data, and false claims for erroneous laboratory results that undermine the bases for Superfund decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement actions; and 4) intrusions into and attacks against EPAs network supporting Superfund data, as well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property or sensitive/proprietary Superfund data. OIG investigations will also pursue civil actions for recovery and restitution of financial losses, and administrative actions to prevent unscrupulous persons and businesses from participating in EPA programs. Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics, techniques, and procedures that are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain EPAs information for their own geopolitical, geoeconomic, or geo-environmental motives. The OIG will directly assist EPA senior leadership as well as federal cyber criminal, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism communities through collaboration with OIG counterparts in other federal agencies. Analyzing the intruded systems along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if systems are under attack and whether key information has been exfiltrated. It will enable the OIG to understand and anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to EPA and other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies. On November 13, 2009, EPAs Computer Security Incident Response Capability Center (CSIRC) provided email to the OIG identifying 14 compromised computer systems that are associated with an ongoing OIG investigation. On December 20, 2009, the OIG was provided a spreadsheet, associated with the same investigation, which identified 628 unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (USCERT) reported suspicious domains. On January 12, 2010, the Agency reported 1,589 unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with suspicious external computer domains. By June 2010, the Agency reported that more than 6,000 unique computers were attempting to communicate with USCERT reported suspicious domains. These systems extend to every EPA Regional office and Headquarters component and account for roughly 24 percent of the Agencys entire computer network, as reported based on methodologies determined by (CSIRC). Until the OIG has confirmed information to the contrary, entire reported potential compromise event must be considered as a crime scene, subject to the adherence of rules for properly processing and preserving the scene for evidence of a crime. EPA reported that it was not able to identify the owners of approximately 10 percent of the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that were identified as being potentially compromised from within its own domain IP space. EPA also reported information related to internet traffic representing a significant amount of data being exfiltrated from the Agency originating from these potentially compromised systems. The EPA is faced with its limitations to effectively respond to these external network threats as reported by the OIG in the Fiscal Year 2010 Management Challenges report.
676
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations for the Superfund program to determine if appropriate actions have been taken and intended improvements have been achieved. This process will keep EPA leadership informed of accomplishments, apprised of needed corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from OIG operations. Oversight over the Agency audit management process ensures that action on all opportunities for and improvements identified through OIG reports are appropriately taken. Additionally, as directed by the IG Act, the OIG will review and analyze proposed and existing policies, rules, regulations and legislation to identify vulnerability to waste, fraud and abuse. These reviews also consider possible duplication, gaps or conflicts with existing authority, leading to recommendations for improvements in their structure, content and application. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance measures in the Audits, Evaluation, and Investigations program project under the OIG appropriation. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array. FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$30.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$4.0) This change reflects a realignment of OIG contract resources between the IG and Superfund appropriations. Statutory Authority: Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; SARA; CERCLA. Inspector General Reform Act: The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General Reform Act: the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is $60,766,000 ($49,591,000 Inspector General; $11,175,000 Superfund Transfer); the aggregate request in the Presidents Budget for the operations of the OIG is $56,006 ($45,997,000 Inspector General; $10,009,000 Superfund Transfer); the portion of the aggregate request in the Presents Budget needed for training is $900,000;
677
I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2012. The OIGs requested budget for FY 2012 represents a $6,000,000 increase over the OIGs portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $60,766,000). The additional funding is necessary for the following reasons: Congress and the President have expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of the Federal IT infrastructure to timely address known and potential cyber security threats requiring highly specialized detection, prevention and enforcement skills and tools. Additional resources in FY 2012 are needed to strengthen the OIGs ability to investigate cyber attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy. The current OIG cyber security investigative teams limited resources and specialty skills are impeding the OIGs ability to effectively investigate cyber attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy to assist the Agency in securing their networks from attack and address the current and increasing risks. The investment in cyber investigation and Homeland security will result in essential identification, investigation, mitigation, and deterrence of risks and acts of harm, disruption, theft or terror against EPAs resources, intellectual property, and network infrastructure that could compromise public safety and personal property. Analyzing intruded systems along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if systems are under attack, what key information has been exfiltrated, understand and anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to EPA as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies. The Inspector General has submitted comments setting forth the Inspector Generals conclusion that this Budgets request for the Office of Inspector General would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office under Section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. A copy of the Inspector Generals official statement to the Director of OMB is included in the Appendix section of the congressional justification.
678
679
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Inland Oil Spill Programs $99,400.0 $0.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$97,937.7 $0.0
$99,400.0 $0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$119,648.0 $138.0

$20,248.0 $138.0

$1,216.0
$100,616.0 612.3
$1,181.8
$99,119.5 593.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0 612.3
$1,222.0
$121,008.0 617.6
$6.0
$20,392.0 5.3
Program Project Description: The Compliance Monitoring program reviews and evaluates the activities of the regulated community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions, and settlement agreements by conducting compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, record reviews, information requests, and by responding to tips and complaints from the public. The program conducts these activities to determine whether conditions that exist may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and to verify whether regulated sites are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The Superfund portion of the Compliance Monitoring program focuses on providing information and system support for monitoring compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and contaminated site clean-up agreements. The program also will ensure the security and integrity of its compliance information systems. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Superfund-related compliance monitoring activities are mainly reported and tracked through the Agencys Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). In FY 2012, the Compliance Monitoring program will include support and ongoing enhancements to ICIS for continued support of the federal Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program. EPA will continue to ensure the security and integrity of these systems, and will use ICIS data to support Superfundrelated regulatory enforcement program activities. In FY 2012, the Superfund portion of this program for ICIS-related work is $190 thousand. EPA also will continue to make Superfund-related compliance monitoring information available to the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) website1. This
1
For more information, refer to: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/
680
site provides communities with information on compliance status. EPA will continue to develop additional tools and data for public use. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Compliance Monitoring Program Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$24.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$4.0) This decrease will reduce system support for monitoring Superfund compliance. (-$14.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: CERCLA as amended; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
681
682
Environmental Justice Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$9,567.4
$7,090.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$7,397.0

$307.0

$795.0
$7,885.0 32.9
$891.0
$10,458.4 32.6
$795.0
$7,885.0 32.9
$600.0
$7,997.0 32.2
($195.0)
$112.0 -0.7
Program Project Description: EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. The EPAs Environmental Justice (EJ) program facilitates EPAs efforts to engage communities in key decision-making processes and to integrate environmental justice considerations in EPA programs, policies, and activities. The Superfund portion of the program focuses on issues that affect communities at or near Superfund sites. The EJ program complements and enhances community outreach, like the Community Engagement Initiative and other work done under the Superfund program at affected sites. The Agency also supports state and tribal environmental justice programs and conducts outreach and technical assistance to states, local governments and stakeholders on environmental justice issues.2 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to enhance the integration of environmental justice principles into Agency decision-making process and collaborative problem-solving initiatives in the Superfund program. The program conducts and supports outreach to open its doors to communities of color, Native Americans, the poor, and other historically underrepresented groups. It also promotes active engagement of community groups, other federal agencies, states, local governments and tribal governments to recognize, support, and advance environmental protection and public health for disproportionately impacted minority and low income communities. The program will guide EPAs efforts to empower communities to protect themselves from environmental harms and to build healthy and sustainable neighborhoods that enable disadvantaged groups to participate in the new green economy through financial and technical assistance. The program will partner with other Agency programs to create scientific analytical methods, a legal foundation, and public engagement practices that enable the incorporation of environmental justice considerations in EPAs regulatory and policy decisions.
2
For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html
683
Finally, the EJ program will support Agency efforts to strengthen internal mechanisms to integrate environmental justice including communications, training, performance management, and accountability measures. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives that benefit disproportionately impacted minority, low-income, and tribal populations. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$14.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$206.0) This change reflects a redirection from Superfund to EPM dollars (no net gain in program budget). (-$3.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
684
Superfund: Enforcement Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY 2010 Actuals $174,821.5

$174,821.5 914.1

$172,668.0 949.9

$169,844.0 919.9

($2,824.0) -30.0
$172,668.0
$172,668.0 949.9
Program Project Description: EPAs Superfund Enforcement program protects communities by ensuring that responsible parties conduct cleanups, preserving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. The Superfund Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an enforcement first approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying for cleanups. In both the remedial and removal programs, the Superfund Enforcement program initiates civil, judicial, and administrative site remediation cases, and provides legal and technical enforcement support on Superfund enforcement actions and emerging issues. The Superfund Enforcement program also develops waste cleanup enforcement policies and provides guidance and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liability, with specific attention to the reuse and revitalization of contaminated properties. Ensuring that responsible parties clean up sites reduces direct human exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants, provides for long-term human health protections and ultimately makes contaminated properties available for reuse. EPA negotiates cleanup agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at hazardous waste sites and, where negotiations fail, either takes enforcement actions to require cleanup or expends Superfund appropriated dollars to remediate the sites. In some cases, EPA takes both actions. When EPA uses appropriated dollars, the Superfund Enforcement program takes action against any viable PRPs to recover the cleanup costs. The Department of Justice (DOJ) supports EPAs Superfund Enforcement program through negotiations and judicial actions to compel PRP cleanup and to recover appropriated monies spent on cleanup. In tandem with this approach, EPA has implemented various reforms to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, promote economic development, and make sites available for appropriate reuse. EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial assurance requirements are in place at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of Superfund cleanup remedies. The Agency promotes the polluter pays principle, cleaning up more sites and preserving appropriated dollars for sites without viable PRPs. Since the programs inception, EPA has achieved more than eight dollars in private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery for
685
every dollar spent by EPA on Superfund civil enforcement costs. The cumulative value of private party commitments is almost $33 billion ($27.1 billion for cleanup work and $5.6 billion in cost recovery). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Throughout FY 2012, the Superfund Enforcement program will ensure PRP participation in cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement process and will continue to recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends appropriated funds. The Agency will maximize PRP participation by reaching a settlement or taking an enforcement action by the time a remedial action starts for at least 99 percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties. The Agency also will continue to ensure trust fund stewardship through cost recovery efforts that include addressing, prior to the end of the statute of limitations period, 100 percent of past costs at sites where total past costs are equal to or greater than $200 thousand. The Agency also will continue efforts to recover past costs at sites where total costs are below $200 thousand in the most cost-efficient manner possible. In addition the Agency will obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective actions enforcement actions by 2015. In FY 2012, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and removal agreements at contaminated properties to address contamination impacting local communities. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover the associated cleanup costs from the PRPs. If future work remains at a site, recovered funds may be placed in a site-specific special account pursuant to the agreement. Special accounts are subaccounts within EPAs Superfund Trust Fund. EPA uses special account resources to finance site-specific CERCLA response actions at the site for which the account was established. The Agency will continue its efforts to establish and maximize the effectiveness of special accounts to facilitate cleanup by improving tracking and planning for special account funds. As of the end of FY 2010, 1,023 site-specific special accounts were established and nearly $3.7 billion were deposited into special accounts (including earned interest). The EPA has obligated approximately $1.85 billion from special accounts to finance site response actions and has developed multi-year plans to use the remaining funds as expeditiously as possible. A critical component of many response actions selected by EPA is institutional controls. These are established to ensure that property is used and maintained in an appropriate manner that protects the public health after construction of the physical remedy is complete. The Superfund Enforcement program will help oversee the implementation and enforcement of institutional controls as part of site remedies, focusing particularly on sites where construction of engineered remedies is complete. In FY 2012, the Agency will provide the DOJ with $24.9 million, through an Interagency Agreement, to provide support for EPAs Superfund Enforcement program through such actions as negotiating consent decrees with PRPs, preparing judicial actions to compel PRP cleanup and litigating to recover monies spent in cleaning up contaminated sites. EPAs Superfund Enforcement program is responsible for case development and preparation, referral to DOJ and post-filing actions, as well as for providing case and cost documentation support for the docket
686
of current cases with DOJ. The program also ensures that EPA meets cost recovery statute of limitation deadlines, resolves cases, issues bills for oversight and makes collections in a timely manner. By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle that polluters should either perform or pay for cleanups, which preserves appropriated resources to address contaminated sites where there are no viable, liable PRPs. The Agencys expenditures will be recouped through administrative actions and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 107 case referrals. The Agency also will continue to refer delinquent accounts receivable to DOJ for debt collection enforcement. During FY 2012, the Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will continue the financial management aspects of Superfund cost recovery and the collection of related debt to the federal government. These efforts include tracking and managing Superfund delinquent debt, maintaining the Superfund Cost Recovery Package Imaging and On-Line System (SCORPIOS), and using SCORPIOS to prepare cost documentation packages. OCFO will continue to refine and streamline the cost documentation process to gain further efficiencies; provide DOJ case support for Superfund sites; and calculate indirect cost and annual allocation rates to be applied to direct costs incurred by EPA for site cleanup. OCFO also will continue to maintain the accounting and billing of Superfund oversight costs attributable to responsible parties. These costs represent EPAs cost of overseeing Superfund site cleanup efforts by responsible parties as stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(078) Address all Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
100
100
100
100
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(285) Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 99 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government .
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
95
98
95
99
Percent
687
Measure Type
Measure
(417) Obtain commitments to clean up 300 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
300
Million Cubic Yards
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2,627.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-12.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$2,793.0/ -18.0 FTE) This reduction will decrease resources associated with PRP searches and settlement activity that 18.0 FTE could do. The reduced resources include $2,520.0 associated payroll for 18.0 FTE. (-$316.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$224.0) The reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$500.0) This decrease reflects a reduction to CERCLA litigation support provided through an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Justice. The reduction is commensurate with reduction in EPAs level of effort. Note that the total IA reduction for DOJ CERCLA litigation support is $700.0 because $200.0 also is reflected as part of the Accountable Government Initiative. (-$801.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. This reduction also includes $200.0 to the IA for DOJ CERCLA litigation support.
688
(-$596.0) This reflects a realignment of IT and telecommunications resources. (-$221.0) This decrease reflects a reduction in contracts supporting documentation packaging for the Cost Recovery effort. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; Safe Drinking Water Act; CCA; FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations; FMFIA; FOIA; GMRA; IPIA; IGA; PRA; Privacy Act; CFOA; Government Performance and Results Act; The Prompt Payment Act; Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
689
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,196.2

$9,196.2 54.6

$10,570.0 67.5

$10,530.0 59.3

($40.0) -8.2
$10,570.0
$10,570.0 67.5
Program Project Description: The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that sites with federal entities performing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) responses and CERCLA sites with federal ownership are monitored and appropriate enforcement responses are pursued. After years of service and operation, some federal facilities contain environmental contamination, such as hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance, radioactive wastes, or other toxic substances. To enable the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement program coordinates creative solutions that protect both human health and the environment. These enforcement solutions help restore facilities so they can once again serve an important role in the economy and welfare of local communities and our country. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, EPA will enter into Interagency Agreements (IAs) with responsible federal entities to ensure protective cleanup at a timely pace. Priority areas for FY 2012 include ensuring that: 1) all federal facility sites on the National Priorities List have IAs, which provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these IAs are monitored for compliance; 3) formerly utilized defense sites with federal involvement are evaluated for action; and 4) federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an environmentally responsible manner. EPA also will monitor milestones in existing IAs, resolve disputes, take appropriate enforcement actions to address noncompliance, and oversee all remedial work being conducted at federal facilities. EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and five-year review requirements are in place at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of cleanup actions. EPA also will continue its work with affected agencies to resolve outstanding policy issues relating to the cleanup of federal facilities. The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program works closely with EPAs Federal Facilities Cleanup and Reuse programs to support their strategic programmatic goals to clean up federal contaminated sites and make them safer for their communities and available for other economically productive uses.
690
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Superfund Enforcement Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$337.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-8.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$339.0) This decrease reflects a reduction in contract support for compliance assistance and cleanup oversight activities at federal facilities. (-$8.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$30.0) The decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; DBCRA; Defense Authorization Amendments; BRAC; PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SDWA; Executive Orders 12241, 12656 and 12580.
691
Criminal Enforcement Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$49,043.2
$49,637.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$51,345.0

$1,708.0

$8,066.0
$57,703.0 291.8
$8,417.3
$57,460.5 284.3
$8,066.0
$57,703.0 291.8
$8,252.0
$59,597.0 296.1
$186.0
$1,894.0 4.3
Program Project Description: EPAs Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute violations of Superfund and Superfund-related laws which seriously threaten public health and the environment and which involve knowing or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The program protects human health and the environment by providing federal, state and local prosecutors with the investigative, forensic and technical evidence needed to successfully prosecute these violations and associated violations of Title 18 of the United States Code such as fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Successful prosecutions deter other potential parties, eliminate the incentive for companies to pay to pollute, and help ensure that businesses that follow the rules do not face unfair competition from those that break the rules. These efforts support Superfund-related prosecutions primarily by the Department of Justices Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys, but occasionally by state, tribal and local prosecutors. Special Agents (criminal investigators) evaluate leads; interview witnesses and suspects; and review documents and data from environmental, inspection and other databases and files. Investigators remain involved during prosecutions, testifying in court and assisting in securing plea agreements or planning sentencing conditions that will require defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop environmental management systems to enhance performance. EPA Special Agents also participate in task forces with other federal law enforcement agencies as well as state and local law officials and participate in specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA and other locations. These joint efforts and training help build state, local, and tribal environmental enforcement expertise, which helps them protect their communities and offer valuable leads to EPAs program.3
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html
692
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to investigate and assist in the prosecution of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) related cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impacts. The program has completed its three year hiring strategy to increase the number of Special Agents to 200 by the end of FY 2010. The Criminal Enforcement program continues to tier significant cases based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury, human exposure, remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic pollutants, continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation, recidivist violator). The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination with the Civil Enforcement program to ensure that the enforcement program as a whole responds to Superfund violations as effectively as possible. Enforcement is accomplished by employing an effective regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate civil or criminal enforcement responses for a particular violation and by taking criminal enforcement actions against long-term or repeated significant non-compliers, where appropriate. Focusing on parallel proceedings and other mechanisms that allow the Agency to use the most appropriate tools to address environmental violations and crimes will also facilitate coordination. EPAs Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of federal laws and regulations, as balanced with the flexibility to respond to region-specific environmental problems. In FY 2012, criminal enforcement will continue to use management oversight controls and national policies to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by evaluating all investigations from the national perspective, overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with program priorities, conducting regular docket reviews (detailed review of all open investigations in each EPA Regional Office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement priorities, and by developing, implementing and periodically reviewing and revising policies and programs. In FY 2012, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS). Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used to systematically compile a profile of criminal cases, including the extent to which the cases support Agencywide, program-specific or regional enforcement priorities. The program also will seek to deter Superfund-related environmental crime by increasing the volume and quality of leads reported to EPA by the public through the tips and complaints link on EPAs website and continue to use the fugitive website4. The fugitive website enlists the public and law enforcement agencies help in apprehending defendants who have fled the country or are in hiding to avoid prosecution for alleged environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which they have been found guilty. Since the site was established in FY 2009, five fugitives have been captured, and two more surrendered to law enforcement authorities.
For more information visit: (http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/)
693
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Criminal Enforcement Program Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$316.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$130.0) This decrease will reduce the level of lower priority activities of investigative support for criminal prosecutions, as well as collaborative investigative efforts and training with partners in state and tribal governments and other law enforcement agencies. Statutory Authority: CERCLA; EPCRA; Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Power of Environmental Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
694
Enforcement Training Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$3,220.0
$3,278.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($3,278.0)

$899.0
$4,177.0 20.8
$756.5
$3,976.5 18.4
$899.0
$4,177.0 20.8
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
($899.0)
($4,177.0) -20.8
Program Project Description: The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 requires EPA to provide environmental compliance and enforcement training nationwide through the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI). The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized enforcement courses, through NETI1, that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry out the Agencys enforcement and compliance goals. Courses are provided to lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of government. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, funding under the Enforcement Training was eliminated. There were reductions to NETIs classroom training and the remaining resources supporting web-based training was transferred to the Compliance Monitoring program. Performance Targets: Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$899.0/ -5.2 FTE) This reduction streamlines NETI by eliminating Superfund funding for classroom training. The reduced resources include $708.0 in associated payroll for 5.2 FTE. Statutory Authority: PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
1
For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
695
Forensics Support Program Area: Enforcement Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology $15,351.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$15,245.3
$15,351.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$15,326.0

($25.0)

$2,450.0
$17,801.0 105.2
$2,727.0
$17,972.3 101.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0 105.2
$2,389.0
$17,715.0 105.2
($61.0)
($86.0) 0.0
Program Project Description: The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the nations most complex Superfund civil and criminal enforcement cases as well as technical expertise for Agency compliance efforts. EPAs National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) is a fully accredited environmental forensics center under International Standards Organization (ISO) 17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)5. Laboratory accreditation is the recognition of technical competence through a third-party assessment of a laboratorys quality, administrative, and technical systems. It also provides the general public and users of laboratory services a means of identifying those laboratories which have successfully demonstrated compliance with established international standards. NEICs accreditation standard has been customized to cover both laboratory and field activities. NEIC collaborates with other federal, state, local, and tribal enforcement organizations to provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation, and case resolution activities in support of the Agencys Civil Enforcement program. The program also coordinates with the Department of Justice and other federal, state and local law enforcement organizations to provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.6 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2012 will include continuing use of customized laboratory methods to identify potentially responsible parties (PRPs). In response to Superfund case needs, the NEIC will conduct applied research and development to identify and deploy new capabilities and to test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques involving environmental measurement and forensic situations.
5
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academy of Sciences, 2009, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589 6 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html
696
In FY 2012, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation. The program also will continue to utilize advanced technologies to support field measurement and laboratory analyses, as well as identification of pollution sources at abandoned Superfund and other waste sites. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the objective to improve compliance under Goal 5. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$14.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$36.0) This represents a reduction to resources that support the operations of NEIC and maintenance for its laboratory instruments. (-$11.0) The decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: CERCLA; EPCRA.
697
698
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$6,805.1 $20,954.9
$6,836.0 $23,026.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$1,065.0 $11,379.0

($5,771.0) ($11,647.0)

$1,760.0
$31,622.0 49.0
$1,269.5
$29,029.5 46.4
$1,760.0
$31,622.0 49.0
$0.0
$12,444.0 25.0
($1,760.0)
($19,178.0) -24.0
Program Project Description: This program includes Superfund activities that coordinate and support protection of the nations critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. EPA provides subject matter expertise and training support for terrorism-related environmental investigations to support responses authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The program coordinates the agencys law enforcement/crisis management activities and has direct responsibilities pursuant to the National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Functions 10 and 13, and the Oil and Hazardous Materials Annex. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: There is no request for this program in the superfund appropriation in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. There are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,760.0 / -8.2 FTE) EPA will not need to maintain separate capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for terrorism related investigations. This reduction reflects the increased capacity of other agencies to handle the environmental forensics work associated with potential homeland security related incidents. This reduction includes $1,418.0 in associated payroll for 8.2 FTE. Statutory Authority: CERCLA, as amended; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
699
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program Area: Homeland Security Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$4,264.2 $37,697.9
$3,423.0 $41,657.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $30,078.0

($3,423.0) ($11,579.0)

$53,580.0
$98,660.0 174.2
$51,558.9
$93,521.0 176.4
$53,580.0
$98,660.0 174.2
$40,662.0
$70,740.0 170.9
($12,918.0)
($27,920.0) -3.3
Program Project Description: EPA's Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program develops and maintains an agencywide capability to respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with an emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The program builds upon EPA's long standing emergency response and removal program, which is responsible for responding to and cleaning up both oil and hazardous substance releases. EPA's homeland security effort expands these responsibilities to include threats associated with chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) agents. To meet this challenge, EPA will continue to use a comprehensive approach that brings together all emergency response assets to implement efficient and effective responses. Existing science and technology information and the current approaches for generating that information must evolve to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by realigning its current research program projects into a new structure that will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. Within that structure, the Homeland Security Research Program will continue to improve research, development, and technical support for potential threats and response protocols. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, efforts to strengthen the capability to respond to multiple incidents will concentrate on four core areas: 1) maintaining a highly skilled, well-trained, and equipped response workforce that has the capacity to respond to simultaneous incidents as well as threats involving
700
WMD substances; 2) developing decontamination options, methods, and protocols to ensure that the nation can quickly recover from nationally significant incidents; 3) ensuring that current laboratory equipment maintains the capability to analyze Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) fixed and mobile samples while working to establish EPA biological agent laboratory analyses capability; and 4) implementing the EPAs National Approach to Response (NAR) to effectively manage EPA's emergency response assets during large-scale activations. EPA activities in support of these efforts include the following: Maintain the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through specialized training, exercises, and equipment. In FY 2012, EPA and its federal, state, local, and tribal homeland response partners will continue to participate in exercises and trainings designed to test and improve EPAs response capabilities. Sustain the Agencys responder base during large-scale catastrophic incidents by training volunteers of the Response Support Corps (RSC) and members of Incident Management Teams (IMTs). These volunteers provide critical support to Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Centers and assist with operations in the field. To ensure technical proficiency, this cadre of response personnel requires initial training and yearly refresher training to include opportunities to participate in exercises. Depending upon the level and complexity of the assigned position, volunteers also may participate in workshops, health and safety training, medical monitoring, and equipment acquisition, as necessary. The focus is on their assigned responsibilities during a response, interactions with the emergency response program personnel, and understanding lines of communication within an IMT. Maintain and operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN) and existing fixed CWA labs and maintain the capability of two Portable High-Throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification Systems (PHILIS) units. The Agency will continue to participate with the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks, maintaining a laboratory compendium of federal, state, and commercial capabilities, and maintain a chemical surety program. Operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN) in Headquarters and Regional offices to provide lab analysis for routine and emergency response and removal operations, including a terrorist attack. Continue to develop and validate environmental sampling, analysis, and human health risk assessment methods for known and emerging biological threat agents. These sampling and analysis methods are critical to ensuring appropriate response and recovery actions and developing necessary laboratory support capacity. The human health risk assessment methods also are extremely important to decision makers who are faced with determining when decontaminated facilities and equipment can be returned to service. This decontamination and consequence management research will produce data, information, and technologies to assist EPA in developing standards, protocols, and capabilities to recover from and mitigate the risks associated with biological attacks.
701
Implement the NAR to maximize regional interoperability and to ensure that EPAs OSCs will be able to respond to terrorist threats and large-scale catastrophic incidents in an effective and nationally consistent manner. Continue to maintain one Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT) aircraft. The EPA ASPECT provides direct assistance to first responders by detecting chemical and radiological vapors, plumes, and clouds. Maintain the Emergency Management Portal (EMP) modules. EMP ties together prevention, preparedness, and response information to allow EPAs emergency management community access to information they need to respond to and efficiently store data from large and small sites. The Decontamination Portfolio resides in the EMP. Conduct WMD decontamination courses for EPA OSCs, Special Teams, and RSC personnel to improve decontamination preparedness for CBR agents. Maintain Environmental Response Team (ERT) personnel and equipment in a state of readiness for response to potential homeland security incidents. It also will maintain capacity to provide required health and safety and response readiness training. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$3.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$12,000.0) This reflects a decrease to the Agencys homeland security emergency response and preparedness program. Existing agency preparedness will be maintained. Planned training and equipment upgrades may be delayed or modified. (-$647.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$14.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. (-$289.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Currently, there are no
702
(-7.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$1.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications & IT security requirements. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Sections 104, 105, and 106.
703
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities $6,369.0 $593.0 $8,070.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$6,300.3 $593.0 $9,652.1
$6,369.0 $593.0 $8,070.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$5,978.0 $579.0 $8,038.0

($391.0) ($14.0) ($32.0)

$1,194.0
$16,226.0 3.0
$1,194.0
$17,739.4 3.3
$1,194.0
$16,226.0 3.0
$1,172.0
$15,767.0 3.0
($22.0)
($459.0) 0.0
Program Project Description: This programs activities ensure that EPAs physical structures and assets are secure and operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in the event of an emergency. The program also includes the personnel security clearance process, protecting any classified information, and providing necessary secure communications. EPAs policy is to have a comprehensive continuity of operations program (COOP) in place to ensure continuity of its essential functions under all emergency circumstances. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (HSPD-20), EPA is required to designate an Agency Continuity Coordinator charged with ensuring EPAs continuity program is consistent with federal policies. The Solid Waste and Emergency Response Programs Emergency Management program is responsible for developing EPAs Continuity Plan. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to follow the requirements outlined in the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) Federal Continuity Directive (FCD) 1. FCD 1 requires EPA to develop a continuity plan that ensures its ability to accomplish its mission-essential functions from an alternative site, with limited staffing and without access to resources available during normal activities. Consistent with a review of its needs and priorities pursuant to the directive, EPA will undertake a number of activities, including but not limited to the following:
704
Conduct annual reviews of the Headquarters and Regional COOP plans and update the plans as needed to reflect current operations; Conduct exercises of COOP deployment, activation of essential personnel to the COOP site, and implementation of its essential functions from its remote alternate site(s), including interagency operations. In FY 2012, EPA plans to support training activities and participate in a major interagency COOP exercise and an EPA internal COOP exercise with headquarters and regional offices; and Show progress toward meeting the requirements of National Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10 through the purchase, installation, and maintenance of secure communications equipment. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$22.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Public Health Service Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq. - Section 2801; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. -Sections 104, 105, and 106. Currently, there are no
705
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
706
Exchange Network Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$17,918.5
$17,024.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$20,883.0

$3,859.0

$1,433.0
$18,457.0 24.0
$1,438.6
$19,357.1 28.2
$1,433.0
$18,457.0 24.0
$1,433.0
$22,316.0 30.4
$0.0
$3,859.0 6.4
Program Project Description: EPA and state, tribal and territorial partners reap tremendous data management and environmental benefits from the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Network, EN). The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes and other entities to facilitate and streamline electronic reporting, sharing, integration, analysis and use of environmental data from many different sources to support the Superfund program. The Central Data Exchange7 (CDX) is the largest component within the EN program. CDX is the portal, or electronic gateway, through which environmental data enters the Agency. It enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from state and local governments, industry and tribes to EPA. It also provides a set of core services rather than each Agency program building its own duplicative services. The reuse of existing central services like CDX promotes a leaner and more cost-effective enterprise architecture for the Agency, enables more robust central services and provides a common way to promote data integration and sharing with states since CDX serves as EPAs connection to the EN. The CDX budget supports infrastructure for development, testing and production; sophisticated hardware and software; data exchange and Web form programs; built-in data quality checks; standards-setting projects with states, tribes and territories for e-reporting; and significant security and quality assurance activities. By reducing the IT data management burden on EPA programs, CDX helps environmental programs focus their resources on enforcement and programmatic work, rather than data collection and manipulation. Other tools and services in the EN program include the Facility Registry System (FRS) and the System of Registries (SoR). The FRS is a widely used source of mapping and environmental data about facilities. It allows a multimedia display and integration of environmental information
7
For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
707
keyed to a single or multiple facilities. It offers enormous benefits for enforcement targeting, homeland security and data integration among disparate datasets as well as a key point of entry for the public interested in EPAs data stores. The SoR adds meaning to EPAs data and promotes access, sharing and understanding of it. The SoR helps environmental professionals and the public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the EN program will develop services that encourage innovative data sharing and analysis while lowering the cost and reporting burden. The program will pilot projects that move the Network from a closed partnership of states, tribes and EPA to a more open platform of services that the public or third parties can use to develop tools and applications to make environmental data reporting, sharing, and analysis faster, simpler and cheaper. The EN program also will increase the amount of critical environmental data flowing, expand the programs role in sharing data among partners, provide increased business value through reduced burden and build on prior efforts to provide better data quality, timeliness and accessibility while making the Network simpler and less costly to implement. Finally, pending the results of research in 2011, CDX will move to a public or private cloud in order to save money and gain added efficiency for its customers. In FY 2012, CDX will continue to support the Office of Transportation of Air Quality (OTAQ) in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard through several interconnected systems. The systems include the OTAQ Registration system, OTAQ Fuels Reporting System, and the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). EMTS is a unique industry government partnership that reduces burden and improves efficiency for industry by providing an electronic marketplace for transactions of Renewable Identification Numbers as well as traditional computer to computer electronic reporting. CDX also will increase electronic reporting to EPA by meeting several new reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. In FY 2012, work for the following System of Registries systems will continue to support efforts to allow greater sharing and better understanding of EPAs data: The Substance Registry Services will continue to catalog all chemicals and other substances that are tracked or regulated at EPA. The Registry of EPA Applications and Databases (READ) inventories EPA data systems. The Reusable Component Services (RCS) is a developers catalog of services (e.g, Web services, XML schema, and code libraries) that promotes cost savings and reuse not just at EPA but across the Exchange Network with states and tribes. The Data Registry Services (DRS) is a central repository for data dictionaries and code sets that help system management, align data among different systems and ensure conformance to data standards.
708
Terminology Services (TS) is the Agency's catalog of terms (e.g., gray water, climate change) and vocabularies to support better understanding of data and linking data that might not otherwise be connected in order to promote better analysis. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Exchange Network Program Project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): No change in program funding. Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act, Security and Accountability of Every (SAFE) Port Act, Executive Order 13439. Exchange Network Program funding has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY 2002 (Public Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY 2005 (Public Law 108-447) and FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
709
710
Information Security Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$5,881.7
$5,912.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$6,837.0

$925.0

$785.0
$6,697.0 15.8
$524.3
$6,406.0 9.7
$785.0
$6,697.0 15.8
$728.0
$7,565.0 13.3
($57.0)
$868.0 -2.5
Program Project Description: Information is a strategic resource to EPA. It allows each program office to fulfill its mission in support of the protection of human health and the environment. The Agencys Information Security Program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of EPAs information assets. The protection strategy for the Superfund program includes, but is not limited to, enterprise policy, procedure and practice management; information security awareness, training and education; risk-based Certification & Accreditation (C&A); Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) management to ensure remediation of weaknesses; defense-indepth and breadth technology and operational security management; incident response and handling; and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Effective information security faces new challenges every single day. Agency security practitioners are constantly challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts to breach organizational protections. In FY 2012, EPAs integrated efforts will allow the Agencys Information Security Program to take a more proactive role in dealing with these threats under the Superfund Program. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets related to the Superfund program by continuing improvement to the Information Security Program. The Agency will continue to focus on asset definition and management, compliance, incident management, knowledge and information management, risk management and technology management. Secondary activities in FY 2012 include, but are not limited to, access management, organizational training and awareness, measurement and analysis and service continuity. These efforts will strengthen the Agencys ability to ensure operational resiliency.
711
The final result is an information security program that can rely on effective and efficient processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive events. Concurrently, EPA will continue its performance-based information security activities with a particular emphasis on risk management, incident management and information security architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth). These three areas are critical to the Agencys security position. They are also key components of various federal mandates, such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information security initiatives, which will be implemented throughout FY 2012, including: Trusted Internet Connection (TIC), Domain Name Service Security (DNSSec), and the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC). These mandates are rapidly enhancing the Agencys security requirements for information policy, technology standards and practices. EPA will continue transitioning from Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in accordance with the June 30, 2008 OMB M-05-22, Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). This effort is a Federal initiative designed to retain our nations technical and market leadership in the Internet sector and to expand and improve services for Americans. As with many enterprise initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed to make this capability secure. EPA will continue analyzing and planning a long-term strategy for implementing, monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2012. Additionally, EPA will continue implementing Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requirements for logical access as identified in the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors. This Enterprise Identity and Access Management (IAM) project will be combined with the Enterprise Single Sign-On (SSO) to enable the required enhanced authentication mechanism without burdening EPA systems users. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Information Security Program Project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the Four Year Performance Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$57.0 / -0.5 FTE) These resources are shifting from the Information Security program to the IT/ Data Management program to support the Agencys Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) projects and policy. This change includes $57.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
712
Statutory Authority: Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq. Sections 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 401 and 402 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
713
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs $97,410.0 $4,385.0 $162.0 $24.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$98,258.9 $4,054.0 $152.3 $24.0
$97,410.0 $4,385.0 $162.0 $24.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$88,576.0 $4,108.0 $0.0 $0.0

($8,834.0) ($277.0) ($162.0) ($24.0)

$17,087.0
$119,068.0 503.1
$16,498.3
$118,987.5 481.6
$17,087.0
$119,068.0 503.1
$15,352.0
$108,036.0 481.5
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0) -21.6
Program Project Description: High quality, readily available and usable data serves as a strategic resource that supports the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment. IT/Data Management (IT/DM) program activities support the Administrations goals of transparency, participation, engagement and collaboration to expand the conversation on environmentalism. IT/DM also delivers essential services to Agency staff to allow them to conduct their work in support of Superfund programs. IT/DM reflects four themes: facilitating mission activities through better information and tools; improving agency work processes to promote efficiencies; increasing transparency and innovation in the agency work processes; and supporting the work force with reliable tools and services. This program houses the entire critical IT infrastructure needed for: 1) rapid and efficient communication; 2) exchange and storage of data, analysis and computations; and 3) access to the scientific, regulatory and best-practice infrastructure needed by Agency staff, the regulated community and the public. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). This program manages and coordinates the Agencys Enterprise Architecture and develops analytical tools to ensure sound environmental decision-making. The program implements the Agencys E-Government (E-Gov) responsibilities and it designs, develops and manages the Agencys internet and intranet resources, including the Integrated Portal.
714
In more specific terms, the program: (1) supports development, collection, management and analysis of point source and ambient environmental data used to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program and regional levels; (2) provides a secure, reliable and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration and public access; (3) manages the Agencys Quality System ensuring EPAs processes and data are of good quality and adhere to federal guidelines; and (4) supports regional information technology infrastructure, telecommunications and administrative and environmental programs. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the Superfund program: Information Access FY 2012 activities in this area are principally geared toward making environmental information accessible to all users. This includes: access to Environmental Indicators; support for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data; improvement in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activities through the use of electronic workflow management and eRulemaking a Web-based system to facilitate, and provide greater public access to, federal rulemakings; and development of analytical tools to help users understand the meaning of environmental data. It includes facility data collected from numerous federal programs and tools to help those who use information from a variety of sources to reconfigure that data so it can be easily compared and analyzed. Of particular emphasis in FY 2012 is EPAs Transparency and Open Government participation, including streamlined contributions to Data.gov. Key activities will ensure that access to critical data (e.g., regulated facilities, toxic releases) is increased through Data.gov and the Agencys GeoData Gateway, providing opportunities for collaboration and intergovernmental partnerships which reduce duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to important federal services for businesses. (In FY 2012, the Information Access activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.31 million in non-payroll funding). Envirofacts - FY 2012 activities in this area continue to: support a single point of access to EPA databases containing information about environmental activities that may affect air, water and land anywhere in the United States; house data that has been collected from regulated entities and the states; and make that data accessible to environmental professionals, the regulated community, citizens groups and state and EPA employees through an easy-to-use, one-stop access point. Its components include databases and applications that make integrated environmental information available to all EPA stakeholders. Envirofacts directly supports the Agency's strategic goal of fulfilling Americans "Right-to-Know" about their environment, which in turn supports EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. It also supports integrated data access, a key component in the planned enterprise architecture that will support EPA's current and future business needs. The Facility Registry System, Envirofacts and the System of Registries will be focused to provide a cost-effective, common Web services
715
approach for other applications. Envirofacts also is being used to help plan and conduct multi-media inspections and to support emergency response and planning. Envirofacts will continue to serve as the Agencys premier single gateway to various program and facility data, serving stakeholders within the federal government as well as the public. Serving up 3-4 million hits per month, Envirofacts offers popular queries and place-based reporting and is a highly desirable capability for reporting environmental information to the public. Opportunities do exist for potential cost savings. Reductions in the Envirofacts budget can be achieved by reducing operational costs in several areas: 1) implementing operational efficiencies in the hosting environment for Envirofacts, specifically making use of shared appliances in the National Computing Center; 2) reducing the total development costs by stretching adaptive maintenance over several fiscal years; 3) reducing development costs by implementing only high priority changes and modifications; 4) working with the program offices to provide additional resources and begin discussions about moving towards more of a pay-as-you-go model. (In FY 2012, the Envirofacts activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.32 million in non-payroll funding). IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning FY 2012 activities in this area will continue ensuring that all due steps are taken to reduce redundancy among information systems and data bases, streamline and systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM activities and systems. This category includes EPAs implementation of an Enterprise Architecture and the Capital Planning and Investment Control process (CPIC), to assist the Agency in making better-informed decisions on IT/IM investments and resource allocations. In FY 2012, this activity will sustain a reduction in funding for program management and governance in the Agencys Enterprise Architecture and IT Capital Planning programs. (In FY 2012, the IT/IM Policy and Planning activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $1.05 million in payroll funding and $0.41 in non-payroll funding). Geospatial Information and Analysis8 In FY 2012, EPA will continue providing place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities, roads, waste sites, etc.) and natural features (wetlands, soil types, hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged and can be accessed using Web-based or desktop tools. Geospatial information and analysis play a critical role in the Agency's ability to respond rapidly and effectively in times of emergency in addition to meeting everyday program and region specific business needs. Additionally, geographic location is a key way to find and access EPA digital data and documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will allow Web users to retrieve relevant documents by specifying a location that they are interested in. Implemented as a holistic enterprise solution, these projects also save time and money, assure compatibility and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software, data and analytical services. (In FY 2012, the Geospatial Information and Analysis activities will be funded at $0.07 million in payroll funding and $0.73 million in non-payroll funding.)
8
For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/
716
Electronic Records and Content Management (ECMS) FY 2012 activities in this area continue to enhance systems and processes, convert paper documents into electronic documents, convert paper-based processes into systems that rely less on paper documents, and manage the electronic documents. By doing so, these activities reduce costs, improve accessibility and improve security for all of the documents entered into the system. Electronic documents require less storage space and do not require a filing staff to manage the paper records. A single copy of an electronic document can be accessed simultaneously by numerous individuals and from virtually any location. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue using a collaborative process to implement the ECMS project, an enterprise-wide, multimedia solution designed to manage and organize native and environmental data and documents for program offices, regional offices, field offices and laboratories. Previously fragmented data storage approaches will be converted into a single tool on a standard platform accessible to everyone, reducing data and document search time and assisting in security and information retention efforts. Certain tools developed for specific systems (eg: Superfund Data Management System Metadata Extender) during the development stages of the project have shown to have broader applicability for other systems within the Agency. These tools will be modified to meet the needs of these systems and thus expand the number of Agency data systems capable of utilizing the ECMS repository. (In FY 2012, the Electronic Records and Content Management activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.32 million in non-payroll funding). Internet Operations and Maintenance Enhancements (IOME) FY 2012 activities in this area continue implementing and maintaining the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over 200 top-level pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on the EPA Web site. In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery mechanism for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2012, IOME activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.97 million in non-payroll funding). IT/IM Infrastructure FY 2012 activities in this area continue supporting the information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs and telecommunications for all EPA employees and other on-site workers at over 100 locations, including EPA Headquarters, all ten regions and the various labs and ancillary offices. More specifically, these activities provide what is known as workforce support, which includes desktop equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote access, telephone services and maintenance, Web and network servers, IT related maintenance, IT security and electronic records and data. (In FY 2012, the IT/IM Infrastructure activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $3.09 million in payroll funding and $8.07 million in non-payroll funding).
717
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$129.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$65.0 / +0.5 FTE) This change reflects a realignment of 0.5 FTE and associated payroll from the Information Security program to IT/ Data Management to support the Agencys CPIC project oversight and policy development. (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$570.0) This reflects the efficiency gains from consolidating Envirofacts, Facility Registry System, and System of Registries and additional contractual savings. (-$148.0) This change reduces funding for the following tools and analytical support: Envirofacts to reflect efficiencies gained, support to the network of Agency statisticians, Environmental Indicators Gateway, and the development of summaries of the Report on the Environment. (-$258.0) This change reduces funding for program management and governance on the Agencys Enterprise Architecture and IT Capital Planning programs. (-$718.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$207.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
718
Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961 and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
719
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
720
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$1,313.8
$1,147.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$1,329.0

$182.0

$893.0
$2,040.0 7.3
$863.5
$2,177.3 6.4
$893.0
$2,040.0 7.3
$927.0
$2,256.0 6.9
$34.0
$216.0 -0.4
Program Project Description: The General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative Dispute Resolution services (ADR). EPA utilizes ADR as a method for preventing or resolving conflicts prior to engaging in formal litigation and includes the provision of legal counsel, facilitation, mediation and consensus building. Funding supports the use of ADR in the Superfund programs extensive legal work with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA headquarters and Regional offices and external stakeholders on Superfund program matters. The national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent, and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties such as facilitators and mediators more readily available for those purposes. Under EPAs ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in many contexts, including adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
721
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$66.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$12.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$20.0) This change reflects a general reduction in non-payroll resources. Statutory Authority: Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 571, 572, and 573, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Section 1111; EPAs General Authorizing Statutes.
722
Legal Advice: Environmental Program Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$42,826.7
$42,662.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$45,352.0

$2,690.0

$746.0
$43,408.0 250.6
$658.7
$43,485.4 240.8
$746.0
$43,408.0 250.6
$750.0
$46,102.0 248.1
$4.0
$2,694.0 -2.5
Program Project Description: The Agencys Legal Support: Environmental program provides legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. Funding supports legal advice needed in the Superfund programs extensive legal work with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and other entities and landowners involved in the program. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency relies upon sound legal advice in carrying out its environmental mission. In FY 2012, legal advice to the Superfund programs will continue to include litigation support representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant, as well as those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are necessary for Agency management and program offices on matters involving environmental issues including the following: providing interpretations of, and drafting assistance on, relevant and applicable laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$12.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
723
(-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$2.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$6.0) This change reflects a general reduction in non-payroll resources. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 9659, Sections 101 310; EPAs General Authorizing Statutes.
724
725
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs $315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$310,238.8 $72,841.7 $29,896.7 $871.9 $489.4
$315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0 $505.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$324,965.0 $76,521.0 $33,931.0 $916.0 $536.0

$9,727.0 $3,603.0 $5,000.0 $12.0 $31.0

$78,482.0
$496,978.0 411.1
$76,052.0
$490,390.5 410.6
$78,482.0
$496,978.0 411.1
$81,431.0
$518,300.0 408.5
$2,949.0
$21,322.0 -2.6
Program Project Description: Superfund appropriation in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program is used to fund rental of laboratory and office space, utilities, security, and also to manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas for the Superfund Program. These include health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, environmental management functions, facilities maintenance and operations, space planning, shipping and receiving, property management, printing and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis, and is implementing a long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical. From FY 2007 through FY 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and facilities nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $1.5 million in Superfund dollars over this period. In FY 2011 through FY 2014, EPA plans to release additional space for more savings. These achieved savings and potential savings partially offset EPAs escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for regional offices in Boston, Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle are significantly higher than those previously negotiated. The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services
726
Administration and other private landlords by conducting reviews and verifying that billing statements are correct. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $47.11 million for rent, $3.77 million for utilities, $8.28 million for security, $3.13 million for transit subsidy, and $2.51 million for regional moves in the Superfund appropriation. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new, advanced technologies, and energy sources. EPA will continue to direct resources towards acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 134239, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Orders environmental performance goals related to buildings through several initiatives, including comprehensive facility energy audits, re-commissioning, sustainable building design in Agency construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power purchases, and the use of Energy Star rated products and building standards. In FY 2012, the Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37 billion British Thermal Units or three percent. EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately 21 percent less energy than it did in FY 2003. EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will meet the requirements of EO 13514 through: Managing existing building systems to reduce consumption of energy, water, and materials; Identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing assets, optimize real property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and Implementing best management practices in energy-efficient management of real property including Agency labs and data centers. EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13150 10 Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of Executive Order 13423 and 13514. EPA will advance the implementation of Safety and Health Management Systems to identify and mitigate potential safety and health risks in the workplace. EPA will continue to provide safety, health, and environmental services that help maintain EPAs readiness to respond to national emergencies while protecting its employees and responsibly managing the environmental and safety hazards of samples associated with weapons of mass destruction.
Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13423/, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management 10 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13150.html
727
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$161.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-2.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$231.0 / +2.0 FTE) This change reflects a realignment of resources from Acquisition Management program. Region 10s increased workload in this program, which is associated with a large and complicated building renovation project spanning multiple years, demands the increased level of project management efforts. Further, a decreased workload in Acquisition Management in that location enables the transfer. These resources includes $231.0 in associated payroll. (+$3,247.0) This reflects the net effect to the Superfund appropriation from projected contractual rent increases and reallocation among EPM, Superfund and Science and Technology appropriations. (+$368.0) This reflects an increase in utility costs. (-$17.0) This change reflects the net effect of an increase in security costs which is offset by savings from efficiencies gained due to guard post reductions at EPA Headquarters. (+$129.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy based on projected need. (-$647.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result of the completion of the San Francisco (Region 9) and Seattle (Region 10) moves. (+$334.0) This reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPAs owned Regional laboratories. (-$99.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$84.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
728
(-$674.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA; TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive Orders 10577, 12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure).
729
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$24,311.6
$25,487.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$26,223.0

$736.0

$2,945.0
$28,432.0 177.5
$3,240.9
$27,552.5 182.1
$2,945.0
$28,432.0 177.5
$3,243.0
$29,466.0 174.5
$298.0
$1,034.0 -3.0
Program Project Description: Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise more than half of the Agencys budget. Superfund resources in this program support activities related to the management of Financial Assistance Grants/Interagency Agreements (IAs), and to suspension and debarment at headquarters and within Regional offices. The key components of this program are ensuring that EPAs management of grants and IAs meets the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding produces measurable environmental results. This program focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of EPAs assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with state, local and tribal governments to support the implementation of environmental programs. Sound grants management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPAs programs. A substantial portion of the Superfund program is implemented through IAs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will achieve key objectives under its FY 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan. These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive environmental outcomes, and implementing a comprehensive post-award monitoring program for Superfund grants and IAs.11 The Grants Management Plan provides a framework for extensive improvements in grants management at the technical administrative level, programmatic oversight level, and at the executive decision-making level of the Agency. EPA will continue to reform grants management by conducting on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and applicants, by improving systems support, by performing indirect cost rate reviews, by providing tribal technical assistance, and by implementing its Agencywide training
11
US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf.
730
program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers. EPA will continue to streamline Grants Management through the E-Government (E-gov) initiative Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB). GM LoB offers government-wide solutions to grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. Currently, there are no
FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$226.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$118.0 / +0.9 FTE) This change reflects the realignment of resources to support the Agencys IA Shared Service Centers. This includes 0.9 FTE, and $118.0 in associated payroll. (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$35.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; EPAs Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act; the Economy Act; Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
731
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $32,404.0 $165.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$33,272.6 $172.4
$32,404.0 $165.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$34,119.0 $163.0

$1,715.0 ($2.0)

$24,684.0
$57,253.0 362.9
$23,820.8
$57,265.8 333.6
$24,684.0
$57,253.0 362.9
$24,097.0
$58,379.0 348.9
($587.0)
$1,126.0 -14.0
Program Project Description: Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPAs programs. Superfund resources in this program fund support contracts, and acquisition management at headquarters, Regional offices, Research Triangle Park, and Cincinnati offices. Much of the Superfund program is implemented through contracts. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of its procurement activities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, between the SF and EPM accounts, at least $3 million in total acquisition management resources will be used by EPA to train and develop its acquisition workforce, and to strengthen its contractor training programtwo efforts that mirror the Presidents guidelines for civilian agencies in the Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for FY 20102014. In addition, resources will support the recruitment, retention, and hiring of additional members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Acquisition management will also address information technology needs that support management and the acquisition workforce. In addition, EPA will take the following steps to achieve acquisition efficiencies: Eliminate contracts that are similar to or redundant in scope, or are no longer necessary to achieve the Agencys programmatic needs; and Use government wide procurement sources where available to reduce the need for new contracts.
732
As the Agency completes the final implementation stage of EPAs Acquisition System (EAS), the decrease in Superfund resources for this new system will provide the Agency with a better and more comprehensive way to manage data on contracts that support mission oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the Agency to meet E-Government (E-Gov) requirements and the needs of Acquisition Management personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation. In FY 2012, EPA will reinforce its contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level Assessments, increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel, and Simplified Acquisition Contracting Officer (SACO) reviews. These measures will further strengthen EPA's acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Acquisition Management Program Project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$557.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$351.0 / -2.9 FTE) This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. This decrease reflects a transfer of resources to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program to assist with a multi-year renovation project in Region ten, and to the Grants Management program to support the Interagency Agreement (IA) shared service centers. This includes -2.9 FTE, and -$351.0 in associated payroll. (+$242.0 / +2.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in acquisition staff in an effort to enhance acquisition workforce effectiveness. This includes 2.0 FTE, and $242.0 in associated payroll. (-6.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$500.0) This change reflects revised estimates on the implementation of EPAs Acquisition System. (-$57.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in contract management services. (-$173.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
733
(-$186.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$119.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: EPAs Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; contract law. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
734
Human Resources Management Program Area: Operations and Administration Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$43,526.7
$42,447.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$44,680.0

$2,233.0

$5,580.0
$48,027.0 303.1
$4,332.7
$47,859.4 274.6
$5,580.0
$48,027.0 303.1
$7,046.0
$51,726.0 296.1
$1,466.0
$3,699.0 -7.0
Program Project Description: Superfund appropriation resources for the Human Resources Management program support activities that influence the broad spectrum of human capital and human resources management services throughout the Agency. As requirements and initiatives change, the Agency continually evaluates and improves Superfund program related human resource functions in outreach, recruitment, hiring, developing and nourishing the workforce to increase management and employee satisfaction, and to help the Agency achieve its mission. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on implementing the Administrations comprehensive hiring reform in the Federal government. On May 11, 2010 the President signed the memorandum, Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process12, which directed agencies to adopt simpler and more applicant-friendly hiring practices that improve the quality and timeliness of the hiring process, and that are consistent with merit system principles. Executive departments and agencies are required to overhaul the way they recruit and hire our civilian workforce. In addition, managers and supervisors must assume leadership roles in recruiting and selecting highly-qualified employees from all segments of society and will be held accountable for these responsibilities. The key facets of hiring reform are: to ease the hiring process while raising the bar on candidate quality; to increase engagement of agency leaders in the recruitment and selection process and to monitor agency efforts to increase the speed and quality of hiring. The six major initiatives include: 1. Eliminating any requirement that applicants respond to essay-style questions when first applying for federal employment.
12
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process
735
Allowing individuals to apply using resumes and cover letters. 2. Exercising discretion to use Category Rating which can increase the number of candidates for interviews. 3. Making sure that managers and supervisors with responsibility for hiring are more fully involved in the process and are held accountable through the performance management process. 4. Working with OPM and the HR community to improve the quality and speed of the agency process. 5. Notifying individuals applying for federal employment through USAJOBS about the status of their application at key stages in the application process. EPA fully integrated this update feature in February of this year. We will monitor applicant satisfaction of this feature through the applicant satisfaction survey data supplied by OPM and make future changes as deemed appropriate. These initiatives will be addressed mainly through further standardizing processes (such as standardized position descriptions), and developing guides and processes that address each major initiative. Hiring Reform is a broad, agency-wide human capital responsibility that requires participation from a cross-section of managers, program officials and the human resources community. EPA will continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency human resources operations conducted by its three Shared Service Centers (SSCs) in support of the Superfund program. These three SSCs handle all human resources transactional functions for EPAs 17,000 plus employees. These SSCs initiate recruitment and process personnel and benefits actions for EPAs 17,000 plus employees. The SSCs continue to track timeliness and monitor the quality of customer service, through formal and informal processes. In 2012, EPA will solicit employee feedback on what the Agency may do to improve the quality of work life. In addition, the Agency will launch a Quality of Work Life intranet site that will announce new plans and activities, and publicize programs that help employees develop their careers, enjoy their work environment, balance work and personal demands, and lead healthier lives. In FY 2012, EPA will continue employee outreach efforts and soliciting employee feedback in the Agencys effort to improve the quality of work life. In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the EGovernment (E-Gov) initiative, and the Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) program. HR LoB offers government-wide, cost effective, and standardized HR solutions while providing core functionality to support the strategic management of human capital. In FY 2012, EPA will support the transition to a new HR system which will establish modern, cost-effective, standardized, interoperable HR solutions that provide common core functionality and support the strategic management of human capital.
736
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports the performance results in the Human Resources Management Program Project under the EPM appropriation and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,503.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$78.0) This reflects an increase for Workers Compensation unemployment costs. (-$56.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$59.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Title V USC, FAIR Act.
737
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $82,834.0 $1,115.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$86,883.5 $1,312.0
$82,834.0 $1,115.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$77,548.0 $512.0

($5,286.0) ($603.0)

$27,490.0
$111,439.0 547.7
$28,192.2
$116,387.7 538.7
$27,490.0
$111,439.0 547.7
$22,252.0
$100,312.0 535.7
($5,238.0)
($11,127.0) -12.0
Program Project Description: EPAs financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund program. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) recognizes and supports this continuing partnership by providing a full array of financial management support services necessary to pay Superfund bills and recoup cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund. OCFO manages Superfund activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program in support of integrated planning, budgeting formulation and execution, financial management, performance and accountability processes, financial cost recovery, and the systems to ensure effective stewardship of Superfund resources. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide high-quality resource stewardship to ensure that all Agency programs operate with fiscal responsibility and management integrity, and are efficiently and consistently delivered nationwide and demonstrate results. EPA will continue to provide direction and support for the Superfund program in financial management activities; implementing cost accounting requirements; financial payment and support services; and Superfund-specific fiscal and accounting services. Early in FY 2012, the Agency will complete a major milestone by deploying a new core financial system. This extensive effort will improve both the Agencys ability to meet its fiduciary responsibilities as well as advance program goals and initiatives by better linking EPA financial and program performance and providing timely and reliable financial data to inform management decision making. For example, the new core financial system will improve efficiency by automating quality control functions as well as comply with Congressional
738
direction and federal financial systems requirements. This work will be framed by the Agencys Enterprise Architecture and make use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve its transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of operations through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments over financial activities as required under revised OMB Circular A-123 as well as controls over programmatic operations under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). Improvements in internal controls will further support EPAs initiatives for improved financial performance. EPA also will continue to ensure improved accessibility to data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance integration, and management decisionmaking. Since the implementation of the Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed, sampled, and monitored its payments to protect against erroneous payments. The Agency consistently exceeds the government-wide performance goal of 2.5 percent with an average error rate of less than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities, and travel/purchase card). Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the sample. In FY 2012, EPA will continue these activities to reduce even further the amount of improper payments pursuant to the Improper Payment Act of 2002 as amended, by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), (P.L. 111-204). Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$689.6) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce cost for existing FTE. (-$503.6/-0.6 FTE) This reflects a reduction in Superfund finance activities including contract support for Superfund reporting, A-123 reviews and training. The reduced resources include 0.6 FTE and associated payroll of $74.4. (-3.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$485.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others totaling $10 million agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE. (-$164.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will Currently, there are no
739
continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$49.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$4,726.0) This decrease reduces support for the financial system modernization project (FSMP). Statutory Authority: Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPAs Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law and EPAs Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982); FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990); GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC.
740
741
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spill Programs $188,095.0 $345.0 $639.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$183,002.7 $422.5 $549.7
$186,095.0 $345.0 $639.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$171,026.0 $454.0 $614.0

($17,069.0) $109.0 ($25.0)

$21,264.0
$210,343.0 647.0
$22,525.3
$206,500.2 625.3
$21,264.0
$208,343.0 647.0
$17,706.0
$189,800.0 621.7
($3,558.0)
($20,543.0) -25.3
Program Project Description: The new Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program under the Superfund appropriation seeks to be responsive to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requirements under Section 209(a), which calls for ...a comprehensive and coordinated federal program of research, development, demonstration, and training for the purpose of promoting the development of alternative and innovative treatment technologies that can be used in response actions under the CERCLA program. The SHC program provides essential research to the Agencys Superfund program to enable them to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex contaminated sites. Research themes include contaminated sediments, groundwater, and site characterization issues. The research program also provides site-specific technical support through EPA labs and centers, as well as liaisons in each Regional Office. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science for the SHC program by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at contaminated site cleanup and remediation from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and provide more timely and efficient yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. Consistent with the Administrations science and technology priorities for FY 2012, 13 the new integrated research approach will also help develop sustainable solutions by conducting research on green remediation technologies that may serve to benefit the community as a whole while removing contaminants or limiting their transport potential. This research will leverage the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers and bridge traditional scientific
13
742
disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by contaminated sites. EPA will use the integrated transdisciplinary research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will also continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. All or portions of the following Research Programs will be integrated into the SHC Research Program: Human Health Research Ecosystems Services Research Land Protection and Preservation Research Pesticides and Toxics Research Sustainability Research Fellowships Research
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; growing waste streams; and tighter budgets have added to the issues that must be faced when remediating Superfund sites. A more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. As one recipient of an EPA Sustainability Partnership grant put it, Communities need better tools to help them make more pro-active and strategic land conservation, land development, and investment decisions. The following are descriptions of research topics that the Agency plans to explore in FY 2012 based on on-going input from EPAs partners. These research themes and questions will be independently reviewed by EPAs Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors. Resources transferred from the Superfund appropriation will be used within these themes consistent with relevant authorization. Theme 1: Strategies, Policies, and Practices for Sustainable Communities Communities are increasingly challenged to improve and protect the health and well-being of their residents and the ecosystem services upon which they depend, in the face of increasing resource demands and changing demographics, economic, social, and climate patterns. This research area will focus on: Evaluating the performance of remedies for contaminated sediments; and Evaluating on-site chemical oxication and permeable reactive barriers at existing field sites.
743
Key Research Questions: What are the problems that pose the greatest threat to communities across the U.S. with Superfund sites? What approaches to site remediation would best protect and enhance the ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being, while potentially providing valuable co-benefits to the community itself or to a larger region? What approaches to land use and management would have the greatest benefits in terms of protecting natural capital and reducing the adverse impacts of municipal and industrial wastes? What approaches would best reduce community exposures to toxics from multiple sources at Superfund sites, especially for the most sensitive residents? What remedial options and approaches can be developed to facilitate cleanup of contaminated sites in order to expedite the reuse of those sites in a protective manner, effectively returning those sites to the status of a community asset as opposed to a blight? Theme 2: Sustainability Indicators and Performance Measures In the complex arena of sustainability, where the costs of failure can be high and stakeholders have multiple and sometimes conflicting interests, communities need measurement tools to characterize their current state, develop meaningful goals and quantifiable objectives for the future, understand the consequences of alternative investment strategies, track their progress, and confirm that their investments are yielding the intended results. This research will focus on: Developing indicators, indices, and performance measures that help communities to assess their overall sustainability; Diagnosing the areas that are (or will be) in greatest need of improvement; and Tracking progress toward sustainability goals and targets.
Key Research Questions: What indicators of sustainability are most appropriate for assessing a community after a site remediation has been completed, or in establishing remediation goals? What indicators of sustainability are of most utility in diagnosing the problems and identifying potential solutions? What indicators of sustainability are most useful for setting environmental remediation goals and communicating these goals to community stakeholders? What are the most useful indicators of sustainability for tracking the performance of projects intended to clean up or remediate Superfund sites and communicating the results to community stakeholders? What data are available at the national scale that could be useful to communities with contaminated sites, and how can the numerous state and local datasets be collected and organized to facilitate sustainability analysis when a region spans multiple jurisdictional boundaries?
744
Theme 3: Decision Analysis and Support While communities often have creative and well-trained government staff, NGOs, and citizen groups, they usually do not have the capacity to rapidly develop and/or customize advanced decision tools and supporting data sets that will enable effective, real-time community investment decisions. This research will focus on developing practical decision support tools and analytic methods that enable communities to effectively use information developed by the SHC Research Program and other programs to support community decision making related to environmental sustainability. Key Research Questions: What computational and measurement tools can support community decision making regarding contaminated site cleanup and sustained improvements? What types of systems analysis methods (e.g., material flow analysis, life cycle assessment, and system dynamics modeling) can be effectively applied or modified to help communities develop a clear vision for their future and understand which steps will achieve the best outcomes in the face of uncertainty regarding sustained benefits of site remediation? How can decision support systems best be designed so that they provide clearly understandable results to decision-makers and stakeholders and are usable by communities on a real-time, iterative basis? Performance Targets: Performance results for this program are discussed in the S&T: Communities Research Program Project. Sustainable and Healthy
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): As noted in the table above, EPA is transitioning from the former Land Protection and Restoration Research Program: Superfund structure to the newly integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program: Superfund structure. For FY 2012, the Administration is requesting $17,706.0 and 89.5 FTE for this program, including $12,149.0 in associated payroll. The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following this section: (-$2,927.0 / -2.5 FTE) This reduction reflects a decrease in scope for planned research in groundwater remediation and contaminated sediments, and includes a reduction of 2.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $333.0. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
745
(-$115.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$516.0 / -1.1 FTE) This decrease represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes an increase in associated payroll of $333.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. Following are transfers into the new transdisciplinary Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program: (+$17,706.0 / +89.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program narrative. Statutory Authority: BRERA; CERCLA 104(i), Section 105(a) (4), Section 115, Section 311, 42 U.S.C 9604 (i) (1); SARA 42 U.S.C. 7401 Sec. 209 (a) and Sec. 403 (a,b).
746
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
747
Human Health Risk Assessment Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$41,516.4
$42,899.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$42,400.0

($499.0)

$3,404.0
$46,303.0 182.5
$3,169.1
$44,685.5 216.2
$3,404.0
$46,303.0 182.5
$3,342.0
$45,742.0 195.8
($62.0)
($561.0) 13.3
Program Project Description: EPAs Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based on the best available science at the time, for very specific problems such as risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species. Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions that are designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential health and environmental detriment in the future. The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program will continue to provide health hazard assessments and develop assessment methods. EPAs HHRA Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americans public health and environment. It receives resources under both the Science and Technology and the Superfund appropriations. A subcommittee review from the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)a federal advisory committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineersnoted that the HHRA Program has made several key advancements including completing a strategic plan, targeting cutting-edge risk assessments, enhancing communication, and improving capabilities to provide assessment resources in response to significant events. The BOSC reported that the HHRA Program is making substantial and satisfactory progress in each of the above areas based on clearly defined milestones as well as on providing the additional support requested by EPA programs including technical support in response to unscheduled emergency needs. In July 2010, the BOSC reviewed the mid-cycle report on the progress of the HHRA Program in implementing its previous recommendations. The BOSC affirmed its previous evaluation of the relevance of the program and noted significant progress on its previous recommendations. EPA
748
is using the BOSCs evaluation and recommendations to help plan, implement, and strengthen the program over the next five years. The HHRA MYP14 details risk assessments and methodologies used to support EPAs Superfund Program. Partners and stakeholders participate in planning work and help outline research needs and priorities. The Superfund portion of the HHRA Program includes the following: The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),15 Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), and other health hazard assessments: Based on the expressed needs of EPAs Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program, the HHRA Program prepares IRIS hazard characterization and dose-response profiles for environmental pollutants of specific relevance to superfund site assessments and remediation. As of January 2010, more than 550 health hazard assessments were available through IRIS, and the majority of these chemical assessments are relevant to Superfunds decision making. Where IRIS values are unavailable, the HHRA Program develops PPRTVs for evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund sites. EPAs Superfund Technical Support Centers provide support for these PPRTV assessments. As of January 2010, new or renewed PPRTVs were available for 236 chemicals. Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development: The HHRA Program uses Superfund resources to improve risk assessment guidance, methods, and models for EPAs Superfund Program. This support includes the development of exposure-response data arrays, revised reference concentration (RfC) methodology and cumulative risk tools. These methods and tools will help staff in the Superfund Program better estimate potential effects of exposures at superfund sites on humans. The HHRA Program will provide the consultative support necessary for the application of these methods. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to develop IRIS assessments for environmental pollutants of specific relevance to superfund site assessments and remediation. The HHRA Program will develop PPRTVs for evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund sites. EPAs Superfund Technical Support Centers will provide consultative support for PPRTV assessment development. Performance Targets: EPA uses performance measures for this program to manage and improve the development of risk assessment to support EPA decision-making. . These outcomes support the achievement of EPAs Strategic Plan goals. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting planned annual outputs (detailed in the programs research plan). . In addition, to be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and Technology in Americas Reinvestment Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the
14 15
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hhramypdraft.pdf. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
749
National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will use science of science policy approaches to assess the impact that federal science and technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$86.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$12.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred to the Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (-$5.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$40.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure resources such as equipment purchases, repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. (-$42.0) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. This will not have programmatic impacts. (-$47.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the government-wide Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$26.0) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers in the HHRA Research Program. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7403 et seq. - Sections 103, 108, 109, and 112; CERCLA (Superfund, 1980), Section 209(a) of Public Law 99-499; FIFRA (7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et seq. (1996), as amended), Sec. 3(c)(2)(A); FQPA PL 104-170; SDWA (1996) 42 U.S.C. Section 300j-18; TSCA (Public Law 94-469): 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976), Sec. 4(b)(1)(B), Sec. 4(b)(2)(B).
750
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
751
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal Program Area: Superfund Cleanup Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $225,840.0

$225,840.0 280.8

$202,330.0 292.4

$194,895.0 281.6

($7,435.0) -10.8
$202,330.0
$202,330.0 292.4
Program Project Description: The Superfund program was initially designed, and has been consistently used, to implement two complementary types of response actions: remedial actions and removal actions. Remedial actions fully address wastes at the largest, most complex contamination sites (i.e., National Priorities List [NPL] sites). Removal actions quickly address releases, whether originating from an NPL site or not, that pose an imminent threat to public health or welfare and the environment. The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program addresses removal actions. Each year, more than 30,000 emergencies involving the release (or threatened release) of hazardous substances are reported in the United States, potentially affecting both communities and the surrounding natural environment. The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program ensures that releases of hazardous substances, including chemical, biological, and radiological agents (e.g., uranium, radium, and thorium), to the environment are appropriately addressed, first through pursuing potentially responsible parties and then, if necessary, completing a Federal-led action. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)16, EPA evaluates both large and small releases and responds with emergency and removal actions to protect human health and the environment. EPA provides technical support at emergency, time-critical, and non-time critical response actions. This activity also supports the development and maintenance of the necessary response infrastructure to enable EPA to respond effectively to accidental and intentional releases as well as natural disasters. The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program supports the Agencys priorities of cleaning up communities and building state and tribal partnerships. For more information about the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/er_cleanup.htm.
16
EPAs roles and responsibilities are further outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), please refer to http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm.
752
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of releases, whether accidental, or deliberate. EPA Federal OSCs conduct and/or provide support for removal assessments, emergency responses, and cleanup response actions at NPL and nonNPL sites. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to respond and conduct removal actions based upon the risk to human health and the environment in urban, rural and Indian country. In recent years, emergency response and removal activities have grown more complicated, requiring more resources and time to complete. In addition, these activities often require personnel with knowledge of specific hazardous substances, health and safety issues, complex options, or the utilization of emerging technologies. EPA will continue to conduct an annual readiness training event for Federal OSCs, which is widely attended by EPA and its government partners from other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local entities. This training offers courses on a variety of environmentally related emergency response topics designed to strengthen the knowledge and skills of federal responders and provides required training for OSCs. This very successful training program is designed to ensure the readiness of EPA OSCs nationwide by focusing on EPAs efforts to create necessary consistency across the Agency, highlight priorities for further policy development and coordination, and strengthen partnerships with local, state, tribal and other federal responders. The Environmental Response Team (ERT) provides assistance at the scene of hazardous substance releases, offering expertise in such areas as treatment, biology, chemistry, hydrology, geology, and engineering. In FY 2012, the ERT will continue to provide support for the full range of emergency response actions, including unusual or complex emergency incidents. In such cases, ERT brings in special equipment and experienced responders, and can provide the OSC or lead responder with experience and advice. In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups, where possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By coordinating the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Removal, and Federal Facilities; Brownfields; Underground Storage Tanks; and RCRA Corrective Action), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years. Under this initiative, EPA is exploring different options for leveraging the Superfund removal and Brownfield authorities to further advance cleanup and reuse of contaminated sites. This is just one of several examples of the efforts undertaken through this new initiative. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate the
753
pace of cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPAs cleanup programs. The FY 2012 request includes a net $7.4 million reduction in Regional response activities. This reduction will be primarily applied to Superfund-lead action removals while EPA continues to focus on encouraging PRPs to conduct removal actions and undertakes an effort to identify efficiencies in program operations and management. As part of the President's Open Government Initiative, EPA is working to improve the ways in which the Agency communicates important information back to the community. One tool developed to achieve this goal is a Sampling Methodology Scale that provides easy-tounderstand, color-coded information on contamination levels that exceed certain thresholds (e.g., red, yellow and green). This scale was field tested during the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response, and prior to that at a Region 1 removal site, as well as during a lead abatement at EPAs Headquarters facility. From these successful field tests, EPA will be deploying this tool more broadly. Each Regional Office also will continue to provide site-specific information about removal activities via the website: http://www.epaosc.org/. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.
FY 2010 Target
170
FY 2010 Actual
199
FY 2011 CR Target
170
FY 2012 Target
170
Units
Removals
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
0.95
FY 2010 Actual
1.96
FY 2011 CR Target
0.96
FY 2012 Target
0.97
Units
(136) Superfund-lead removal actions Efficiency completed annually per million dollars.
Removals
Measure Type
Measure
(135) PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
170
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
170
192
170
Removals
754
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(C1) Score on annual Core NAR.
FY 2010 Target
55
FY 2010 Actual
87.9
FY 2011 CR Target
60
FY 2012 Target
70
Units
Percent
With aggressive enforcement, EPA has been able to compel PRPs to conduct additional removal actions. In FY 2012, EPA will oversee 170 PRP removal actions (including voluntary, Administrative Order on Consent [AOC], and Unilateral Administrative Order [UAO] actions). In addition, EPA will conduct 170 Superfund-lead removal actions. For several years, EPA implemented an annual assessment of its response and removal preparedness, known as Core Emergency Response (ER). Several years ago Core National Approach to Response (NAR) replaced Core ER. Core NAR addresses agency-wide implementation of EPAs NAR and measures progress towards being ready to respond to multiple nationally significant events. The Core NAR criteria are based on items found in EPAs Homeland Security Priority Workplan and the NAR Preparedness Plan. There are three components of Core NAR: headquarters, Regional offices, and Special Teams. The target for FY 2012 is a readiness score of 70 percent. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$1,143.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$200.0 / +1.5 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE redirected from the Superfund Remedial program to the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Program to support increased removal assessments and oversight due to state budget shortfalls. (-$81.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$5,671.0) This reflects a reduction in Regional response activities. The Agency will endeavor to find efficiencies and lessen the impact of this reduction. This reduction will be primarily applied to Superfund-lead action removals while EPA continues to focus on encouraging PRPs to conduct removal actions. (-$3,026.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-12.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.
755
Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, 42 USC 9601 et seq. - Sections 104, 105 and 106
756
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness Program Area: Superfund Cleanup Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,667.5

$9,667.5 40.9

$9,632.0 44.1

$9,263.0 40.2

($369.0) -3.9
$9,632.0
$9,632.0 44.1
Program Project Description: EPA implements the Emergency Preparedness program in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies to deliver federal assistance to state, local, and tribal governments during natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. The Agency carries out this responsibility under multiple statutory authorities as well as the National Response Framework (NRF), which provides the comprehensive federal structure for managing national emergencies. EPA is the designated lead for the NRFs Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex - Emergency Support Function #10 which covers hazardous materials, oil, and other contaminants. As such, the Agency participates with interagency committees and workgroups to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level. EPA also chairs the 16-agency National Response Team (NRT) and co-chairs 13 Regional Response Teams (RRTs) throughout the United States. These teams coordinate the actions of federal, state, local, and tribal partners to prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The Superfund EPA Emergency Preparedness program supports the Agencys priorities of building state and tribal partnerships and cleaning up communities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Preparedness on a national level is essential to ensure that EPA, other federal agencies, and state, local and tribal emergency responders are able to deal with multiple emergencies. This program will continue to enhance the Agencys readiness capabilities in FY 2012 through ongoing internal and external training exercises and coordination with those agencies. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to chair and provide administrative and logistical support to the NRT and co-chair the multiple RRTs throughout the United States. The NRT and RRTs coordinate federal partner actions to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from releases of hazardous substances, terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies, whether accidental or intentional. The NRT and the RRTs are the only active environmentally-focused interagency executive committees addressing oil and hazardous substance emergencies.
757
Building on current efforts to enhance national emergency response management, NRT agencies will continue implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the NRF. NRT agencies will improve notification and response procedures, develop response technical assistance documents, implement and test incident command/unified command systems across all levels of government and the private sector, and assist in the development of Regional Contingency Plans and Local Area Plans. In FY 2012, EPA will participate in training and exercises to continue fostering a working relationship between state, local, tribal, and federal responders implementing the system. EPA will participate in the development of scenario-specific national and regional level plans to respond to large scale events and incidents of national significance. EPA also will continue to provide staff support as needed during national disasters, emergencies and other high profile, large-scale responses carried out under the NRF. When activated under the NRF, EPA supports activities at the NRT, RRTs, Domestic Readiness Group, and the National Operations Center. Additionally, EPA is collecting and analyzing lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) response. The Agency is interested in applying DWH lessons learned to general practices on EPAs overall response readiness. Feedback is being provided by the Response Support Corps volunteers, as well as Emergency Operations Center (EOCs) and field workers in Regions 4 and 6 and at Headquarters. EPA (as chair of the NRT) is working with the vice chair, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), on leading the effort to develop an NRT lessons learned report. EPA also is working with USCG on developing a senior level cross-agency report that addresses higher level interagency coordination during the response. The FY 2012 request includes a $500 thousand reduction in support for the NRT and RRTs that support the NRF. This reduction is not expected to directly impede performance, but may reduce the level and speed of coordination with other agencies as well as support to state programs. As part of its strategy for improving effectiveness, the Agency will continue to improve response readiness in FY 2012 through information obtained from the Agencys National Approach to Response (NAR). EPAs NAR ensures efficient use of emergency response assets within the Agency by maintaining highly skilled technical personnel in the field and ensuring their readiness to respond to releases of dangerous materials without compromising health and safety. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the Restore Land objective under Goal 3. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$261.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
758
(-$34.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$500.0) This reflects a reduction in interagency participation with committees and workgroups that support the National Response Framework system. This reduction to the program is not expected to directly impede performance. (-$96.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-3.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. - Sections 104, 105 and 106; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
759
Superfund: Federal Facilities Program Area: Superfund Cleanup Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $33,605.0

$33,605.0 148.6

$32,105.0 144.1

$26,242.0 142.2

($5,863.0) -1.9
$32,105.0
$32,105.0 144.1
Program Project Description: The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program oversees the protective and efficient cleanup and reuse of federal facility sites. Nationwide, there are thousands of federal facilities that are contaminated with hazardous waste, military munitions, radioactive waste, and a variety of other toxic contaminants. These facilities include various types of sites, such as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), active, realigning and closed military installations, abandoned mine sites, nuclear weapons production facilities, and landfills. EPA fulfills a number of statutory and regulatory obligations at federal facilities, including assessing sites for potential listing on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), conducting oversight at NPL sites where cleanup is being completed by other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), enforcing statutorily required federal facility agreements (FFAs), and maintaining the federal agency hazardous waste compliance docket. EPAs oversight authority helps provide for an independent assessment of federal cleanups that ensures work being conducted by the other federal agencies is in agreement with the site cleanup plans. Although other federal agencies are designated as the lead for the cleanup actions at their sites, EPA is responsible for activities such as: 1) reviewing and finalizing site cleanup documents; 2) participating in site meetings with the affected communities; and 3) monitoring timelines and schedules as outlined in the FFAs to ensure federal agencies are more efficient and accountable in protecting human health and the environment. These FFAs state that EPA has the final decision making authority for remedy selection to ensure the protection of human health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. Decision documents that support final remedy selection are subject to independent review and assessment by EPA in accordance with the milestones and timeframes established in the FFA. EPA is also currently providing oversight at non-NPL mining sites (including mixed ownership sites), and FUDS (e.g., Spring Valley site in Washington, DC). At the request of states and communities, and based on the characteristics, EPAs also provides oversight activities and nonNPL sites that are consistent with efforts at NPL sites, scaled as appropriate.
760
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also provides technical assistance to other federal entities, states, tribes, and local governments, and continues to engage communities during the cleanup of federal properties. The program ensures statutory responsibilities related to the transfer of contaminated federal properties at NPL sites are protective. Such responsibilities include the approval authority for transfers prior to implementation of remedies (i.e., early transfer at NPL sites), and for determinations that remedies are operating properly and successfully at both NPL and non-NPL sites. Often, EPA and the parties implementing the remedies face unique challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the facility, the extent of contamination, ongoing facility operations needs, complex community involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the facilities. EPA and DOD are engaged in a project aimed at harmonizing cleanup and reporting metrics at federal Superfund sites. The EPA/DOD Goal Harmonization Workgroup, which was established in FY 2009, provides a process for the two agencies to work collaboratively to determine a consistent, transparent approach to performance measures currently used to indicate progress across cleanup programs. One example of the efforts of this workgroup was to combine the cleanup schedules from DOD military munitions sites into EPAs construction completion schedules for corresponding NPL sites. This effort should minimize any major impacts to construction completion dates for these sites. The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program supports the Agencys priorities of cleaning up communities and building strong state and tribal partnerships. For more information about the program, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: At NPL properties that remain under federal jurisdiction and control, EPA will continue assisting and holding accountable other federal agencies to ensure the cleanup remedies are protective. EPAs oversight responsibilities at federal facility sites are consistent with private party cleanups and are required by law. As part of the Agencys Community Engagement Initiative, EPA will improve collaboration, communication and outreach to states and local governments, tribes, communities, and transferees. In October 2010, EPA hosted a Federal Facility Cleanup Dialogue (dialogue) which provided an opportunity for a diverse array of stakeholders to discuss the progress, achievements and challenges surrounding the cleanup of federally-owned contaminated sites. Representatives from DOD, DOE, the Department of Agriculture, and Department of the Interior participated in the dialogue. EPA will continue to foster a dialogue between other federal agencies and interested stakeholders to establish improved community engagement and trust between federal, state, local and tribal governments, and the local communities. In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010. The initiative will better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate the pace of cleanups where possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By coordinating the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, and Federal Facilities; Brownfields; Underground Storage
761
Tanks and RCRA Corrective Action), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual federal facility sites. EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years. In addition to help track the impact of the program, EPA has introduced a new annual performance Superfund measure, Remedial Action Project Completions, which includes federal facilities sites and will enable us to further demonstrate progress at various stages of the cleanup and further optimize the work within the cleanup pipeline. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue focusing on achieving site-wide construction completions, accelerating cleanups, promoting reuse of properties under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and ensuring appropriate community involvement at federal facilities on the NPL. As of October 2010, there were: 173 final, of which 15 have been deleted. In addition, for the universe of NPL federal facilities, 82 have a final remedy selected, 69 had achieved site-wide construction completion, and 40 have been identified as site-wide ready for anticipated use. Also in the Federal Facilities Response program, EPA is providing oversight and technical assistance for 390 ongoing remedial investigations/feasibility studies and 192 ongoing remedial actions at NPL federal sites. While there have not been many new federal facility sites listed on the NPL in recent years, the program still has a significant amount of work in the pipeline at a large number of NPL sites. For example, more than half of the 173 federal facility sites on the NPL have not reached construction complete (60%), and more than half of the sites still have records of decision remaining to be signed (53%).
Source: CERCLIS data as of October 2010. *Other includes: Coast Guard (1), COE (1), DOI (2), DOT (1), EPA (1), FAA (1), NASA (2), National Guard (1), SBA (1), and USDA (2).
Recognizing fiscal constraints, the FY 2012 request includes a net $5.9 million reduction that will be applied primarily to EPAs work at non-NPL sites to minimize impacts in meeting our
762
statutory requirements at federal NPL sites. Additional possible effects include, for example: (1) curtailing EPAs oversight and technical assistance at federal NPL sites, (2) delays in document reviews, and (3) reductions to perform site assessments and new NPL listings. Combined with the reduction to the Superfund Remedial program, the Agencys ability to achieve goals such as the annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed could also be affected going forward. EPA will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase efficiency in other areas. In FY 2012 and as part of the Agencys Contract 2010 initiative, EPA will review how to reduce the overhead cost associated with the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program. This endeavor is to find efficiencies in EPA contracting and related processes used to support the program (e.g., contracts, interagency agreements, and cooperative agreements). In FY 2012, EPA will continue strengthening oversight and technical assistance, as appropriate, at DODs military munitions response sites that are on the NPL. These military munitions response sites contain unique chemical and explosive compounds. Emerging contaminants and human health hazards, such as vapor intrusion, require direct EPA oversight as federal agencies reopen various site assessment and cleanup activities to address such contamination. The human health and environmental issues surrounding emerging contaminants sites will require federal agencies to fulfill their responsibilities under the law and for EPA to oversee and ensure the protectiveness of those actions. To ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedies, EPA will continue monitoring and overseeing the progress and improving the quality and consistency of five-year reviews being conducted at federal sites where waste has been left in place and land use is restricted. Although the other federal agencies are responsible for writing the five-year review report and making a determination of whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment, EPAs role is to review the report and make an independent assessment of whether the remedy remains protective. In FY 2012, EPA will review, concur and ensure the protectiveness of approximately 30 federal NPL five-year review reports in order to fulfill statutory requirements and to inform the public regarding the protectiveness of remedies at those NPL sites. EPA is required to report annually to Congress on the status of five-year reviews. The Agency also will continue supporting DOD at select Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations that have been closed or realigned during the first four rounds of BRAC (BRAC I IV). This includes, but is not limited to, meeting and expediting statutory obligations for overseeing cleanup and facilitating property transfer. EPAs BRAC I - IV accelerated cleanup program continues to be funded by DOD through an interagency agreement. EPAs FY 2012 request does not include additional support for BRAC-related services to DOD at those facilities affected by the fifth round of BRAC in 2005. For several years, EPA has been strengthening its partnerships with other federal agencies to achieve long-term environmental goals. As part of the EPA/DOD Goal Harmonization Workgroup, EPA and DOD will formalize and align their common measures and continue to implement improvements in the work planning process. These efforts along with partnerships with other federal agencies will continue in FY 2012. In addition, EPAs Superfund Federal
763
Facilities Response program recently completed a historical planning and data accomplishment analysis aimed at improving the accuracy of regional target-setting for site cleanup milestones. EPA will continue implementing the results of the analysis in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports performance results in the Superfund Remedial program project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$486.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$9.0 / +1.2 FTE) This reflects a net change in resources as a result of reducing $179.0 in contract costs to fund $166.0 for associated payroll and $4.0 related support costs for an additional 1.2 FTE redirected from the BRAC program to the Federal Facilities Response program. The additional FTE will support key Agency initiatives including: Contracts 2010, the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, and the Community Engagement Initiative. (-$4,967.0 / -16.0 FTE) This reduction recognizes fiscal constraints, will be applied primarily to EPAs work at non-NPL sites to minimize impacts in meeting our statutory requirements at federal NPL sites, and may slow down the Agencys oversight of the steps that lead to being ready for construction. The reduced resources including 16.0 FTE and associated payroll of $2208.0. (-$1,162.0) This reduction implements an Agency review to streamline oversight of our Federal partners and to find program efficiencies in data management support. (-$19.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$192.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+17.9 FTE) This change reflects a redirection of reimbursable FTE from the BRAC program to the Federal Facilities Response program. The additional FTE will support increased workload needs at non-BRAC I-IV sites, such as the U.S. Militarys buildup in Guam, DOE and U.S. Coast Guard. Sufficient reimbursable FTE are retained to support BRAC program needs, which continue to decline as more BRAC sites are cleaned up or transferred.
764
(-3.2 FTE) This reflects a conversion of reimbursable FTE from the BRAC program to appropriated FTE for the Federal Facilities Response program, RCRA Waste Management program and the Superfund Remedial program. This change reflects EPAs workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities as the BRAC sites are cleaned up. Sufficient reimbursable FTE are retained to support BRAC program needs. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Section 120; the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Section 7003; and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Acts of 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2004 as amended by the National Defense Authorization Acts and the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act.
765
Superfund: Remedial Program Area: Superfund Cleanup Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
Budget Authority Recovery Act Budget Authority Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
FY 2010 Actuals $693,835.2

$688,644.9 $5,190.3 $693,835.2 980.6

$605,438.0 $0.0 $605,438.0 944.2

$574,499.0 $0.0 $574,499.0 931.0

($30,939.0) $0.0 ($30,939.0) -13.2
$605,438.0
$605,438.0 $0.0 $605,438.0 944.2
Program Project Description: In order to make our communities safer and healthier, the Superfund Remedial program addresses risks to human health and the environment resulting from releases of hazardous substances at Superfund sites. Superfund sites with contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater exist nationally in hundreds of communities and can encompass very large land areas. Many of these sites are located in urban areas and may therefore expose higher numbers of sensitive populations to contamination. Remediating contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil can be technically challenging and costly. Some Superfund sites require decades to clean up due to site-specific physical characteristics; their associated unique contamination footprints; the political, community, and legal complexities involved in addressing the site; and the resources required to clean up the site. For some sites, removing or destroying all of the contamination is not possible, and residual contamination needs to be managed on-site, creating the need for site-specific long-term stewardship activities. The Superfund Remedial program manages the risks to human health and the environment posed by these uncontrolled hazardous wastes at the nations highest priority sites through carefully selected cleanup, stabilization, or other actions. Resources in this program are used to: collect and analyze data at sites to determine the potential effect of contaminants on human health and the environment and the need for an EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response; ensure the highest priority releases are addressed by adding sites to the National Priorities List (NPL); engage with local communities as each site goes through the Superfund response process; conduct or oversee investigations and studies to select remedies;
766
design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-construction activities at non-federal facility sites; control human exposures to contamination and prevent the spread of contaminated groundwater; ensure long-term protectiveness of remedies by overseeing operations and maintenance and conducting five-year reviews; work with states, communities, and responsible parties to implement appropriate institutional controls to protect engineered remedies, prevent inappropriate misuse of remediated sites, and limit unsafe exposures; delete sites (or parts of sites) from the NPL where appropriate; identify where sites can be made available for reuse; and work collaboratively with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities from the time a site is discovered until it is cleaned up and returned to productive reuse in a community. The Superfund Remedial program supports the Agencys priorities of cleaning up communities and building state and tribal partnerships. For more information about the Superfund Remedial program and its community involvement resources, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund. The Superfund Remedial program received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These funds have been obligated and will continue to be outlayed as construction activities proceed at the sites and contractors performing the work submit invoices for reimbursement to EPA. The Agency has outlayed close to 75% of their ARRA funds. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Superfund remedial programs top priority remains reducing risk to human health and the environment by constructing long-term remedies to address contaminated sites on the NPL. EPA will continue to address complicated environmental and human health problems such as contaminated soils in residential areas and contaminated sediments, surface water and groundwater. The Agencys goal is ultimately to provide long-term human health and environmental protection at the nations most contaminated hazardous waste sites, and return sites to communities for reuse. In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund Remedial program will, where appropriate, undertake interim response actions to protect people and the environment from the acute threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes or contaminated groundwater. These efforts demonstrate EPAs commitment to protecting human health and the environment from possible short- and long-term effects of site-related contamination.
767
Superfund Site Activity as of 1/18/11
Progress is determined by Most Advanced Operable Unit. Chart results generated from CERCLIS data.
EPA will continue to assess actual or potential releases at sites where EPA has been notified by states, tribes, community members, other federal agencies, or other sources of a potential hazardous waste site or incident. EPA conducts a series of progressively more complex remedial assessments at these sites to determine whether cleanup is needed under Superfund or another cleanup authority. At the beginning of FY 2012, the Agency expects to have performed a cumulative total of 89,700 Superfund remedial assessments. EPA plans to complete 900 Superfund remedial site assessments in FY 2012. This new strategic measure accounts for all remedial assessments performed at sites addressed under the Superfund program whereas our previous 2006-2011 measure only captured a subset of these assessments (i.e., the final assessments completed at sites). By capturing the assessment work leading to final assessment decisions, including the initial screening assessments to determine Superfund eligibility, the new measure more fully accounts for the work performed during the Superfund site assessment process.
768
For those sites requiring additional federal actions to protect human health and the environment, EPAs NPL identifies sites that contain priority releases for long-term remedial evaluation and response. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Fund-financed remedial action. Sites posing immediate risks, whether on the NPL or not, may be addressed under the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program. In FY 2012, EPA will continue investigating sites to determine the best approach to address these sites, including listing them on the NPL. EPA expects there will be two final NPL rule makings during FY 2012. At NPL sites, EPA will continue with remedial activities that include remedial investigations and feasibility studies to review site conditions and evaluate strategies for cleanup, taking into consideration reasonably anticipated future land use. Multiple cleanup actions are required at many sites to address all the contamination. In FY 2012, a significant number of sites will require completion of characterization before remedy decisions can be made and construction can take place. Community involvement is a key component in selecting the proper remedy at a site. The Agency will continue to engage the community from the time a site is discovered until it is cleaned up in all aspects of its decision-making, remedy implementation and construction activities. EPA maintains direct site support services to support the scientific integrity in the Agencys decision-making process for site cleanup alternatives. The Agency provides reliable and high quality analytical services for use at sites through the Contract Laboratory Program, Regional labs, and special analytical services and analyses and maintains an Environmental Response Team which is available to support the site-specific needs of emergency responders, on-scene coordinators, and remedial project managers in conducting assessments, investigations and clean-ups. EPA also ensures the professional development of its staff through an extensive technical training program which is also available to states, tribes, and our federal partners and employs an active and comprehensive technology assessment and integration program to provide staff with information on new technologies, direct site support to employ technologies, technology training, and support to optimize the clean-up process. Prior to remedy construction, EPA conducts the remedial design (RD) for the site cleanup where the technical specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies are designed based on the Record of Decision (ROD). The RD is a series of engineering reports, documents, specifications, and drawings that detail the steps to be taken to meet the goals established in the ROD. The RD may include sampling, pilot tests and treatability studies. Following the RD, the actual construction or implementation of the cleanup remedy, called the Remedial Action, will be performed by EPA (or states with EPA funding) or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under EPA or state oversight. EPA is committed to providing resources to maintain construction progress at all projects 17, including large and complicated remedial projects, once construction has started. Funding for EPA Superfund construction projects is critical to achieving risk reduction, construction
17
Projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as described in the Record of Decision. They are typically defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., groundwater contamination), areas of a site (e.g., discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). A given remedy may contain multiple actions or projects depending on the nature of the remedy selected.
769
completion, and restoration of contaminated sites to allow productive reuse. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work to improve long-term planning construction estimates, including planning for the use of resources received from settlements with PRPs that have been placed in special accounts for future response work. In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups where possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By coordinating the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Removal, and Federal Facilities; Brownfields; Underground Storage Tanks; and RCRA Corrective Action), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years. One action being taken involves considering adding a new screening mechanism to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) enabling sites with vapor intrusion contamination to be evaluated for placement on the NPL. This is just one of several examples of the efforts undertaken through this new initiative. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate the pace of cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPAs cleanup programs. Through ICI, EPA is pursuing program efficiencies to improve the management of the program and increase joint efforts among programs, as well as defining and implementing new performance measures that further describe the achievement of EPAs cleanup programs. Beginning in FY 2011, EPA is reporting on the new measure Number of Remedial Action (RA) Project Completions at NPL Sites, to augment the historical site-wide construction completion measure. This new measure will enable us to demonstrate incremental progress in reducing risk to human health and the environment at sites. The initial efforts to develop the new measure began in FY 2010 with the creation of reporting tools and expanded guidance that clarifies the definition and scope of an "RA Project." A national workgroup of senior program managers also has been created in order to evaluate best management practices and oversee the efficient delivery of RA projects in support of the new measure. The FY 2012 target for this measure is 113 RA Project Completions, including Fund-financed, ARRA funded, Responsible Party-lead, and Federal Facilities projects. EPA will continue to track site-wide construction completions as an interim measure of progress toward making sites ready for reuse and achieving long term cleanup goals. Sites qualify for construction completion when physical construction of all cleanup actions are complete, including actions to address all immediate threats and to bring all long-term threats under control. In FY 2012, EPA will work to achieve construction completion at 22 additional sites, a portion which are being funded with ARRA monies. This will bring the programs cumulative total to 1,145 sites. EPA has experienced challenges with achieving the construction completion
770
target, primarily as a result of a shrinking universe of candidate sites which are generally larger and more complex than sites in the past. The RA Project Completions measure will demonstrate that work is still continuing at these larger sites and that the potential hazards are being addressed. Recognizing fiscal constraints, the FY 2012 request includes a net $30.9 million reduction that will be applied primarily to new construction activities, adding new construction projects to an anticipated backlog of unfunded new construction projects from FY 2011. The Superfund Program is exploring program efficiencies that can be made but will have to consider adjustments to ongoing construction project schedules, including reductions to several large projects annual funding allocations. Additional possible effects include: (1) curtailing site assessment and characterization projects that may affect new additions to the NPL, (2) slowing the pace of remedy decisions at existing sites, and (3) reductions to analytical services support. Combined with the reduction to the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program, the ability to achieve goals such as the annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed could also be affected going forward. In FY 2012, EPA will continue consolidating two data systems, the Superfund Document Management System and the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) with plans to consolidate the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System into SEMS thereafter. These two consolidation efforts will increase efficiency in contracting and program management as well as create a holistic view of the Superfund program. In addition, in FY 2012 and as part of the Agencys Contract 2010 initiative, EPA will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase efficiency in other areas such as reducing overhead costs and finding efficiencies in contracting and related processes used to support the program. EPA will continue to give attention to post-construction completion activities to ensure that Superfund response actions provide for the long-term protection of human health and the environment. A significant statutorily required post-construction activity is a Five-Year Review, which generally is necessary when hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that permit unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Five-Year Reviews are used to evaluate the implementation and performance of all components of the implemented remedy and to determine whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. The Five-Year Review includes not only the physical remedy itself, but also institutional controls necessary to manage the use of the site. EPA develops an annual Report to Congress describing the protectiveness of remedies as found through Five-Year Reviews including those conducted by federal agencies and reviewed by EPA through the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program. In recent years, EPA has made significant improvements in the tracking and evaluation of institutional controls including launching a publicly accessible database. In FY 2012, EPA plans to conduct over 200 Five-Year Reviews. The future use of NPL sites plays an important role in revitalizing communities and ensuring the long-term protection of human health and the environment. While cleaning up these sites, EPA is working with communities and other partners in considering and integrating appropriate future use opportunities into remedy options. The Agency also is working with communities at sites
771
that have already been remediated to ensure long-term stewardship of site remedies and to create opportunities for reuse. The Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use measure communicates that all cleanup goals for an entire site have been achieved for both current and reasonably anticipated future land uses. The measure reflects the high priority EPA places on land revitalization as an integral part of the Agency's mission for the Superfund program as well as the priority EPA is now placing on post-construction activities at NPL sites. In FY 2012, EPA expects to achieve a net total of 65 sites qualified for this designation bringing the programs cumulative total to 604 sites that are ready for re-use. EPA reports against two environmental indicator measures to document progress achieved toward providing short- and long-term human health protection. The Human Exposure environmental indicator is designed to document the progress achieved toward providing longterm human health protection by measuring the incremental progress achieved in controlling unacceptable current human exposures at NPL sites. In FY 2012, EPA plans to achieve control of all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of 10 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total to 1,349 sites under control. The Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control environmental indicator applies to NPL sites with contaminated groundwater and serves to document whether contamination falls within the levels specified as safe by EPA, or if they do not, whether the migration of contaminated groundwater is stabilized, and there is no groundwater discharge to surface water. In FY 2012, EPA expects to achieve control of the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies or natural processes at a net total of 15 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total to 1,056 sites under control. The Agency strives to ensure that its activities use natural resources and energy efficiently, reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, and reduce waste to the greatest extent possible. In FY 2012, EPA will continue its efforts to advance green remediation practices and identify new opportunities and tools to make greener decisions across Superfund cleanup sites. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(115) Number of Superfund remedial site assessments completed.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
900
FY 2012 Target
900
Units
Assessments
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(141) Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed.
FY 2010 Target
22
FY 2010 Actual
18
FY 2011 CR Target
22
FY 2012 Target
22
Units
Completions
772
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(151) Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control.
FY 2010 Target
10
FY 2010 Actual
18
FY 2011 CR Target
10
FY 2012 Target
10
Units
Sites
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(152) Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control.
FY 2010 Target
15
FY 2010 Actual
18
FY 2011 CR Target
15
FY 2012 Target
15
Units
Sites
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(170) Number of remedial action project completions at Superfund NPL Sites.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
103
FY 2012 Target
113
Units
Completions
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(S10) Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use sitewide.
FY 2010 Target
65
FY 2010 Actual
66
FY 2011 CR Target
65
FY 2012 Target
65
Units
Sites
The Superfund Remedial program reports its activities and progress toward long-term human health and environmental protection via several measures that encompass the entire cleanup process. In FY 2010, the Superfund Remedial program met or exceeded all of its performance measure targets, except for the construction completions measure. In FY 2012, the program plans to continue to maintain progress achieving the programs long-term goals. Beginning in FY 2011, EPA will report on its new Superfund RA project completions measure to evaluate the progress of cleanup activities between the time a site is placed on the NPL and construction is completed, which often spans multiple years due to the complexity of cleanup efforts. In addition, in FY 2011, EPA also has begun reporting on its new Superfund remedial site assessments strategic measure. Performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program are a component of the Superfund Remedial programs measures.
773
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$2,025.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$5.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a net change in non-payroll resources as a result of reducing $148.0 in contract costs to fund $138.0 for associated payroll and $5.0 related support costs for an additional 1.0 FTE redirected from the BRAC program to the Superfund Remedial program. The additional FTE will provide contract management oversight and provide support to the Agencys Contracts 2010 initiative. (-$200.0 / -1.5 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE redirected from the Superfund Remedial program to the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Program to support increased removal assessments and oversight due to state budget shortfalls. (+$133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll of 1 FTE to support the Agencys Healthy Communities initiative. This FTE will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on sediment cleanup projects in urban waters which will enable the Agency to leverage resources from our Federal partners as part of the overall site cleanup. (-$23.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information Security program. (-$175.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plans and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this program in the past. (-$527.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$4,419.0) This reduction implements an Agency review intended to improve the effectiveness of our acquisition practices and to realize contract efficiencies in areas such as data management support. (-$20,364.0) This reduction recognizes fiscal constraints, will postpone new remedial construction starts, and may slow down steps that lead up to being ready for construction. (-$7,384.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
774
(-13.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act , 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Sections 104, 105 and 121.
775
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies Program Area: Superfund Cleanup Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $6,575.0

$6,575.0 0.0

$6,575.0 0.0

$5,858.0 0.0

($717.0) 0.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Other federal agencies are given responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These agencies provide numerous Superfund-related services which Superfund resources support. Contributors include the Department of the Interior (DOI), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Superfund Support to Other Federal Agencies program supports the Agencys priority of cleaning up communities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide resources through interagency agreements to support other federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding proposed to be provided to each federal agency in EPAs FY 2012 request: Other Federal Agency Funding ($ in thousands) FY 2010 Enacted FY 2012 Pres Bud $546.0 $471.0 $1,063.0 $916.0 $4,966.0 $4,471.0 $6,575.0 $5,858.0
Agency DOI NOAA USCG TOTAL
Under the EPA/DOI interagency agreement, DOI provides response preparedness and management assistance that supports the National Response Team/Regional Response Teams (NRT/RRTs), EPAs Special Units including the Environmental Response Team, the National Decontamination Team, and the Radiation Response Team. In addition, DOI provides assistance in the development and implementation of comprehensive and environmentally protective remedies at Superfund sites as well as the coordination of natural resource trustee agency18
18
Natural Resource Trustees are outlined in CERCLA and have different, but complementary, roles and responsibilities. For more information, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/fields.pdf.
776
support. DOI provides technical assistance at Superfund sites in areas of their expertise, such as ecological risk assessment, habitat mitigation, and identification of damages to natural resources. Under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, EPA Regional Offices are provided access to NOAAs multidisciplinary technical support experts in the fields of coastal remediation, scientific support coordination, and response management. NOAA, which is also a natural resource trustee agency, provides site-specific technical coordination support during site investigations and assistance on ecological risk assessments. NOAAs experts produce evaluations of risk to the environment and natural resources from releases at Superfund sites, development and implementation of comprehensive environmentally protective remedies to minimize those risks, and coordination of trustee support. Under the EPA/USCG interagency agreement, USCG and EPA are federal partners who share lead responsibilities under CERCLA for response actions. The USCG, serving as a Federal OnScene Coordinator (OSC), will conduct small scale Superfund removals in the coastal zone of any release or threatened release into the environment of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment. In FY 2012, EPA funding will continue to support the USCGs preparation efforts to respond to CERCLA incidents. Activities include: Support at the National Response Center; Maintenance and support at all USCG District Marine Safety Units and the hazardous material Strike Team; and Training and exercise opportunities that the USCG and EPA and other federal partners participate in to maintain response readiness. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the Restore Land Objective under Goal 3. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): ($-655.0) This reflects a decrease to contracts to better align resources with Agency priorities. This program reduction reduces support to such activities as the National Response Center and the USCG District Marine Safety Units; however, it is not expected to directly impede Superfund program performance. (-$62.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
777
Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. - Sections 104, 105 and 120.
778
Program Area: Research Land Protection
779
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inland Oil Spills $14,111.0 $345.0 $639.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$14,687.7 $422.5 $549.7
$14,111.0 $345.0 $639.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0

($14,111.0) ($345.0) ($639.0)

$21,191.0
$36, 286.0 154.7
$22,334.0
$37,993.9 137.6
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0 154.7
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
($21,191.0)
($36, 286.0) -154.7
Program Project Description: EPAs Land Research Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americas land. As such, this program is a vital component of EPAs efforts to reduce and control chemical risks to human health and the environment. The Land Research Program provides essential research to EPAs Superfund Program and regional offices to enable them to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex contaminated sites. Research themes include: contaminated sediments, groundwater, and site characterization issues. The Research Program also provides site-specific technical support through EPA labs and centers, as well as liaisons located in each regional office. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; growing waste streams; and tighter budgets have exacerbated the challenges faced. Local officials are finding that simply adding one more single-purpose, single media solution is often environmentally inadequate, economically inefficient, and socially unacceptable to key stakeholders. Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a
780
systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. Research to address targeted cleanup challenges and provide technical support for contaminated Superfund sites will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$479.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$62.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the Sustainability Research Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. (+$4.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys technology infrastructure modernization plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources. Realignment of these resources is based on FTE allocations. (-$62.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align with programmatic priorities. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. (-$65.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (-$115.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$225.0 / -0.6 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated with the Land Research Program. This change includes a decrease of $80.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
781
(-$273.0 / -0.5 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPAs Administrative Efficiencies Project (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative services. This change includes a decrease of $67.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. (-$369.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys fixed costs. (-$2,923.0 / -2.5 FTE) This reduction reflects a decrease in scope for planned research in groundwater remediation and contaminated sediments research, and includes a reduction of 2.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $333.0. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. (-$17,706.0 / -89.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program and includes a transfer of $12,149.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate land restoration research into the transdisciplinary Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: BRRERA, Subtitle A. Section 211; CERCLA, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with Executive Order 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615; CERCLA 104(i) and 42 U.S.C. 9660 Sec. 311 (c) 42 U.S.C. 9602 - Section 102, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with Executive Order 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615, Section 311, 42 U.S.C 9604 (i) (1); SARA t 42 U.S.C. 7401 Sec. 209 (a) and Sec. 403 (a,b).
782
Program Area: Research Sustainable Communities
783
Research: Sustainability Program Area: Research: Sustainability Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology $27, 287.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$25,807.8
$27, 287.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($27, 287.0)

$73.0
$27, 360.0 70.8
$152.0
$29,959.8 73.1
$73.0
$27, 360.0 70.8
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
($73.0)
($27, 360.0) -70.8
Program Project Description: Under the Small Business Research (SBIR) Program,19 as required by the Small Business Innovation Development Act, as amended,20 EPA sets aside 2.5 percent of its extramural research budget for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. Since its inception, EPA's SBIR Program has provided incentive funding to small businesses to translate their innovative ideas into commercial products that address environmental problems. These innovations are the primary source of new technologies that can provide improved environmental protection at lower cost with better performance and effectiveness. SBIR helped spawn successful commercial ventures that not only improve our environment, but also create jobs, increase productivity and economic growth, and enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. technology industry. SBIR, the only activity contained in this program, is not funded in FY 2012 under the Superfund account. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.
19 20
For more information, see http://epa.gov/ncer/sbir. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-219), as reauthorized by P.L. 99-443, P.L. 102-564 (Small Business Research and Development Act), and P.L. 106-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001).
784
To implement this new approach this, EPA is integrating the Science and Technology for Sustainability Research Program into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure, and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2011 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$73.0) This reflects an adjustment for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). Enacted funding levels for this program include the amount EPA is required to set aside for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. This adjustment is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in the budget cycle, is redistributed to other Research Programs in the Presidents Budget request. After the FY 2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program. Statutory Authority: BRERA; CERCLA, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with E. O. 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615; CERCLA 104(i) and 42 U.S.C. 9660 Sec. 311 (c) 42 U.S.C. 9602 - Section 102, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with E. O. 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615, Section 311, 42 U.S.C 9604 (i) (1); SARA 42 U.S.C. 7401 Sec. 209 (a) and Sec. 403 (a,b); SBIDA, 15 U.S.C. 638, as amended.
785
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 788 Program Projects in LUST ...................................................................................................... 788 Program Area: Enforcement ................................................................................................... 790 Civil Enforcement ................................................................................................................. 791 Program Area: Compliance ..................................................................................................... 793 Compliance Assistance and Centers ..................................................................................... 794 Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security ................................................................. 796 IT / Data Management .......................................................................................................... 797 Program Area: Operations and Administration.................................................................... 799 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 800 Acquisition Management ...................................................................................................... 802 Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance ........................................................................... 804 Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) ............................................... 806 LUST / UST .......................................................................................................................... 807 LUST Cooperative Agreements ............................................................................................ 810 LUST Prevention .................................................................................................................. 813 Program Area: Research Land Protection ............................................................................. 815 Research: Land Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 816 Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities ............................................................ 818 Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities ................................................................ 819
786
787
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Budget Authority Total Workyears FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
$113,101.0 75.3
$112,583.3 67.0
$113,101.0 75.3
$112,481.0 64.3
($620.0) -11.0
Bill Language: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, $112,481,000, to remain available until expended, of which $78,051,000 shall be for carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended; $34,430,000 shall be for carrying out the other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to use appropriations made available under this heading to implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide financial assistance to federally recognized Indian tribes for the development and implementation of programs to manage underground storage tanks. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. Program Projects in LUST (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Enforcement Civil Enforcement Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$832.0
$832.0
$797.0
$756.8
$797.0
$0.0
($797.0)
$162.0
$152.3
$162.0
$0.0
($162.0)
788
Program Project
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Acquisition Management Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$696.0 $208.0 $904.0 $165.0 $1,115.0 $2,184.0
$696.0 $175.9 $871.9 $172.4 $1,312.0 $2,356.3
$696.0 $208.0 $904.0 $165.0 $1,115.0 $2,184.0
$696.0 $220.0 $916.0 $163.0 $512.0 $1,591.0
$0.0 $12.0 $12.0 ($2.0) ($603.0) ($593.0)
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) LUST / UST LUST Cooperative Agreements LUST Prevention Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) $11,613.0 $63,570.0 $34,430.0 $109,613.0 $17,901.7 $55,963.6 $35,030.1 $108,895.4 $11,613.0 $63,570.0 $34,430.0 $109,613.0 $11,982.0 $63,192.0 $34,430.0 $109,604.0 $369.0 ($378.0) $0.0 ($9.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities TOTAL, EPA $345.0 $345.0 $113,101.0 $422.5 $422.5 $112,583.3 $345.0 $345.0 $113,101.0 $454.0 $454.0 $112,481.0 $109.0 $109.0 ($620.0)
789
790
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$145,896.6
$146,636.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$191,404.0

$44,768.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Inland Oil Spill Programs Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$0.0
$1,998.0 $148,634.0 988.5
$0.0
$2,082.8 $147,979.4 980.8
$0.0
$1,998.0 $148,634.0 988.5
$832.0
$2,902.0 $195,138.0 1,219.0
$832.0
$904.0 $46,504.0 230.5
Program Project Description: To protect our nations groundwater and drinking water from petroleum releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST), this program will provide compliance assistance tools, technical assistance and training to promote and enforce UST systems compliance and cleanups.1 The Civil Enforcement programs overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nations environmental laws to protect human health and the environment. 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 address violations that threaten communities, level the economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance, and deter future violations. The Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws. To improve compliance with environmental laws, regulated entities, federal agencies, and the public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient, cost-effective means for putting them into practice. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance efforts. The Agency will continue to obtain state commitments to increase their inspection and enforcement presence where state-specific UST compliance goals are not met. The Agency and states will use innovative compliance approaches, along with outreach and education tools, to bring more USTs into compliance and to promote UST cleanups. The Agency also will continue to provide guidance to foster the use of new technology to enhance compliance.
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/index.htm.
791
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Civil Enforcement Program Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$35.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (+$797.0/ +4.8 FTE) This change in resources reflects the Agencys efforts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating the Compliance Assistance and Centers program with the Civil Enforcement program. The additional resources include $764.0 associated payroll for 4.8 FTE. Statutory Authority: PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; RCRA.
792
793
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$23,628.3
$25,622.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($25,622.0)

Inland Oil Spill Programs Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$797.0
$269.0 $26,688.0 173.7
$756.8
$263.7 $24,648.8 165.3
$797.0
$269.0 $26,688.0 173.7
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 0.0
($797.0)
($269.0) ($26,688.0) -173.7
Program Project Description: The Compliance Assistance and Centers program helps the regulated community comply with environmental laws by providing easy access to tools that help them understand the laws and find efficient, cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To protect our nations groundwater and drinking water from petroleum releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST), this program provides compliance assistance tools, technical assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST systems compliance and cleanups.1 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency merged the Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs to more fully integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance efforts. Therefore, the FY 2012 Compliance and Assistance and Centers programs activities and performance plan are incorporated into the Civil Enforcement program. Performance Targets: The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in the Civil Enforcement program under EPM, where these resources have been realigned. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$797.0/ -4.8 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the Agencys efforts to realign the enforcement program by integrating the Compliance Assistance program into the
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/index.htm
794
Civil Enforcement program. The reduced resources include $764.0 associated payroll for 4.8 FTE. Statutory Authority: PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; RCRA.
795
796
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$98,258.9 $4,054.0
$97,410.0 $4,385.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$88,576.0 $4,108.0

($8,834.0) ($277.0)

$162.0
$24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$152.3
$24.0 $16,498.3 $118,987.5 481.6
$162.0
$24.0 $17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$0.0
$0.0 $15,352.0 $108,036.0 481.5
($162.0)
($24.0) ($1,735.0) ($11,032.0) -21.6
Program Project Description: The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) Program supports the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and public access. IT/DM manages the Agencys Quality System ensuring EPAs processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. IT/DM also supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications. The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/IM) policy and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. The activities funded under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) appropriation are IT/IM infrastructure and Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME).
797
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the work previously supported by LUST appropriation will be continued under Environmental Program and Management appropriation. This realignment provides more efficient accounting of program expenditures. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$162.0) This change eliminates the use of LUST appropriation and shifts resources to Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient accounting of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being performed. Statutory Authority: FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA. Currently, there are no
798
799
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities $315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$310,238.8 $72,841.7 $29,896.7
$315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$324,965.0 $76,521.0 $33,931.0

$9,727.0 $3,603.0 $5,000.0

$904.0
$505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$871.9
$489.4 $76,052.0 $490,390.5 410.6
$904.0
$505.0 $78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$916.0
$536.0 $81,431.0 $518,300.0 408.5
$12.0
$31.0 $2,949.0 $21,322.0 -2.6
Program Project Description: The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program provides activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas at EPA. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) appropriation for this program support a full range of ongoing facilities management services including rental payments for laboratory and office facilities, health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety, environmental management functions, facilities maintenance and operations, security, space planning, shipping and receiving, property management, printing and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with General Services Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly billing statements are correct. EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 131502 Federal Workforce Transportation. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $0.70 million for rent and $0.07 million for transit subsidy in the LUST appropriation.
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13150.html
800
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$17.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs. (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$4.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
801
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$33,272.6
$32,404.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$34,119.0

$1,715.0

$165.0
$24,684.0 $57,253.0 362.9
$172.4
$23,820.8 $57,265.8 333.6
$165.0
$24,684.0 $57,253.0 362.9
$163.0
$24,097.0 $58,379.0 348.9
($2.0)
($587.0) $1,126.0 -14.0
Program Project Description: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) resources in the Acquisition Management program support contract and acquisition management activities at headquarters, Regional offices, Research Triangle Park, and Cincinnati offices. Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPAs programs. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of its LUST-related procurement activities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to refine electronic government capabilities and enhance the education of its contract workforce. In addition, LUST resources will continue to support the full range of acquisition management activities for the underground tanks programs. In FY 2012, acquisition management resources will enable EPA to train and develop its acquisition workforce, and to strengthen its contractor training programtwo efforts that mirror the Presidents guidelines for civilian agencies in the Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for FY 2010-2014. In addition, resources will support the recruitment, retention, and hiring of additional members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Acquisition management will also address information technology needs that support management and the acquisition workforce.
802
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Acquisition Management Program Project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$2.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: EPAs Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FAR; contract law. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.)
803
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$86,883.5
$82,834.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$77,548.0

($5,286.0)

$1,115.0
$27,490.0 $111,439.0 547.7
$1,312.0
$28,192.2 $116,387.7 538.7
$1,115.0
$27,490.0 $111,439.0 547.7
$512.0
$22,252.0 $100,312.0 535.7
($603.0)
($5,238.0) ($11,127.0) -12.0
Program Project Description: EPAs financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program. Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability processes, and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. This includes developing, managing, and supporting a goals-based management system consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) for the Agency that involves strategic planning and accountability for environmental, fiscal, and managerial results; providing policy, systems, training, reports, and oversight essential for the financial operations of EPA; managing the Agency-wide Working Capital Fund; providing financial payment and support services for EPA through three finance centers, as well as specialized fiscal and accounting services for many EPA programs; and managing the Agency's annual budget process. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management of the LUST program through the use of routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling, and other evaluation tools. In addition, more structured and more targeted use of performance measurements has led to a better understanding of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness. Since the implementation of the Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed, sampled, and monitored its payments to protect against erroneous payments. The Agency consistently exceeds the government-wide performance goal of 2.5 percent with an average error rate of less
804
than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities, and travel/purchase card). Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the sample. In FY 2012, EPA will continue these activities to reduce even further the amount of improper payments. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+90.0) This change reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-$640/-5.0 FTE) This reflects a reduction in LUST finance activities. The reduced resources include 5.0 FTE and associated payroll of $640.0. (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$53.0) This change reduces non-payroll LUST resources to better align resources with historical utilization and Agency priorities. Statutory Authority: Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 9001 9011; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPAs Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law and EPAs Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA (1982); FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990); GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC. Currently, there are no
805
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
806
LUST / UST Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$12,833.9
$12,424.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$12,866.0

$442.0

$11,613.0
$11,613.0 $0.0 $24,037.0 132.0
$17,901.7
$12,949.8 $4,951.9 $30,735.6 120.5
$11,613.0
$11,613.0 $0.0 $24,037.0 132.0
$11,982.0
$11,982.0 $0.0 $24,848.0 127.0
$369.0
$369.0 $0.0 $811.0 -5.0
Program Project Description: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program promotes rapid and effective responses to releases from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and hazardous substances by enhancing state, local, and tribal enforcement and response capability. Under this program, EPA provides oversight and financial assistance for states, tribes, and non-profit organizations. Activities in support of this mission include providing technical information, forums for information exchange, and training opportunities to encourage program development and/or implementation. EPA works with state and tribal UST programs to clean up LUST sites, promote innovative and environmentally friendly approaches in corrective action in order to enhance and streamline the remediation process, and measure and evaluate national program progress and performance. In addition, the Energy Policy Act3 (EPAct) of 2005 authorized LUST Trust Fund resources to develop and implement a strategy to implement and enforce EPAct requirements concerning USTs in Indian country. EPA has primary responsibility for implementing the LUST program in Indian country, and will use a portion of its LUST funding for these activities, including providing tribes with financial assistance for cleanups. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: As of September 2010, 81 percent (or 401,874) of all reported leaks have been addressed, leaving a remainder of 93,123 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.4 In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with the states and tribes to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to reduce the remaining backlog.
3
Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file). 4 Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End Of Fiscal Year 2010 As Of September 30, 2010, dated November 2010; http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_10_34.pdf.
807
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to strive for improved engagement of local communities with stakeholder input in enhancing state and tribal public involvement of policies and processes. EPA will continue to help states and tribes improve LUST cleanup performance through actions such as analyzing states backlog characterization reports and states financial assurances mechanisms, and implementing strategies to reduce the backlog of open releases. EPA will continue to work with states to better characterize sites still requiring remediation and provide guidance and technical support regarding cleanup approaches and technologies. EPA also will continue its efforts to monitor the soundness of financial mechanisms serving as financial assurance for LUST sites, including insurance and state cleanup funds, which serve as a significant source of funding for addressing LUST cleanups. EPA will continue to explore the opportunities for financial mechanisms to improve cleanup performance. The EPAct requirement to develop a strategy5 for implementing the program in Indian country has enhanced EPAs efforts and provided renewed focus to reduce the cleanup backlog and prevent future releases in Indian country. To address leaking USTs in Indian country and protect vulnerable populations, EPA will continue to provide support for site assessments, investigations and remediation; enforcement against responsible parties; cleanup of soil and/or groundwater; alternate water supplies; and cost recovery against UST owners and operators. EPA also will continue to provide technical expertise and assistance by utilizing in-house personnel, contractors and grants/cooperative agreements to tribal entities; response activities; oversight of responsible party lead cleanups; and support and assistance to tribal governments. The chart below provides a historical perspective of the UST cleanup backlog nationwide. UST National Backlog: FY 1989 End of FY 2010
Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, August 2006, EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm#Final.
808
Performance Targets: Measure Type FY 2010 Target FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 CR Target FY 2012 Target
Measure
(113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country.
Units
Outcome
30
62
38
42
Cleanups
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$619.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-4.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$131.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$213.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. (+$94.0) This increase provides additional resources to grants for technical assistance, training, and administrative support for the LUST program. These resources may be used to address emerging program issues and cleanup activities such as vapor intrusion cleanup, state fund soundness, or the implementation of Green Remediation practices. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Section 8001(a) and Sections 9001-9014.
809
LUST Cooperative Agreements Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FY 2010 Actuals $55,963.6

$65,214.5 ($9,250.9) $55,963.6 0.0

$63,570.0 $0.0 $63,570.0 0.0

$63,192.0 $0.0 $63,192.0 0.0

($378.0) $0.0 ($378.0) 0.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0 $0.0 $63,570.0 0.0
Program Project Description: EPA provides resources to states and territories through cooperative agreements authorized under Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) for the oversight and cleanup of petroleum releases from underground storage tanks (USTs). The Agency will continue to fund research, studies, and training that directly support state oversight and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup. To date, 401,874 reported leaks have been addressed, leaving a backlog of 93,123 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.6 States are the primary implementing agencies. States use the cleanup funds provided under this program to administer their corrective action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement actions, pay for cleanups in cases of an emergency and where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup, and recover costs from responsible parties who are unwilling to pay for cleanups.7 When the LUST Trust Fund is used, tank owners/operators are liable to the state for costs incurred and are subject to cost recovery actions. Forty states8 have separate UST cleanup funds that pay for most LUST cleanups. Collectively, states raise and spend $600 to $700 million annually to support their state fund that, depending upon the state, fund cleanups for LUST sites and cleanups for other non-federally regulated tank sites (e.g., aboveground storage tank sites, home heating oil tank sites).9
Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2010 As Of September 30, 2010, dated November 2010; http://epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_10_34.pdf. For additional information, refer to the following site: http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/overview.htm. 7 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm 8 There are 36 state funds that accept new releases and an additional 7 that have "sunset," meaning that they stopped accepting claims. Because the span of these "sunset" funds varies, the program has characterized this number as approximately 40 states. 9 ASTSWMO State Fund Survey 2010 http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/tanks/2010_State_Funds_Survey/Summary2010.pdf
810
The LUST program received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). All of these funds were obligated; however, $9.2 million was returned by one state and subsequently rescinded by Congress. The ARRA funds will continue to be outlayed in FY 2012. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with the states to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to reduce the remaining backlog. EPAs LUST cleanup program will focus on increasing the efficiency of LUST cleanups nationwide. EPA and its state partners will continue to make progress in cleaning up petroleum leaks by initiating and completing cleanups, and reducing the backlog of sites not yet cleaned up. At the FY 2012 request level, the Agency will continue to provide not less than 80 percent of LUST cleanup appropriated funds to states to carry out specific purposes.10 EPA will distribute the LUST funding to states under a previously established allocation process for the cleanup activities. In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups where possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By utilizing the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs, including underground storage tanks, EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. EPA has developed an Implementation Plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years. In addition, the Agency is looking for ways to address the backlog of leaking underground storage tank sites through better site characterization efforts, remedy selection review, other technical assistance and more generally, partnering with state programs to support management, oversight and enforcement activities at unaddressed LUST sites. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
12,250
11,591
12,250
12,400
Cleanups
10
As defined in Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct of 2005; SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9004(f).
811
Measure Type
Measure
migration.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
To improve the LUST program, EPA created a long-term performance measure that focuses on environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration. In FY 2012, the target for this measure is 12,400 cleanups, an increase of 150 over our FY 2011 target of 12,250. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$378.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds realigned in FY 2010. This change will not impact performance. Statutory Authority: SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9003(h); Section 9004(f); Section 8001(a)(1); Section 9003(h)(7) of the SWDA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
812
LUST Prevention Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FY 2010 Actuals $35,030.1

$35,030.1 0.0

$34,430.0 0.0

$34,430.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Preventing petroleum releases into the environment has been one of the primary goals of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program since its inception. EPA and its state partners have made major progress in reducing the number of new releases, but thousands of new leaks are still discovered each year. The lack of proper operation and maintenance of underground storage tank (UST) systems is a main cause of these new releases. EPA continues to work with the states, tribes, and other partners to advance prevention efforts and quickly detect releases when they occur. In recent years, these efforts have been enhanced by the release prevention requirements mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The LUST Prevention program provides assistance to states to meet their responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of EPAct and for tribes to implement the LUST Prevention program, as highlighted in EPAs Strategy For An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of the Energy Policy Act Of 2005. 11 As of September 30, 2010, there were approximately 597,000 federally-regulated active USTs at approximately 215,000 sites across the country. The LUST Prevention program assists states with inspections and other release prevention and compliance assurance activities for federallyregulated underground storage tank systems, as well as for enforcement activities related to release prevention. For tribes, the LUST Prevention program assists with all aspects of the tribal programs, e.g., inspection capacity. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to make grants or cooperative agreements to states and tribes, and/or intertribal consortia for activities authorized by the EPAct. 12 Major activities will include inspections, enforcement, development of leak prevention regulations, and other program infrastructure areas. Specifically, these major activities include inspecting UST facilities to complete the three-year inspection requirement, and assisting states in adopting measures (e.g.,
11 12
See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf. Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
813
delivery prohibition, secondary containment, operator training, etc.), as required by EPAct and EPAs grant guidelines. These activities are geared toward bringing all UST systems into compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements and minimizing future releases. For tribes, the LUST Prevention program will assist with all aspects of the tribal programs (e.g., developing inspection capacity). To help prevent future releases, EPA will continue to help tribes develop the capacity to administer UST programs, such as providing funding to support training for tribal staff and educating owners and operators in Indian Country about UST requirements. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(ST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with both release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
65.5
68.6
66
66.5
Percent
Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks and the performance measures can be found in the Performance Four Year Array Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): No change in program funding. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 9001-9011 and Energy Policy Act of 2005 42 USC 15801 Section 1529.
814
Program Area: Research Land Protection
815
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$14,687.7
$14,111.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0

($14,111.0)

Inland Oil Spills Hazardous Substance Superfund Total Budget Authority / Obligations Total Workyears
$345.0
$639.0 $21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7
$422.5
$549.7 $22,334.0 $37,993.9 137.6
$345.0
$639.0 $21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0
($345.0)
($639.0) ($21,191.0) ($36, 286.0) -154.7
Program Project Description: Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) research focuses on the assessment and cleanup of leaks at fueling stations, and especially identifying the environmental impacts of existing and new biofuels coming into the marketplace. EPAs Land Research Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americas land and groundwater resources impacted by the nations over 600,000 underground storage tanks for fuels. The purpose of the Land Protection LUST research program is the prevention and control of pollution at LUST sites, and is of high importance to state environmental programs. Specific activities include the development of source term and transport modeling modules for use by state project managers and the development of multiple remediation approaches applicable to spilled fuels, with or without oxygenates. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; competition for food, materials, and energy in a global economy; growing waste streams; changing climate; tighter budgets; and socioeconomic inequities have added to the issues that must be faced.. Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a
816
systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. Research to address targeted challenges associated with leaking underground storage tanks and to provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$112.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates. (-$3.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$454.0 / -1.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This includes a transfer of $277.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics research programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns Agency priorities. This effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: HSWA; RCRA, Subtitle I, LUST Trust Fund; EPA; SDWA, Section 1442. 42 U.S.C. 300j-1; SWDA, Section 8001, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6901; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 - Section 1002, 42 U.S.C. 6905 - Section 1006; SWDA, Section 8001. 42 U.S.C. 6981.
817
818
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$183,002.7
$186,095.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$171,026.0

($17,069.0)

$345.0
$639.0 $21,264.0 $210,343.0 647.0
$422.5
$549.7 $22,525.3 $206,500.2 625.3
$345.0
$639.0 $21,264.0 $208,343.0 647.0
$454.0
$614.0 $17,706.0 $189,800.0 621.7
$109.0
($25.0) ($3,558.0) ($20,543.0) -25.3
Program Project Description: Research in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Program under the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) appropriation focuses on the assessment and cleanup of leaks at fueling stations, and especially on identifying the environmental impacts of existing and new biofuels coming into the marketplace (including unintended consequences). EPA research provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect Americas land and groundwater resources that could be impacted by the nations over 600 thousand underground storage tanks for fuels. The purpose of the LUST component of EPA research is the prevention and control of pollution at LUST sites, and is of high importance to state environmental programs. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science for the SHC Program by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. The new integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing research portfolio. This research will leverage the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems. This type of integrated research is expected to be a more efficient path to developing long-term environmentally sustainable solutions. All or portions of the following Research Programs will be integrated into the SHC Research Program: Human Health Research Ecosystems Services Research
819
Land Protection and Preservation Research Pesticides and Toxics Research Sustainability Research Fellowships Research
Research that will be conducted under the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program LUST appropriation will be used by federal, state and local officials to: Support remediating contaminated land and groundwater after a leak occurs; Restore previously contaminated land and groundwater so that it can become a functional part of a sustainable community without adversely affecting human health. Research on leaking underground storage tanks focuses on modeling and remediation of spilled fuels. This research will include both current types of fuel and alternative fuels as they are adopted. Studies are now extending to fuel blends with higher ethanol content to address the needs of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) funded jointly with the Office of Research and Development through a Cooperative Agreement. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Leaking underground storage tanks remain a risk to the health and ecosystems of many communities. In FY 2012, EPAs research on leaking underground storage tanks will extend to fuel blends with higher ethanol content to address the needs of OUST as well as community stakeholders. Increased ethanol content influences biodegradation of spilled fuel and can elongate plumes, yielding a higher potential for contaminants to impact drinking water supplies and to intrude into breathing air in buildings. The effects of ethanol on pipes, tanks, pumps, and other distribution system hardware are a concern, owing to the corrosive nature of ethanol. OUST will support a study in FY 2011 and into FY 2012 to evaluate how tank gauges perform in the presence of ethanol fuel blends. SHC researchers will communicate with partners in OUST to ensure integration of results in future research, and in communication to community stakeholders. In FY 2012, the SHC Research Program will continue working with partners from across EPA, in particular the Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program and the Ground Water and Drinking Water Programs, as well as applicable external stakeholders. Performance Targets: Performance results for this program are discussed in the S&T: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfer from the source programs following this section:
820
(-$3.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$112.0 / -.3 FTE) This increase represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $112.0 for FTE changes as well as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. Transfer from source program: (+$454.0 / +1.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program, including $277.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all adjustments. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative. Statutory Authority: HSWA; RCRA Subtitle I; LUST; Energy Policy Act of 2005; SDWA Section 1442. 42 U.S.C. 300j-1; SWDA Section 8001, as amended; RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 Section 1002, 42 U.S.C. 6905 - Section 1006; SWDA Section 8001. 42 U.S.C. 6981.
821
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Inland Oil Spill Programs Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 824 Program Projects in Inland Oil Spill Programs..................................................................... 824 Program Area: Compliance ..................................................................................................... 826 Compliance Assistance and Centers ..................................................................................... 827 Compliance Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 829 Program Area: Enforcement ................................................................................................... 831 Civil Enforcement ................................................................................................................. 832 Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security ................................................................. 834 IT / Data Management .......................................................................................................... 835 Program Area: Oil .................................................................................................................... 837 Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response ............................................................... 838 Program Area: Operations and Administration .................................................................... 843 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................ 844 Program Area: Land Protection.............................................................................................. 846 Research: Land Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 847 Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities ............................................................ 850 Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities ................................................................ 851
822
823
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: Inland Oil Spill Programs Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Inland Oil Spill Programs Budget Authority Total Workyears $18,379.0 102.2 FY 2010 Actuals $16,904.4 89.8 FY 2011 Annualized CR $18,379.0 102.2 FY 2012 Pres Budget $23,662.0 119.0 FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted $5,283.0 16.8
Bill Language: Inland Oil Spill Programs For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agencys responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $23,662,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
Program Projects in Inland Oil Spill Programs (Dollars in Thousands)

Program Project
Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers Compliance Monitoring Subtotal, Compliance
$269.0 $0.0 $269.0
$263.7 $0.0 $263.7
$269.0 $0.0 $269.0
$0.0 $138.0 $138.0
($269.0) $138.0 ($131.0)
Enforcement Civil Enforcement IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management Oil Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response $14,944.0 $13,494.8 $14,944.0 $19,472.0 $4,528.0 $24.0 $24.0 $24.0 $0.0 ($24.0) $1,998.0 $2,082.8 $1,998.0 $2,902.0 $904.0
824
Program Project
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$438.0 $67.0 $505.0 $505.0
$438.0 $51.4 $489.4 $489.4
$438.0 $67.0 $505.0 $505.0
$438.0 $98.0 $536.0 $536.0
$0.0 $31.0 $31.0 $31.0
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities TOTAL, EPA $639.0 $639.0 $18,379.0 $549.7 $549.7 $16,904.4 $639.0 $639.0 $18,379.0 $614.0 $614.0 $23,662.0 ($25.0) ($25.0) $5,283.0
825
826
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$23,628.3 $756.8
$25,622.0 $797.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $0.0

($25,622.0) ($797.0)
Inland Oil Spill Programs

$269.0
$26,688.0 173.7
$263.7
$24,648.8 165.3
$269.0
$26,688.0 173.7
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
($269.0)
($26,688.0) -173.7
Program Project Description: This portion of the Compliance Assistance program is designed to prevent oil spills using compliance and civil enforcement tools and strategies and to prepare for and respond to any oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's Oil Program has a long history of effective response to major oil spills, and the lessons learned have helped to improve our country's prevention and response capabilities. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Agency merged the Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs to more fully integrate compliance assistance into enforcement and assurance efforts. Therefore, the FY 2012 Compliance and Assistance and Centers programs are incorporated into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. Performance Targets: The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs under EPM, where these resources have been realigned. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$269.0/ -1.8 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the Agencys efforts to realign the enforcement program by eliminating the Compliance Assistance program and moving the activities and resources to the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. The reduced resources include $222.0 associated payroll for 1.8 FTE.
827
Statutory Authority: OPA; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SDWA; Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
828
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$97,937.7
$99,400.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$119,648.0

$20,248.0

$0.0
$1,216.0 $100,616.0 612.3
$0.0
$1,181.8 $99,119.5 593.0
$0.0
$1,216.0 $100,616.0 612.3
$138.0
$1,222.0 $121,008.0 617.6
$138.0
$6.0 $20,392.0 5.3
Program Project Description: EPAs Compliance Monitoring program includes a range of activities and tools designed to improve compliance with environmental laws. Regulated entities, federal agencies, and the public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient, cost-effective means for putting them into practice. This portion of the Compliance Monitoring program is designed to prevent oil spills. The program uses compliance and civil enforcement tools and strategies and to prepare for and respond to any oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 311 (oil spill and hazardous substances) requirements, the Agency will continue in FY 2012 to provide compliance assistance to regulated entities. The program will assist them in understanding their legal requirements under the CWA and provide them with cost effective compliance strategies to help prevent oil spills. There is currently a universe of 640,000 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulated facilities under EPAs purview, including a subset of roughly 4,300 facilities that are subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements. EPA will ensure that the management and oversight of the enforcement and compliance program is enhanced by the integration of information from the FRP and SPCC data systems with EPAs integrated compliance information system (ICIS). This integration will provide EPA the opportunity to effectively analyze enforcement and compliance resources on areas of high risk, and increase the transparency of this enforcement and compliance data to the public. Work under this program project supports the Agencys Priority Goal, addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix A).
829
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Compliance Monitoring program project in the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$138.0/ +0.9 FTE) This change reflects the Agencys efforts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating resources under Oil appropriation for the Compliance Assistance and Compliance Incentives programs with the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. The redirected resources include $131.0 associated payroll for 0.9 FTE. Statutory Authority: OPA; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SDWA; Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
830
831
FY 2010 Enacted
FY 2010 Actuals
$145,896.6 $0.0
$146,636.0 $0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$191,404.0 $832.0

$44,768.0 $832.0

$1,998.0
$148,634.0 988.5
$2,082.8
$147,979.4 980.8
$1,998.0
$148,634.0 988.5
$2,902.0
$195,138.0 1,219.0
$904.0
$46,504.0 230.5
Program Project Description: This portion of the Civil Enforcement program is designed to prevent oil spills using civil enforcement and compliance assistance approaches, as well as to prepare for and respond to any oil spills affecting the inland waters of the United States. Pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 311 (Oil Spill and Hazardous Substances) requirements, EPAs Civil Enforcement program will develop policies, issue administrative cleanup orders and/or refer civil judicial actions to the Department of Justice, assess civil penalties for violations of those orders or for spills into the environment, provide compliance assistance to regulated entities to assist them in understanding their legal requirements under the Clean Water Act, and assist in the recovery of cleanup costs expended by the government. The program provides support for field investigations and inspections of spills, as well as Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) compliance assistance. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Civil Enforcement program will continue efforts to ensure compliance. These efforts are particularly critical given the number of SPCC regulated facilities (approximately 640,000 facilities) and the comparatively modest number of inspection and enforcement personnel. The Agencys efforts will be focused on high-risk facilities with the greatest potential to impact public health and the environment. Many of these facilities are offshore or over water, which requires a large investment of enforcement resources to follow up on violations discovered during complex inspections or enforcement investigations. Recently implemented SPCC regulatory changes will be a focus. Extramural resources cover costs associated with training and administrative support. Travel costs are requested for facility oversight and meeting coordination with other regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard/Fish & Wildlife Service). Additionally, EPA will address violations related to facility response plans and response planning.
832
EPAs response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill will continue in FY 2012 as we provide primary support for the U.S. Department of Justices civil action against BP, Anadarko, and others responsible for the Deepwater Horizon incident. The Department of Justice filed its complaint on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal plaintiffs in December 2010, and EPA expects to actively participate in this litigation, discovery and response to court orders throughout FY 2012. Work under this program project supports the Agencys Priority Goal, addressing water quality. A list of the Agencys Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Civil Enforcement program project under EPM. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$430.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$131.0/ +0.9 FTE) This change reflects the Agencys efforts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating the Compliance Assistance program with the Civil Enforcement program. The additional resources include $91.0 associated payroll for 0.9 FTE. (+$343.0/ +0.8 FTE) Additional resources, which include $119.0 in associated payroll, will be used for Deepwater Horizon litigation support, discovery management, and the continuing civil investigation. This litigation support is not being provided by the Department of Justice. Statutory Authority: OPA; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
833
834
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $97,410.0 $4,385.0 $162.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$98,258.9 $4,054.0 $152.3
$97,410.0 $4,385.0 $162.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$88,576.0 $4,108.0 $0.0

($8,834.0) ($277.0) ($162.0)

$24.0
$17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$24.0
$16,498.3 $118,987.5 481.6
$24.0
$17,087.0 $119,068.0 503.1
$0.0
$15,352.0 $108,036.0 481.5
($24.0)
($1,735.0) ($11,032.0) -21.6
Program Project Description: The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) Program supports the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and public access. IT/DM manages the Agencys Quality System ensuring EPAs processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. IT/DM also supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications. The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/IM) policy and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. The activity partially funded under the Inland Oil Spill Response Programs (Oil) appropriation is Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME).
835
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the work previously supported by this appropriation will be continued under Environmental Program and Management. This realignment provides more efficient accounting of program expenditures. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$24.0) This change eliminates the use of Oil appropriation and shifts resources to Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient accounting of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being performed. Statutory Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. Sections 136a 136y and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961 and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6). Currently, there are no
836
Program Area: Oil
837
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program Area: Oil Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Inland Oil Spill Programs
FY 2010 Actuals $13,494.8

$13,494.8 154.2

$14,944.0 84.0

$19,472.0 100.0

$4,528.0 16.0
$14,944.0
$14,944.0 84.0
Program Project Description: The Oil Spill program protects U.S. waters by preventing, preparing for, responding to and monitoring oil spills. EPA conducts oil spill prevention, preparedness, and enforcement activities associated with more than 600 thousand non-transportation-related oil storage facilities that EPA regulates through its spill prevention program. The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation and the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulation establish the Oil Spill program regulatory framework, while the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the framework for some of EPAs preparedness responsibilities such as the development of Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). EPA has responsibility for Subpart J of the NCP regulation, which includes a product schedule that addresses bioremediation, dispersants, surface washing, surface collection and other agents that may be used to remediate oil spills. Finally, as dictated by the NCP, EPA serves as the lead responder for cleanup of all inland zone spills, including transportation-related spills from pipelines, trucks, and other transportation systems. EPA accesses the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, to obtain reimbursement for site-specific spill response activities. More than 30 thousand oil and hazardous substance releases occur in the U.S. every year, with a large number of these spills occurring in the inland zone for which EPA has jurisdiction. On average, one spill of greater than 100 thousand gallons occurs every month from EPA-regulated oil storage facilities and the inland oil transportation network. For more information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Recent spills and releases at oil facilities have resulted in human injuries and deaths, severe environmental damage, and great financial loss. The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill disaster resulted in 11 deaths, millions of gallons of spilled oil, and untold environmental damage. FY 2012 priorities will continue to address activities and lessons learned resulting from the DWH oil spill and response. States and communities often lack the infrastructure to address these emergencies or to work with oil and chemical facilities before these accidents take place to prevent them from happening in the first place.
838
Recent events have highlighted areas of EPAs responsibility that merit renewed attention. EPA provides a sound and effective response to disasters once they have occurred, but there is more that can be done to prevent them. In FY 2012, EPA proposes to increase oversight/monitoring of regulated high risk facilities to better implement prevention approaches. Increase inspections at high risk oil facilities As part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, EPA requests additional funding to increase the number of inspectors in the Oil Spill program and protect the integrity of the inland oil storage network. EPA currently estimates the SPCC regulated universe at about 640,000. Of these, approximately 11,050 are offshore oil drilling, production and workover facilities and approximately 4,300 are FRP facilities; all of which have been designated as high-risk. This investment will address the following areas: 1. Targeted Assessments of High Risk Facilities Recently, EPA has begun to focus its inspection efforts on high risk oil facilities, but the difficulty in locating and reaching some of these facilities, as well as the limited resources available under the program have inhibited efforts to increase our inspection rate in this area. This initiative will allow the Agency to focus its inspection program on high risk facilities by conducting approximately 175 inspections at high risk facilities each year. 2. Third Party Audits EPA will develop and implement a third party audit program for SPCC facilities that complements Agency oversight and enforcement activities. This program will include developing and implementing guidance for industry and policies, procedures and protocols for EPA Headquarters and Regional offices. Third party audits will be performed by an outside contractor, at sites where conditions do not pose as serious/critical a threat. The results of the audits will be used as a mechanism to target the efforts of the inspection program for non-high risk facilities," thereby reaching greater numbers of facilities than under the current inspection protocol. High risk facilities, where site conditions are more critical, will be inspected by an EPA led team. 3. Leveraging 21st Century Technology In FY 2012, EPA will develop a national FRP database including identifying requirements for electronic submission of FRPs, similar to the Agencys current system for Risk Management Plan (RMP) submission. EPA proposes to leverage technology to complement its strategy for inspecting oil facilities. FRP facilities are required to submit their plans to EPA regional offices. The largest oil storage facilities and refineries must prepare FRPs to identify response resources and ensure their availability in the event of a worst case discharge. FRPs establish communication, address security, identify an individual with authority to implement response actions, and describe training and testing drills at the facility. EPA also will develop guidance for FRP inspectors on how to properly utilize this database.
839
Base Program Activities Under the base program in FY 2012, EPA will continue to conduct inspections, review/approve FRPs, conduct exercises and work to revise and update existing regulations and processes to better characterize the regulated universe and address risk. Activities include: Focus on revisions to Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) that stipulates the criteria for listing and managing the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used to mitigate oil spills. EPA will continue to review the current draft Subpart J proposed rule to: 1. Incorporate the latest scientific knowledge, including expanding efficacy and toxicity testing for dispersants and bio-agents, and other oil spill mitigating products that address environmental toxicity; 2. Develop new protocols and methods to address bioaccumulation and degradation of surfactants and solvents found in many NCP products; 3. Add provisions addressing human toxicity concerns; and 4. Expand the provisions on how products are delisted. Working with state, local, tribal, and federal officials in a given geographic location, EPA will continue to strengthen Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) and Regional Contingency Plans via revising guidance, discussion at National Response Team (NRT) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) meetings, and enhanced preparedness exercises. Comprehensive FRP and SPCC data will be an important enhancement for these exercises. The ACPs detail the responsibilities of various parties in the event of a spill/release, describe unique geographical features, sensitive ecological resources, and drinking water intakes for the area covered, and identify available response equipment and its location. Additionally, EPA and U.S. Coast Guard are collaborating with the NRT and RRTs to review and revise ACPs to reflect lessons learned during the DWH response. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
15
48
30
35
Percent
840
Measure Type
Measure
(338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
15
36
30
35
Percent
In FY 2012, EPA will ensure that 35 percent of FRP facilities that are found to be non-compliant during FY 2010 through FY 2012 will be brought into compliance by the end of the fiscal year. EPA will emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through the use of unannounced drills and exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively implement response plans. Similar to the FRP measure mentioned above, EPA will ensure that 35 percent of SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant during FY 2010 through FY 2012 will be brought into compliance by the end of the fiscal year. Under the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, the current long-term oil strategic plan measure is to bring 60 percent of facilities into compliance by the end of five years (both SPCC and FRP). The Agency expects that the numerator and denominator will change with the increased inspection numbers, but the overall percentage goal/target will remain the same. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$762.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$4,000.0/ +16.0 FTE) These resources, as part of the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, will be used to increase the number of inspections on high risk FRP facilities. Funding will also be used to develop and implement a third party audit program for non-high risk SPCC facilities, in order to improve the efficiency of targeting resources and inspectors at these facilities in the future. The additional resources include $2,160.0 associated payroll for 16.0 FTE. (+$1,100.0) These resources, as part of the Agencys Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, will be used to develop a national FRP database and electronic submission system, which will improve the programs inspection efforts. (-$1,088.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds received in FY 2010 that led to the finalization of the SPCC rule. (-$190.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
841
(-$56.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agencys travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing. Statutory Authority: Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The regulatory framework includes National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) under 40 CFR Part 300. Subpart J is a section of the NCP which stipulates the criteria for listing and managing the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used to mitigate oil spills. The Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 112) includes the SPCC and FRP regulatory requirements. The purpose of the SPCC requirements is to help facilities prevent a discharge of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines while the focus of the FRP requirements is to prepare a plan that describes equipment, personnel and strategies to respond to an oil discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
842
843
FY 2010 Enacted
Environmental Program & Management Science & Technology Building and Facilities Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$310,238.8 $72,841.7 $29,896.7 $871.9
$315,238.0 $72,918.0 $28,931.0 $904.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$324,965.0 $76,521.0 $33,931.0 $916.0

$9,727.0 $3,603.0 $5,000.0 $12.0

$505.0
$78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$489.4
$76,052.0 $490,390.5 410.6
$505.0
$78,482.0 $496,978.0 411.1
$536.0
$81,431.0 $518,300.0 408.5
$31.0
$2,949.0 $21,322.0 -2.6
Program Project Description: The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Inland Oil Spill Response appropriation supports a wide range of activities and services within many centralized administrative areas such as facility operations, rental of office and laboratory space, security, health and safety, environmental compliance, space planning, property management, occupational health, and medical monitoring functions at EPA. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly billing statements are correct. EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 13150 Federal Workforce Transportation. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $0.44 million for rent and $0.10 million for transit subsidy in the Oil spill response appropriation. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
844
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$31.0) This change reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs. Statutory Authority: Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
845
Program Area: Land Protection
846
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $14,111.0 $345.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$14,687.7 $422.5
$14,111.0 $345.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $0.0

($14,111.0) ($345.0)
Inland Oil Spills

$639.0
$21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7
$549.7
$22,334.0 $37,993.9 137.6
$639.0
$21,191.0 $36, 286.0 154.7
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 0.0
($639.0)
($21,191.0) ($36, 286.0) -154.7
Program Project Description: The Land Protection and Restoration Program in the Inland Oil Spill Programs appropriation seeks to protect human and ecosystem health from the negative impacts of oil spills. Given recent events, EPA is committing to a more proactive approach and stepping up our research efforts to focus on understanding more of the system-wide impacts of oil spills including: Protocol development/revision for testing oil spill control agents and products for listing on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by the Office of Environmental Management; Bioremediation studies for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum based oil, vegetable oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends; Dispersant performance in deep water and at different concentrations; Toxicity of dispersants and dispersants mixed with oil and oil residuals; and Biodegradation of dispersants. EPAs Land Research Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agencys actions to protect and sustain Americas land. EPA develops and uses its protocols for testing various spill response product classes to pre-qualify products as required by the preparedness and response requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Testing products ensures that they work as claimed, providing timely access to effective means to reduce damage when an oil spill occurs. Spill response is a priority for the Agency, and EPA has been instrumental in providing guidance for various response technologies, such as the published bioremediation guidance documents. 1 A
1
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/publications.htm.
847
key factor in providing guidance on spill response technologies is developing a firm understanding of the science behind spill behavior in the environment and the impact of response technologies application on that behavior. Fundamental science is also essential to the development of effective regulations, and the Agencys Oil Spill Research Program has been invaluable in providing this guidance through activities such as annual On-Scene Coordinator training on alternative response technologies. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges. Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; competition for food, materials, and energy in a global economy; growing waste streams; changing climate; and tighter budgets have exacerbated the challenges faced. Local officials are finding that simply adding one more single-purpose, single media solution is often environmentally inadequate, economically inefficient, and socially unacceptable to key stakeholders. Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPAs new Strategic Plan structure and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPAs mission. Research to address targeted oil spill challenges and provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$64.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE. (+$37.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities. (-$15.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
848
(-$23.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agencys technology infrastructure modernization plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources. Realignment of these resources is based on FTE allocations. (-$88.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (-$614.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This includes a transfer of $123.0 in associated payroll. This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal. Statutory Authority: OPA, 33 U.S.C Chapter 40; CWA, Section 311, 33 U.S.C. 1321.
849
850
FY 2010 Enacted
Science & Technology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $188,095.0 $345.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$183,002.7 $422.5
$186,095.0 $345.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$171,026.0 $454.0

($17,069.0) $109.0

$639.0
$21,264.0 $210,343.0 647.0
$549.7
$22,525.3 $206,500.2 625.3
$639.0
$21,264.0 $208,343.0 647.0
$614.0
$17,706.0 $189,800.0 621.7
($25.0)
($3,558.0) ($20,543.0) -25.3
Program Project Description: The new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program in the Inland Oil Spill Programs appropriation seeks to protect human and ecosystem health from the negative impacts of oil spills. Given recent events, EPA is committing to a more proactive approach and stepping up our research efforts to focus on understanding more of the system-wide impacts of oil spills including: Protocol development/revision for testing oil spill control agents and products for listing on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by Office of Emergency Management (OEM); Bioremediation studies for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum based oil, vegetable oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends; Dispersant performance in deep water and at different concentrations; Toxicity of dispersants and dispersants mixed with oil and oil residuals; Biodegradation of dispersants. In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science for the SHC Program by implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach will create synergy and provide more timely and efficient benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. The new integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative component to EPAs existing research portfolio. This research will leverage the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers and bridge traditional scientific disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems. This type of integrated research is expected to be a more efficient path to developing long-term environmentally sustainable solutions.
851
All or portions of the following Research Programs will be integrated into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program: Human Health Research Ecosystems Services Research Land Protection and Preservation Research Pesticides and Toxics Research Sustainability Research Fellowships
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program will provide innovative and creative management approaches and decision support tools for communities, regions, states and tribes to inform improved management practices to protect and ensure a sustainable balance between human health and the environment.2 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the benefits of nature upon which they depend. Increasing demands for energy have an impact on the potential for inland oil spills. As oil spills have multi-faceted impacts on communities, local officials are finding that more systems-oriented and synergistic solutions are needed. SHC research uses an integrated, systems approach to help communities across the United States be better able to respond to oil spills. Specifically, there are two main research topics that the program will address in FY 2012 to help communities deal with oil spills. First, EPA will develop protocols to revise or test oil spill control agents or products for listing on the NCP Product Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by EPAs Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Second, the Agency will conduct studies on the effectiveness of bioremediation for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum-based oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends, and the performance of dispersants for deep water applications. Performance Targets: Performance results for this program are discussed in the S&T: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to the 2010 enacted Budget and are included in the transfer from the source programs following this section: (-$88.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
852
work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. (+$63.0) This increase represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business Renovation Research realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. Transfer from source program: (+$614.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Oil Spill portion of the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program including $123.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative. Statutory Authority: OPA, 33 U.S.C. Chapter 40; CWA, Section 311, 33 U.S.C. 1321.
853
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants Resource Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 856 Program Projects in STAG ...................................................................................................... 858 Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) ............................................... 861 Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF ....................................................................... 862 Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF .................................................................. 866 Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages .............................................................. 870 Brownfields Projects ............................................................................................................. 872 Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program......................................................................... 878 Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border ........................................................................... 881 Targeted Airshed Grants ....................................................................................................... 884 Program Area: Categorical Grants ......................................................................................... 886 Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection ................................................................................ 887 Categorical Grant: Brownfields ........................................................................................... 889 Categorical Grant: Environmental Information ................................................................... 891 Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance ................................................. 894 Categorical Grant: Lead ....................................................................................................... 896 Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change .................................................................. 899 Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation ...................................................... 900 Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) .................................................................. 903 Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement ......................................................................... 907 Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation ...................................................... 909 Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106).................................................................. 913 Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention .............................................................................. 920 Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) ........................................... 922 Categorical Grant: Radon .................................................................................................... 925 Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management ............................................. 927 Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance ............................................................. 931 Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management ............................................................ 933 Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program....................................................... 935 Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC).................................................. 939
854
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks.................................................................. 942 Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development .......................................................... 945
855
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification APPROPRIATION: State and Tribal Assistance Grants Resource Summary Table (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted State and Tribal Assistance Grants Budget Authority Total Workyears FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted
$4,978,223.0 0.0
$4,410,975.5 0.0
$4,978,223.0 0.0
$3,860,430.0 0.0
($1,117,793.0) 0.0
Bill Language: State and Tribal Assistance Grants For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, $3,860,430,000, to remain available until expended, of which $1,550,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act); of which $990,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended: Provided, That for fiscal year 2012, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not less than 10 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the State for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities; $10,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and related activities in connection with the construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate border commission; $10,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided further, That, of these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 25 percent; and (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be used for administrative and overhead expenses; $99,041,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including grants, interagency agreements, and associated program support costs; and $1,201,389,000 shall be for grants, including associated program support costs, to States, federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions set forth under this heading in Public Law 104134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for carrying out section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, $10,200,000 shall be for Environmental
856
Information Exchange Network grants, including associated program support costs, $20,000,000 shall be for grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes for implementation of environmental programs and projects as defined by the Administrator that complement existing tribal environmental program grants, including interagency agreements,$23,500,000 of the funds available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be for state participation in national- and state-level statistical surveys of water resources and enhancements to state monitoring programs and, in addition to funds appropriated under the heading "Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program to carry out the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code other than section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 1,550,000 shall be for grants to States under section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2012 and prior years where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the fund, including administration: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to a total of 2 percent of the funds appropriated for State Revolving Funds under such Acts may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) and section 1452(i) of such Acts: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the amounts specified in section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, up to 1.5 percent of the aggregate funds appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program under the Act less any sums reserved under section 518(c) of the Act, may be reserved by the Administrator for grants made under title II of the Clean Water Act for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the limitations on amounts specified in section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act may be reserved by the Administrator for grants made under section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Provided further, That not more than 30 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the State to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these), and shall be so used by the State only where such funds are provided as initial financing for an eligible recipient or to buy, refinance, or restructure the debt obligations of eligible recipients only where such debt was incurred on or after enactment of this Act, except that for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grant appropriation this section shall only apply to the portion that exceeds $1,000,000,000: Provided further, That no funds provided by this appropriations Act to address the water, wastewater and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made available to a county or municipal government unless that government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or other
857
zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction of any additional colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia the construction of any new home, business, or other structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, of the funds provided for the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund Tribal Set-Asides, the Administrator may transfer funds between those accounts in the same manner as provided to States under section 302(s) of Public Law 104182, as amended by Public Law 10954. Note. A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
Program Projects in STAG (Dollars in Thousands)

Program Project
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages Brownfields Projects Clean School Bus Initiative Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program Targeted Airshed Grants Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
$2,100,000.0 $1,387,000.0 $13,000.0 $100,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 $20,000.0 $17,000.0 $3,697,000.0
$1,695,365.8 $1,143,484.5 $16,634.7 $133,697.0 $68.2 $115,807.2 $10,000.0 $24,503.5 $3,139,560.9
$2,100,000.0 $1,387,000.0 $13,000.0 $100,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 $20,000.0 $17,000.0 $3,697,000.0
$1,550,000.0 $990,000.0 $10,000.0 $99,041.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10,000.0 $2,659,041.0
($550,000.0) ($397,000.0) ($3,000.0) ($959.0) $0.0 ($60,000.0) ($20,000.0) ($7,000.0) ($1,037,959.0)
Categorical Grants Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection Categorical Grant: Brownfields Categorical Grant: Environmental Information Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Categorical Grant: Homeland Security $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,000.0 $103,346.0 $0.0 $10,194.2 $56,100.7 $10,618.9 $103,161.8 $2,863.1 $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,000.0 $103,346.0 $0.0 $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,200.0 $103,412.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $200.0 $66.0 $0.0
858
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Lead Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) Monitoring Grants Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) (other activities) Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Categorical Grant: Radon Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management Categorical Grant: Sector Program Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development Subtotal, Categorical Grants
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,564.0 $10,000.0 $0.0 $200,857.0 $18,711.0 $13,520.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$15,162.6 $9,500.0 $0.0 $194,818.5 $18,494.3 $13,195.4
$14,564.0 $10,000.0 $0.0 $200,857.0 $18,711.0 $13,520.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$14,855.0 $0.0 $20,000.0 $164,757.0 $19,085.0 $13,140.0

$291.0 ($10,000.0) $20,000.0 ($36,100.0) $374.0 ($380.0)
$18,500.0
$18,314.0
$18,500.0
$11,300.0
($7,200.0)
$210,764.0 $229,264.0 $4,940.0 $105,700.0 $8,074.0 $226,580.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,099.0 $13,300.0 $62,875.0 $10,891.0 $2,500.0 $0.0 $16,830.0 $1,116,446.0
$207,627.1 $225,941.1 $4,484.8 $107,095.7 $8,572.4 $223,152.7 $202.6 $2,827.2 $5,401.9 $13,408.0 $65,746.2 $11,323.6 $3,184.3 $63.0 $16,236.1 $1,121,749.1
$210,764.0 $229,264.0 $4,940.0 $105,700.0 $8,074.0 $226,580.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,099.0 $13,300.0 $62,875.0 $10,891.0 $2,500.0 $0.0 $16,830.0 $1,116,446.0
$238,964.0 $250,264.0 $5,039.0 $109,700.0 $8,074.0 $305,500.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,201.0 $13,566.0 $71,375.0 $11,109.0 $1,550.0 $0.0 $15,167.0 $1,201,389.0
$28,200.0 $21,000.0 $99.0 $4,000.0 $0.0 $78,920.0 $0.0 $0.0 $102.0 $266.0 $8,500.0 $218.0 ($950.0) $0.0 ($1,663.0) $84,943.0
Congressional Priorities
859
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects Subtotal, Congressionally Mandated Projects TOTAL, EPA
FY 2010 Enacted
$164,777.0 $164,777.0 $4,978,223.0
FY 2010 Actuals
$149,665.5 $149,665.5 $4,410,975.5
$164,777.0 $164,777.0 $4,978,223.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget

$0.0 $0.0 $3,860,430.0

($164,777.0) ($164,777.0) ($1,117,793.0)
860
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
861
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted State and Tribal Assistance Grants
FY 2010 Actuals $1,695,365.8

$1,664,144.7 $31,221.1 $1,695,365.8 0.0
FY 2011 Annualized CR $2,100,000.0

$2,100,000.0 $0.0 $2,100,000.0 0.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $1,550,000.0

$1,550,000.0 $0.0 $1,550,000.0 0.0

($550,000.0) $0.0 ($550,000.0) 0.0
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0 $0.0 $2,100,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program provides funds to capitalize state revolving loan funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater systems and projects to improve water quality. The CWSRF is the largest source of federal funds for states to provide loans and other forms of assistance for constructing wastewater treatment facilities, implementing nonpoint source management plans, and developing and implementing estuary conservation and management plans. This program also includes a provision for set-aside funding for tribes to better address serious water infrastructure problems and associated health impacts. This federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address water quality needs.1 State CWSRFs provide low interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects. These projects are critical to the continuation of the public health and water quality gains of the past 30 years. EPA estimates that for every federal dollar contributed, more than two dollars are provided to municipalities. As of early FY 2010, the federal government had appropriated over $33 billion for the state CWSRFs. The revolving nature of the funds and substantial additions from states has multiplied the federal investment to make over $84 billion available for clean water projects since the programs inception.2 The CWSRF program measures and tracks the average national rate at which available funds are loaned, assuring that the fund expeditiously supports EPAs water quality goals. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Recognizing the substantial remaining need for additional wastewater infrastructure as well as the historical effectiveness and efficiency of the CWSRF program, the Agencys FY 2012
1 2
See http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf for more information. Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System. US EPA, Office of Water, National Information Management System Reports: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Washington, DC (As of June 30, 2010).
862
Presidents Budget requests $1.550 billion for the CWSRF. Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($689 million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4 billion), enacted FY 2010 appropriation ($2.1 billion), and the FY 2011 Annualized Continuing Resolution ($2.1 billion), approximately $10.4 billion will be invested through federal capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of four years. As part of the Administrations long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with states and communities to enhance technical, managerial and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for SRF gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states the annual funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. For FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement its policy to improve the sustainability of wastewater systems and the long-term financial, managerial, and environmental sustainability of the water sector. As part of that strategy, EPA is working to ensure that federal dollars provided through the SRFs act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in technical, financial and managerial capacity, and the design, construction and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. This federal investment, along with other traditional sources of financing, will enable substantial progress for the nations clean water needs and sustainable infrastructure priorities, and will significantly contribute to the long-term environmental goal of attaining designated uses. To achieve these significant outcomes, EPA continues to work with states to meet several key objectives, such as: Funding projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach; Linking projects to environmental results; and Maintaining the excellent fiduciary condition of CWSRF. In FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a tribal set-aside of up to 2 percent, and a territories setaside of up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated from the CWSRF. Resources for the tribes and territories will provide much needed assistance to these communities and help meet longterm performance goals and address significant public health concerns. The 2002 Johannesburg World Summit adopted the goal of reducing the number of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 percent by calendar year 2015. EPA will support this goal through the CWSRF Indian Set-Aside, which will provide for the development of sanitation facilities for tribes. In FY 2012, the Agency requests that not more than 30 percent of the CWSRF funds made available to each state be used to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these). The
863
additional subsidization would be limited to initial financings for eligible recipients or to buy, refinance, or restructure the debt obligations of eligible recipients only where such debt was incurred on or after the enactment of this Act. This provision only applies to the portion of the appropriation that exceeds $1 billion. In FY 2012, EPA is requesting transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant and Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside Programs to allow tribes the flexibility to direct drinking water and wastewater funds to the highest priority projects. This would provide the same authority to tribes that is currently available to states. In FY 2012, and consistent with the FY 2011 Annualized Continuing Resolution, the Agency, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, will assure that not less than 20 percent of the portion of a capitalization grant made available shall be for projects, or portions of projects, that include green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities. The resulting projects will enhance community and utility sustainability. EPA measures performance by using the CWSRF benefits reporting system which is designed to track public health and environmental goals progress under both the base program and projects funded under ARRA. The benefits reporting system allows the program to more effectively link CWSRF financing to the protection and restoration of our nations waters. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
FY 2010 Target
92
FY 2010 Actual
100
FY 2011 CR Target
94.5
FY 2012 Target
94.5
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(pi2) Percent of time that 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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
62
52
63
64
Percent Time
864
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
2,809
2,909
3,073
3,273
Segments
Measure Type
Measure
(bpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
86
Data Avail 3/2011
86
86
Percent POTWs
Since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively stable and strong at over 90 percent. This national ratio is an aggregate of fund activity in the 51 individual CWSRF programs (50 states and Puerto Rico). Small year-to-year fluctuations in the value of the national ratio are expected and reflect annual funding decisions made by each state based on its assessment and subsequent prioritization of state water quality needs and the availability of financial resources. The Agency expects the loan commitment rate to continue to be strong. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$550,000.0) This reflects a decrease for clean water infrastructure projects. However, the Agencys FY 2012 request level represents a substantial increase over requested and enacted levels prior to FY 2010. Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($689 million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4 billion), the FY 2010 enacted appropriation ($2.1 billion), and the FY 2011 annualized continuing resolution of $2.1 billion, approximately $10.4 billion will be invested through federal capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of the last four years. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act, CWA; 33 U.S.C 1381 Section 1381
865
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $1,143,484.5

$1,167,109.2 ($23,624.7) $1,143,484.5 0.0
FY 2011 Annualized CR $1,387,000.0

$1,387,000.0 $0.0 $1,387,000.0 0.0

$990,000.0 $0.0 $990,000.0 0.0

($397,000.0) $0.0 ($397,000.0) 0.0
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0 $0.0 $1,387,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is designed to support states in helping public water systems finance the costs of infrastructure improvements needed to achieve or maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements and to protect public health. To reduce public health risks and to help ensure safe drinking water nationwide, EPA makes capitalization grants to states, so that they can provide low cost loans and other assistance to eligible public water systems. The program emphasizes that, in addition to maintaining the statutory focus on assisting the greatest public health risks first, states can utilize additional tools to assist small and disadvantaged communities, and fund programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The DWSRF is a key component of EPAs Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative. States have considerable flexibility to tailor their DWSRF program to their unique circumstances. This flexibility ensures that each state has the opportunity to carefully and strategically consider how best to achieve the maximum public health protection. For example, states can: Establish programs to provide additional subsidies, including negative interest loans or principal forgiveness to communities that the state determines to be disadvantaged; Determine the proper balance between infrastructure investment and Set-Aside use for authorized SDWA program development and implementation; and Set-aside capitalization grant funds to provide other types of assistance to encourage more efficient and sustainable drinking water system management and to fund programs to protect source water from contamination. (Historically, the states have set-aside an annual average of 16 percent of the funds awarded to them for these purposes, which includes 4 percent to run the program).
866
For FY 2010 to FY 2013, appropriated funds will be allocated to the states in accordance with each states proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need as determined by the most recent Needs Survey and Assessment.3 Also, there is a statutory requirement that each state and the District of Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allotment. The federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address drinking water infrastructure needs. States are required to provide a 20 percent match for their capitalization grant. Some states elect to leverage their capitalization grants through the public debt markets to enable the state to provide more assistance. These features, coupled with the revolving fund design of the program, have enabled the states to provide assistance equal to 177 percent of the federal capitalization invested in the program since its inception in 1997. In other words, for every $1 the federal government invests in this program, the states, in total, have been able to deliver $1.77 in assistance to water systems. As outlined in Section 1452(d)(2) of the SDWA, up to 30 percent of a states capitalization grant may be used for subsidization. For FY 2012, EPA will encourage states to utilize the subsidy to assist small systems with standards compliance. To the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, at least 10 percent of the portion of a capitalization grant made available for DWSRF projects shall be for projects, or portions of projects, that include green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities. The Agency is proposing ten percent for green projects rather than the twenty percent target under ARRA and the FY 2010 appropriation. The Agency believes that under ARRA and FY 2010 very significant investments have been made in water and energy efficiency projects. Continuing to require twenty percent is likely to force states to bypass priority public health projects in order to reach projects with green components. Prior to allotting funds to the states, EPA is required by Sections 1452(i)(1), 1452 (i)(2), 1452 (j), and 1452(o) of the SDWA, as amended, to reserve certain national level allotments. $2 million must, by statute, be allocated to small systems monitoring for unregulated contaminants. EPA will continue to reserve up to 2 percent (up from 1.5 percent as outlined in Section 1452 (i) of SDWA, as amended) of appropriated funds for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages. These funds are awarded either directly to tribes or, on behalf of tribes, to the Indian Health Service through interagency agreements. EPA will continue to set aside up to 1.5 percent for territories (up from 0.33 percent as outlined in Section 1452 (j) of SDWA, as amended).4 The DWSRF program provides access to financing and offers a limited subsidy to help utilities address long-term needs associated with water infrastructure. Most DWSRF assistance is offered in the form of loans which water utilities repay from the revenues they generate through the rates they charge their customers for service. Our nations water utilities face the need to significantly increase the rate at which they invest in drinking water infrastructure repair and replacement to keep pace with their aging infrastructure, much of which is approaching the end of its useful life.
3 4
The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009. For more information please see https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=d33d92f2df290e0c2365599cb09f0669
867
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA is requesting a total of $990 million to fund approximately 400 new infrastructure improvement projects to public drinking water systems. The FY 2012 request reflects a reduction of $397 million to the DWSRF. The requested funding for this program will support needed infrastructure investments to rebuild and enhance Americas drinking water infrastructure. As part of the Administrations long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with states and communities to enhance technical, managerial and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for the SRFs gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states the annual funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. A recent performance assessment of the DWSRF program found that it had implemented acceptable performance measures. The program also tracks the national long-term average revolving level of the fund to assess long-term sustainability. In FY 2012, EPA will request transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant and Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside Programs to allow the flexibility to direct drinking water and wastewater funds to highest priority projects. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(apc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
FY 2010 Target
86
FY 2010 Actual
91.3
FY 2011 CR Target
89
FY 2012 Target
89
Units
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
92
91
91
Percent Population
868
Measure Type
Measure
water standards through approaches including effective treatment & source water protection.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
89.6
90
90
Percent Systems
Measure Type
Measure
(pi1) Percent of population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (served by community water systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling average basis.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
73
82
75
78
Percent Population
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$397,000.0) This reflects a reduction for drinking water infrastructure projects. Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($829 million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($2 billion), the FY 2010 enacted appropriation ($1.387 billion), and the 2011 Annualized Continuing Resolution ($1.387 billion), approximately $6.5 billion will have been invested through federal capitalization grants awarded to the DWSRF over the course of four years. Statutory Authority: SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-12, Section 1452.
869
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $16,634.7

$16,634.7 0.0

$13,000.0 0.0

$10,000.0 0.0

($3,000.0) 0.0
$13,000.0
$13,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Alaska Rural and Native Village (ANV) Program addresses the lack of basic drinking water and sanitation infrastructure (i.e., flushing toilets and running water) in vulnerable rural and Native Alaska communities. In many of these at-risk communities, honeybuckets and pit privies are the sole means of sewage collection and disposal. Alaskan water and sewer systems are challenged by issues associated with small system size in addition to the complications of permafrost and a shortened construction season. EPAs grant to the State of Alaska provides funding to underserved communities in order to improve or construct drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities for these communities and thereby improve local health and sanitation conditions. The State of Alaska is best positioned to deliver services as it coordinates with the federal agencies and with the communities themselves. This program also supports training, technical assistance, and educational programs related to the financial management and operation and maintenance of sanitation systems.5 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The ANV program is administered by the State of Alaska and provides infrastructure funding to ANVs and rural Alaska communities that lack access to basic sanitation. The FY 2012 request of $10 million will fund a portion of the need in rural Alaskan homes and will be used to maintain the existing level of wastewater and drinking water services that meets public health standards, given increased regulatory requirements on drinking water systems and the rate of construction of new homes in rural Alaska. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work with the State of Alaska to address sanitation conditions and determine how to maximize the value of the federal investment in rural Alaska.
5
https://owpubauthor.epa.gov/type/watersheds/wastewater/Alaska-Native-Village-and-Rural-Communities-Grant-Program.cfm.
870
EPA will continue to implement the ANV Management Controls Policy (adopted in June 2007) to assure that funds are used efficiently by allocating them to projects that are ready to proceed or progressing satisfactorily. The Agency has made great strides in implementing more focused and intensive oversight of the ANV grant program through cost analyses, post-award monitoring and timely closeout of projects. EPA also has collaborated with the State of Alaska to establish program goals and objectives, which are now incorporated directly into the state priority system for selecting candidate projects. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(Opb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 5/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
98
92
93
Percent Homes
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
(Opd) Percent of project federal funds expended on time within the anticipated Efficiency project construction schedule set forth in the Management Control Policy.
94.5
94.5
95.5
Percent Projects
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$3,000.0) This reduces a Congressionally directed increase in funding in FY 2010 that is not carried forward in FY 2012. The FY 2012 investment will be used to fund wastewater and drinking water services that meet public health standards. Statutory Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-182, Section 303. 33 U.S.C. 1263a. Public Law 111-18, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2010.
871
Brownfields Projects Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $133,697.0

$122,737.1 $10,959.9 $133,697.0 0.0

$100,000.0 $0.0 $100,000.0 0.0

$99,041.0 $0.0 $99,041.0 0.0

($959.0) $0.0 ($959.0) 0.0
$100,000.0
$100,000.0 $0.0 $100,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with contaminated properties and abandoned sites known as brownfields.6 The Agencys Brownfields program coordinates a federal, state, Tribal, and local government approach to assist in addressing environmental site assessment and cleanup through grants and cooperative agreements authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 104(k) and related authorities.7 Under this program, EPA will provide: 1) assessment cooperative agreements for recipients to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning related to Brownfields sites; 2) targeted Brownfields assessments performed under EPA contracts and interagency agreements with federal partners; 3) cleanup cooperative agreements for recipients to clean up sites they own; 4) capitalization cooperative agreements for Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) to provide low interest loans and subgrants for cleanups; 5) job training cooperative agreements; and 6) financial assistance to localities, states, tribes, and non-profit organizations for research, training, and technical assistance for Brownfields-related activities. In addition, EPA will offer technical assistance, research, and training assistance to individuals and organizations from EPA contractors and federal partners under interagency agreements to facilitate the inventory, assessment, and remediation of Brownfields sites, community involvement, and site preparation. The Brownfields program also received funding under the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These funds have been obligated and will continue to be outlayed as recipients complete their activities and submit invoices for reimbursement to EPA through FY 2011 and FY 2012. As the Real Estate and Redevelopment sectors of the economy have been
6 7
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.html. Under CERCLA 104(k)(12)(B), the Brownfields program must allocate 25 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out CERCLA 104(k) to address sites contaminated by petroleum.
872
among the hardest hit during the downturn, the outlay rates among Brownfields projects is slower than the outlay rates of other EPA programs. Contributing to the relatively low outlay rate is the fact that many projects are contingent on state and local funds as well as leveraged private investment. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the Brownfields program will continue to foster federal, state, local, and publicprivate partnerships to return properties to productive economic use in communities. Beginning in FY 2010, the Brownfields program refocused resources allocated for the Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and Cleanup (ARC) grants to support targeted brownfields assessments, as well as technical assistance for reuse planning at specified sites. Emphasis was placed on citiesin-transition, which are communities that are struggling with high unemployment as a result of structural changes to their economies even as recovery takes hold. This approach emphasizes environmental health and protection that also achieves economic development and job creation through the redevelopment of Brownfields properties, particularly in underserved and disadvantaged communities. This will be achieved through area-wide plans that identify viable end uses of Brownfields properties and associated infrastructure investments and environmental improvements in the surrounding area to foster the redevelopment of the Brownfields properties and revitalize the community. The Brownfields Area-Wide Planning projects are one of EPAs Priority Goals. The EPA has set a Priority Goal to initiate 20 Brownfields area-wide planning projects, which will include community-level efforts to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities. The projects will allow those communities to assess and address a single large or multiple brownfields properties within their boundaries, thereby enabling redevelopment of brownfields properties on a broader scale. For the 23 community-level projects that were actually selected, EPA will provide technical assistance, coordinate its water and air quality enforcement efforts, and work with other federal agencies, states, tribes and local governments (as appropriate) to implement associated targeted environmental improvements, such as planned neighborhood investments or services needed, identified in each community's area-wide plan. This Priority Goal reflects emphasis on both environmental health and protection and economic development and job creation through the redevelopment of Brownfields properties, particularly in underserved and disadvantaged communities. This goal also will be addressed by the new area-wide planning approach described above. Through area-wide planning, communities may take a more holistic view of redevelopment, identifying how multiple (as opposed to targeted individual) Brownfields properties can be redeveloped to meet their needs for jobs, housing, recreation, health facilities, and other land uses that would make for a more viable and sustainable community. This also will help communities identify opportunities to leverage additional public and private investments. In addition, redeveloping these once productive properties, rather than redeveloping greenfield
873
properties, limits urban sprawl and, consequently, reduces the environmental impact associated with sprawl. This program helps to meet the Administrators priority of expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice, as it is designed to confront local environmental and public health challenges related to brownfields and benefit underserved or economically disadvantaged communities. With a strong emphasis on inclusiveness, facilitating community involvement and solid local partnerships among governments, nonprofits, and other community-based organizations, the brownfields area-wide planning process will focus on bringing new groups into the process of local decision making. The resulting area-wide plans will contain brownfields site(s) reuse and neighborhood revitalization strategies that will inform the assessment and cleanup of the sites within the brownfields-impacted area. This program broadly supports the Americas Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative which is intended to develop a community-based 21st century conservation agenda that can also spur job creation in the tourism and recreation industries. EPA will join in the coordinated efforts of other Agencies to leverage support of the federal government to help community-driven efforts to protect and restore our Americas outdoor legacy by promoting the planning of urban parks and greenways on Brownfields sites. In FY 2012, this program will support the following activities, as described below: Increase allocated resources for the Brownfields area-wide planning effort which will fund approximately 20 area-wide planning projects, with a combination of grant and technical assistance funding, at a maximum level of $350 thousand per project. The funding opportunity (estimated $7.0 million) will be made available through a national competition, and cooperative agreements and/or direct Agency technical assistance will be awarded under CERCLA Section 104(k)(6) to provide planning assistance, coordination of enforcement, water and air quality programs, and work with other federal agencies, states, tribes and local governments to target environmental improvements identified in each communitys area-wide plan. Funding will support at least 82 assessment cooperative agreements (estimated $20.2 million) that recipients may use to inventory, assess, cleanup and reuse planning at Brownfields sites, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2). In FY 2012, EPA expects to award fewer individual assessment cooperative agreements due to the Assessment Coalition option which allows three or more eligible entities to submit one grant proposal for up to $1.0 million to assess sites and target more areas. (This option became available in FY 2009.) The Agency will award approximately seven RLF cooperative agreements (estimated $7 million) of up to $1.0 million each per eligible entity and provide supplemental funding (estimated $8.0 million) to existing high performing RLF recipients. With this shifting of focus from assessment activity to support existing RLF cooperative agreements and by aggressively managing existing grant funding, the Agency estimates total Supplemental RLF Funding in the approximate range of $10 million. The RLF program enables eligible
874
entities to make loans and subgrants for the cleanup of properties and encourage communities to leverage other funds into their RLF pools and cleanup cooperative agreements as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3) and (4). Funding will support at least 96 direct cleanup cooperative agreements to enable eligible entities to clean up properties (estimated $19.2 million) that the recipient of the funding owns. EPA plans to increase funding to support more cleanup cooperative agreements in 2012. The Agency will award direct cleanup cooperative agreements of up to $200,000 per site to eligible entities and non-profits, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3). Assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) and other petroleum contamination found on Brownfields properties (estimated $25.0 million) in approximately 45 Brownfields communities, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2) and CERCLA 104(k)(3). Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training cooperative agreements (estimated $2.6 million) will provide funding for 13-14 cooperative agreements of up to $300,000 each for a two year period. This funding will provide job training for community residents to take advantage of new jobs leveraged by the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6), as well as other green jobs opportunities. EPA will provide funding for Targeted Brownfields Assessments to be performed through contracts and interagency agreements, as authorized by CERCLA 104(k)(2) and the terms of EPAs appropriation act. This includes an estimated $4.5 million to perform Targeted Brownfields Assessments for 35 communities. Funding will also support additional training, research, and technical assistance grants and cooperative agreements and direct services from contractors and under interagency agreements (estimated $6.5 million), as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6). In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPAs cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better utilize EPAs assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Removal, and Federal Facilities; Brownfields; Underground Storage Tanks and RCRA Corrective Action), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites. EPA developed an implementation plan to further describe the goals and objectives of the (ICI) and identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the upcoming years to coordinate the relevant tools in the most effective and efficient manner to appropriately service communities. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater number of contaminated
875
sites, accelerate cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPAs cleanup programs. In addition to furthering the Agencys primary goal of protecting human health and the environment, this coordinated approach will provide economic revitalization and job creation. The Brownfields project resources contribute to the overall Brownfields program goals and measures. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Output
Measure
(B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
FY 2010 Target
1,000
FY 2010 Actual
1,326
FY 2011 CR Target
1,000
FY 2012 Target
1000
Units
Properties
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(B32) Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
FY 2010 Target
60
FY 2010 Actual
109
FY 2011 CR Target
60
FY 2012 Target
60
Units
Properties
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(B34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
FY 2010 Target
5,000
FY 2010 Actual
5,177
FY 2011 CR Target
5,000
FY 2012 Target
5000
Units
Jobs
Measure Type
Measure
(B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
0.9
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
0.9
1.4
0.9
Dollars (Billions)
876
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse.
FY 2010 Target
1,000
FY 2010 Actual
3,627
FY 2011 CR Target
1,000
FY 2012 Target
1000
Units
Acres
EPAs performance measures for the Brownfields program are mainly based on outputs and outcomes of assessment, cleanup and RLF cooperative agreements. These outputs and outcomes depend on the maturity of each cooperative agreement, which usually have a performance period range of three to five years. For assessment and cleanup cooperative agreements, the performance period is three years, and five years for RLF cooperative agreements. Moreover, the Brownfields performance measure targets do not reflect the anticipated results from the ARRA funding received in FY 2009. Targets for ARRA funds were established and are being reported separately from the results achieved through the regular appropriation. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$959.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign its processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Sections 101, 104 (k), and 107.
877
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $115,807.2

$115,835.4 ($28.2) $115,807.2 0.0

$60,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 0.0

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0

($60,000.0) $0.0 ($60,000.0) 0.0
$60,000.0
$60,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Grant Program provides immediate, cost-effective emission reductions from existing diesel engines through engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements; switching to cleaner fuels; idling reduction strategies; and other clean diesel strategies. The program targets fleets in five sectors: freight, construction, school buses, agriculture, and ports. The DERA program was initially authorized in sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. On January 4, 2011, the President signed into law the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, which modifies and reauthorizes the EPAs Diesel Emission Reduction Program through FY 2016. In the face of significant budget constraints, EPA has made the difficult budget decisions not to propose new DERA grant funding for FY 2012. During this time, the program will continue to support already on-going projects funded through DERA and stimulus funds, adding to the tremendous public health benefits associated with the program that have resulted from significant reductions in air pollution, particularly in our cities and around our ports and transportation hubs. Reducing emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important public health challenges facing the country. The DERA program covers existing diesel engines used in both highway and nonroad vehicles and equipment. These legacy engines are not subject to new, more stringent emissions standards issued in 2007, 2008 and 2010, which apply to new engines. These older engines can remain in service for as long as 30 years. While the DERA grants accelerate the pace at which dirty engines are retired or retrofitted, pollution emissions from the legacy fleet will be reduced over time without additional DERA funding as portions of the fleet turnover and are replaced with new engines that meet modern emissions standards. Retrofitting or replacing diesel engines reduces particulate matter (PM) emissions up to 95 percent, smog-forming emissions, such as hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), up to 90 percent, and greenhouse gases up to 20 percent in the upgraded vehicles.
878
In FY 2008, the DERA program reduced the emissions of approximately 14,000 diesel vehicles. The immediate environmental and public health benefits achieved under DERA were recognized with $300 million in additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Additionally, this program injected cash into the economy and created jobs through purchases of new technologies with lower diesel emissions, such as pollution control equipment, new clean engines, replacement vehicles, cleaner fuels and other products EPA received an unprecedented response for this funding with applications requesting approximately $2 billion. In addition, these applicants offered to match those funds with over $2 billion additional funding. In FY 2009, DERA funds paid to retrofit or replace approximately 30 thousand engines. In the most recent DERA funding competition ($120 million in combined FY 2009 and FY 2010 funding), EPA received applications requesting $518 million and offering $840 million in matching funds. EPA awarded 84 new competitive grants. In addition, 51 State Clean Diesel grants (50 States and the District of Columbia) were amended to add FY 2009 and FY 2010 funds for clean diesel projects. Based on EPAs experience to date, every $1 million of DERA program grants/loans successfully leveraged at least $2 million in additional funding assistance. These projects have or will eliminate tens of thousands of tons of pollution from the air we breathe, which, according to EPA estimates, will result in up to $1.4 billion in health benefits. According to these same estimates, every $1 spent retrofitting or replacing the oldest and most polluting diesel engines leads to $13 in health benefits. However, as the program begins to retrofit or replace engines that are not as old and polluting, the cost effectiveness of the program decreases. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: EPA is not requesting DERA grant funds for FY 2012. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to manage DERA grants and loans issued in prior years. Over the last several years, EPA has awarded nearly $500 million in grant funding through the DERA programs to state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, port authorities, school districts, and others. EPA will track, assess and report the results of these DERA clean diesel grants, such as numbers of engines, emissions benefits and cost-benefit information. EPA will continue to provide diesel emission reduction technology verification and evaluation and provide that information to the public. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. EPA assesses program performance by tracking the number of projects completed and the resulting emission reductions. Work under this program also supports performance results in the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program Project in Environmental Programs and Management and can be found in the Four Year Array in Tab 11.
879
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$60,000.0) This reduction reflects elimination of DERA grant funding. While the DERA grants accelerate the pace at which dirty engines are retired or retrofitted, pollution emissions from the legacy fleet will be reduced over time without additional DERA funding as portions of the fleet turnover and are replaced with new engines that meet modern emissions standards Statutory Authority: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sections 741 and 791-797; H.R. 5809 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010.
880
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $24,503.5

$24,503.5 0.0

$17,000.0 0.0

$10,000.0 0.0

($7,000.0) 0.0
$17,000.0
$17,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The United States and Mexico share more than 2,000 miles of common border. More than 14.6 million people live in the border area. The rapid increase in population and industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed existing wastewater treatment and drinking water supply facilities. Untreated sewage pollutes urban waters that flow north into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, into the Rio Grande, or into the Pacific Ocean. EPA works closely with program partners to evaluate public health and environmental needs and to provide grant funding in underserved communities for the planning, design, and construction of high priority water and wastewater treatment facilities along the border. The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program will continue to work with the ten Border States (four U.S. and six Mexican) and local communities to improve the regions water quality and public health. The U.S. and Mexican governments will collaborate on water infrastructure projects to reduce health risks to residents including sensitive populations of children and elders who may currently lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Additionally, by providing homes with access to basic sanitation, EPA and its partners will reduce the discharge of untreated wastewater into surface and groundwater. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Since 1994, Congress has appropriated approximately $1 billion in State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) for water infrastructure projects in the Border Region. Of this amount, the U.S.Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program has awarded approximately $657 million to the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) at the North American Development Bank (NADB) for the construction of high-priority drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. To date, the program has funded 93 projects. The total costs of those projects amounts to $1.7 billion as a result of EPA grants leveraging over $1.1 billion from other sources to finance the projects. More than five million people are benefiting from 68 completed projects and more than eight million people will benefit once the 25 projects that are under construction are completed.
881
To ensure responsible fiscal management of BEIF funds, the Agency implemented project management enhancements in 2005 to expedite construction completion. In addition, EPA finalized a fiscal policy in FY 2007 that provides clear direction for expediting completion of older projects and disbursement of funds. These reforms have resulted in consistent and dramatic reductions in the programs unliquidated balances and improved project completion rates. The program has reduced the unliquidated BEIF balance by more than 60 percent, from approximately $300 million in 2007 to the current balance of $118.6 million, as of November 2010. In FY 2012, the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program will continue to fund high priority water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The projects have been evaluated and ranked using a risk-based prioritization system, which enables the program to direct BEIF funding to projects that demonstrate human health benefits, cost-effectiveness, institutional capacity and sustainability. All program funding will be invested in projects that, whether located in the United States or Mexico, demonstrate a positive public health and/or environmental benefit to the United States. The demonstration of a U.S.-side benefit is one of the fundamental eligibility criteria for projects seeking program assistance. The U.S.-Mexico Border Program grants award system, which separates planning and design awards from the construction award funds, has created a portfolio of construction-ready projects that are awaiting funding. It is anticipated that most of the requested FY 2012 funding (approximately 80 percent) will be awarded to the NADB to fund these construction-ready projects. A significantly smaller portion (approximately 20 percent) will be awarded to the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) for planning and design of new projects, with the purpose of continuing to build and thus maintain a portfolio of projects that are ready for construction. Final decisions on use of FY 2012 funding will be based on balancing the construction needs of fully designed projects with the planning and the design needs of prioritized projects. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(4pg) Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.-Mexico border area since 2003.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
108.2
108.8
Million Pounds/Year
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
882
Measure Type
Measure
(xb2) Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
28,434
52,130
54,130
100 (Annual)
Homes
Measure Type
Measure
(xb3) Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
246,175
254,125
461,125
1,282 (Annual)
Homes
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$7,000.0) This reduces FY 2010 directed funding for Mexico Border. The requested level of funding will allow EPA to fund a portion of fully planned and designed projects for construction, while continuing efforts to provide access to safe drinking water and sanitary systems for underserved communities in the region. Statutory Authority: Treaty entitled Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, August 14, 1983; Public Law 111-18, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2010.
883
Targeted Airshed Grants Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $10,000.0

$10,000.0 0.0

$20,000.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0

($20,000.0) 0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Part of this program consists of grants to two California air districts: the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The air districts use these funds to continue emission reduction activities in the transportation, agriculture and ports sectors. These grants are matched by the districts on a one-to-one basis. The program has also supported $10 million in competitive grants to reduce air pollution in nonattainment areas that are ranked as the top five most polluted areas relative to annual ozone or PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA determines those areas which are primarily in Californiabased on the most recent design values calculated from validated air quality data. EPA has awarded $10 million in FY 2010 funds to the two California Air Quality Districts with the remaining funds to be awarded shortly. The FY 2010 competitive funds can be used for emission reduction projects in the transportation, agriculture and ports sectors. The Agency anticipates that many of the projects will be for diesel emission reduction activities, but other types of projects are also eligible for funds. The San Joaquin and South Coast Air Quality Management Districts received earmarked funding in FY 2009 for diesel emission reduction activities. There were no competitive funds in FY 2009. The SCAQMD funds were used for vehicle replacement at ports; the San Joaquin projects focused on diesel agricultural pumps and off-road vehicles. The FY 2010 funds are available for emission reduction activities deemed necessary for compliance with NAAQS and included in State Implementation Plans submitted to EPA. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: There is no request for this program in FY 2012.
884
Performance Targets: Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$20,000.0) The FY 2012 Presidents Budget does not continue funding for these earmarked grants. Statutory Authority: P-L. 111-88.
885
Program Area: Categorical Grants
886
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $10,194.2

$10,194.2 0.0

$9,900.0 0.0

$9,900.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0 0.0
Program Project Description: EPA awards grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to improve water quality monitoring at beaches and to notify the public of beach advisories and closings. The Beach grant program is a collaborative effort between EPA and states, territories, local governments, and tribes to help ensure that recreational waters are safe for swimming. Congress created the program with the passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) in October 2000 with the goal of reducing risk to the public of waterborne disease related to the use of recreational water. EPA awards grants to eligible states, territories, and tribes using an allocation formula developed in consultation with states and other organizations. The allocation takes into consideration beach season length, beach miles, and beach use.8 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Eligible states, territories, tribes and localities will receive BEACH Act grants to: (1) administer the grant program; (2) implement monitoring and notification programs consistent with EPA guidance; and (3) submit monitoring and advisory data to EPA for production of an annual report in a timely manner. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(ss2) Percent of days of beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
95
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
95
95
95
Percent Days/Season
See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ and https://www.cfda.gov/ for more information.
887
Measure Type
Measure
beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): No change in program funding. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA); Beach Act of 2000.
888
Categorical Grant: Brownfields Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $56,100.7

$56,100.7 0.0

$49,495.0 0.0

$49,495.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0
$49,495.0
$49,495.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Brownfields program is designed to help states, tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders in environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment to work together to plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields. Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with these contaminated properties and abandoned sites. As authorized under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), categorical grants are provided to states and tribes for their Brownfields response programs. State and tribal response programs address contaminated brownfields sites that do not require federal action, but need cleanup before the sites are considered for reuse. States and tribes may use grant funding provided under this program in the following ways: 1) developing a public record; 2) creating an inventory of brownfields sites; 3) developing oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms and resources; 4) developing mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation; 5) developing mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan and that verification and certification cleanup efforts are complete; 6) capitalizing a Revolving Loan Fund for brownfields-related work; 7) purchasing environmental insurance; and 8) conducting sitespecific related activities, such as assessments and cleanups at brownfields sites.9 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012 EPA will continue to establish and enhance eligible response programs of states, U.S. territories, and tribes under CERCLA 128(a). EPA also will continue to issue grants to states and tribes for their response programs to cleanup brownfields sites before reuse. Building response program capacity of states and tribes to address the assessment and cleanup of sites
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state_tribal/index.html.
889
with actual or perceived contamination will increase the number of acres ready for reuse, an important first step in revitalizing communities across the country. Performance Targets: Work under this program project also supports performance results in STAG: Brownfields Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): No change in program funding. Statutory Authority: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Section 128.
890
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $10,618.9

$10,618.9 0.0

$10,000.0 0.0

$10,200.0 0.0

$200.0 0.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: EPA and state, tribal and territorial partners reap tremendous data management and environmental benefits from the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Network, EN). The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes and other entities that facilitates and streamlines electronic reporting, sharing, integration, analysis and use of environmental data from many different sources. Success stories include the Water Quality Exchange (WQX), which has dramatically expanded the proportion of the nations surface waters for which pollution control officials have near-real-time water quality data. Thirty-two states are now using the EN to submit water quality data on 113,000 monitoring stations. While starting primarily with states, partnerships have expanded to include a broader range of participants. Examples include sharing data about the Chesapeake Bay among all levels of participating governments and a central tribal information hub hosted by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for water quality reporting. EN grants provide funding to states, territories, federally-recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia to support their participation in the EN. These grants help EN partners acquire and develop the hardware and software needed to connect to the EN; and to use the EN to collect, report and access the data they need with greater efficiency; and to integrate environmental data across programs in ways previously not possible. By supporting the exchange and integration of data to meet the partners program and business needs, the EN facilitates sound environmental and health decision-making while enhancing public access to environmental data. Development of the EN has largely been funded through these grants. During FY 2010, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, nearly 80 tribes and 3 territories used the Exchange Network to submit data for at least one major regulatory program or major national data system. In addition, EPA is in the process of developing a system to manage industry reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data and exchanging this information with its trading partners. EN partners have
891
submitted other non-regulatory data to EPA and have shared data with each other through the EN. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: More work is needed to realize fully the potential environmental and health benefits that the ENs data management capabilities can yield, including protecting vulnerable populations, enhancing scientific analysis and strengthening the collaborative network of federal, state and local partners. Therefore, in FY 2012, the EN Grants Program will emphasize activities to achieve the following program goals: Support the development and exchange of regulatory and non-regulatory data flows. Because all 50 states have operational connections to the EN (nodes), the major emphasis of the grant program has shifted toward supporting partners as they expand the number of regulatory data flows while prioritizing those data flows which are more complicated and therefore slower to be completed by states. These flows include data reported to the Integrated Compliance Information System, the Resource Conservation and Recovery information system and the data management system for the Underground Injection Control Program. Grow the EN by developing the necessary capacity and infrastructure for tribes and territories. This endeavor also includes the development of new tools for Network partners that make exchanging data faster and easier. Some of these tools also help states which, despite the Exchange Network grant program, face resource cuts in their information technology staffing budgets. These tools, such as the Network Web Service Tool, can help the states bridge those funding gaps by lowering Network participation costs, complexity and FTE requirements. Expand data sharing among partners. EPA plans to solicit applications that propose to expand existing data exchanges for Agency priorities such as co-managed water bodies (e.g, Great Lakes, large watersheds) and applications that propose to develop data access services that allow EN partners and the public to integrate, link and analyze information from sources across the Network. Support multi-partner projects to plan, mentor and train EN partners and develop and exchange data. These projects help encourage broader participation of existing and new partners. They also support innovation and improve the quality of individual grant products. Such innovation and improved quality in turn make it easier to promote their re-use among a larger cross-section of Network partners, making one of the Networks operating principles, build one, use many a reality. Focus on the sharing and integration of geographic/geospatial information and geospatial data standards with environmental information, as the legacy methods for reporting data are replaced by the Network. This focus will represent a major step forward toward mainstreaming geographic information systems (GIS) into the Network data exchanges and will greatly enhance the power and functionality of the Network.
892
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$200.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. Currently, there are no
Statutory Authority Exchange Network Grant Program has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY 2002 (Public Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY 2005 (Public Law 108-447) and FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8), and FY 2010 (Public Law 11188).
893
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $103,161.8

$103,161.8 0.0

$103,346.0 0.0

$103,412.0 0.0

$66.0 0.0
$103,346.0
$103,346.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to assist state programs 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 then apply to EPA for authorization to administer the program. The state grants provide for the implementation of an authorized hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, including controlling and cleaning up past and continuing releases from hazardous waste management facilities through corrective action. This funding also provides for the direct implementation of the RCRA program for the States of Iowa and Alaska, which have not been authorized to operate in lieu of the federal program. Funding distributed through these grants also supports tribes, where appropriate, in conducting hazardous waste work on Tribal lands. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The EPA-state partnership has been the basis for effective implementation of the RCRA program over the years. In light of recent state fiscal constraints, EPA continues to seek improved efficiencies in state and regional operations. EPA is also working to better assess state workload needs and the extent to which states currently generate revenue from user charges to support state hazardous waste programs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with states toward the calendar year 2020 goal of constructing final remedies at 95 percent of all facilities. As part of overall efforts toward that goal, EPA and states aim to control human exposures to toxins at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities and control the migration of contaminated groundwater at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities by 2020. Because states are the primary implementers of RCRA, EPAs ability to meet these goals, as well as goals for issuing permits, permit renewals, and other approved controls, may be impacted by state fiscal constraints.
894
In FY 2012, the following activities will be accomplished by states and by EPA for Iowa and Alaska, using RCRA Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance funds to increase the number of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits, permit renewals, or other approved control: Issue operating and post-closure permits, or use appropriate enforcement mechanisms to address environmental risk at inactive land-based facilities; Approve closure plans for interim status treatment and storage facilities that are not seeking permits to operate and work with the facilities to clean-close those units; Issue permit renewals for hazardous waste management facilities to keep permit controls up to date; Issue permit modifications, as needed; Operate comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to the RCRA hazardous waste program; and Work with facilities to complete site assessments, control human exposures and the migration of contaminated groundwater, and make determinations regarding construction of final remedies as part of the efforts toward meeting the proposed goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports performance results in the RCRA Corrective Action program project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. Currently there are no direct performance measures for this funding. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$66.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes with the implementation of state and tribal programs. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 3011, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
895
Categorical Grant: Lead Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $15,162.6

$15,162.6 0.0

$14,564.0 0.0

$14,855.0 0.0

$291.0 0.0
$14,564.0
$14,564.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Recent data show significant progress in the continuing efforts to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has historically measured progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher. Data released in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning has declined from approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006.10 These results show that the federal government is making greater than expected progress and well on track toward achieving its goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern, at those blood levels, by 2010.11 Results of recent studies indicate adverse health effects to children at blood levels lower than the previously recognized 10 micrograms per deciliter.12 In response to this new information and the fact that the potential for exposure posed by lead-based paint still exists in approximately 38 million homes built before 1978,13 EPA now is targeting reductions in the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher. EPAs Lead program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and non-low-income children.
10
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2009. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp. 11 Presidents Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf 12 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823 4 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J.Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, D.A.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, D.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W. (2002). The prevalence of lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606 Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16):1515-1516 http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and childrens intellectual function: an international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
896
The program uses these performance measures to track progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations. The Lead Categorical Grant Program contributes to the lead programs goals by providing support to authorized state and tribal programs that administer training and certification programs for lead professionals and renovation contractors. The program also conducts outreach activities to educate populations deemed most at risk of exposure to lead from lead-based paint, dust, and soil. See http://www.epa.gov/lead for more information. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the program will continue providing assistance to states, territories, the District of Columbia, and tribes to develop and implement authorized programs for the lead-based paint abatement program to operate in lieu of the federal program. Additionally, the program will provide support to those entities to develop and implement authorized Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Programs. EPA implements these programs in all areas of the country that are not authorized to do so. Activities conducted as part of this program include accrediting training programs, certifying individuals and firms, and providing education and compliance assistance to those subject to the abatement and RRP regulations and the general public. Thirty-nine states and territories, three tribes, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are authorized to run the lead-based paint abatement program. By comparison, as of January 2010, 10 states had become authorized to administer the RRP program. In FY 2012, the Lead Categorical Grant Program will provide assistance to existing authorized state and tribal Lead programs. In addition, it will provide assistance, using a targeted approach, to states and tribes interested in becoming authorized to run the RRP Program. As of January 19, 2011, EPA has accredited 472 renovation training providers and has certified more than 75,500 renovation firms. The Agency estimates that it should be possible to have certified 120,000 renovation firms by the end of FY 2012. EPA recognizes that additional attention and assistance must be given to vulnerable populations, including those with rates of lead poisoning in excess of the national average, and those living in areas where potential high rates of lead poisoning may exist and where frequent screening has not yet occurred. To address this issue, EPAs goal is to award targeted grants to a wide range of applicants, including state and local governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia, territories, institutions of higher learning, and nonprofit organizations to reduce childhood lead poisoning. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results that are listed in EPM Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
897
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$291.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. Statutory Authority: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Section 404(g).
898
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $9,500.0

$9,500.0 0.0

$10,000.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0

($10,000.0) 0.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The FY 2010 Budget included $10 million for EPAs Air and Radiation program to initiate a competitive grant program to assist local communities in establishing and implementing their own climate change initiatives. The goal of this program is to implement programs, projects, and approaches that demonstrate documentable reductions in GHGs and are replicable elsewhere. While the Agency anticipates this program will lead to emission reductions, the Agency will rely on existing EPA partnership programs to achieve future greenhouse gas reductions. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: There is no request for this program in FY 2012. Performance Targets: Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$10,000.0) This program is not continued in FY 2012. Statutory Authority: P.L. 111-8 (H.R. 1105), 123 STAT. 524; P.L. 111-88.
899
Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country (Dollars in Thousands)

$0.0 0.0
FY 2011 Annualized CR $0.0

$0.0 0.0

$20,000.0 0.0

$20,000.0 0.0
$0.0
$0.0 0.0
Program Project Description: As stated in the 1984 EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations, In keeping with the principle of Indian self-government, the Agency will view tribal governments as the appropriate non-federal parties for making decisions and carrying out program responsibilities affecting Indian reservations, their environments, and the health and welfare of the reservation populace. As tribal capacity increases and as tribes environmental programs become increasingly sophisticated, EPA continues to invest and support tribal government efforts to carry out new program delegations and responsibilities. EPA is requesting a new multi-media implementation grant program for tribes in FY 2012. Under federal environmental statutes, EPA has responsibility for protecting human health and the environment in Indian country and has worked with tribes to establish the internal infrastructure and capacity to address environmental priorities. This program fills the void where there was no consolidated, flexible program available to support tribal implementation of environmental programs. Tribes overall suffer disproportionately and lag significantly behind state and federal programs in achieving environmental and health protection, including the lack of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, solid waste management systems, and safeguards that result from other basic federal environmental programs. At the same time, many tribal governments have made tremendous progress in the last 20 years, and many tribes throughout the nation manage increasingly complex environmental programs. This program facilitates selfgovernment and fulfills EPAs mission to protect human health and the environment in Indian country. The program is tailored to address an individual tribes most serious environmental needs through the implementation of environmental programs and projects. These grants build upon the environmental capacity developed [e.g., under the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) and other efforts] and include negotiated environmental plans, measures, and results as agreed upon by tribes and EPA. GAP grants are essential to improving human and environmental health in Indian country, but given GAPs constraints on implementation, tribes can find it difficult to transition from establishing the foundation of an environmental program to the actual implementation of media-specific programs. This program transitions a tribe into program
900
implementation and ensures that EPA and tribal environmental priorities are addressed to the fullest extent possible. This program advances the Administrators priority that EPA programs are consistently delivered nationwide. It also allows the Agency and tribes to have the flexibility to direct resources to tribal program implementation activities that complement programs under established environmental statutes (i.e., CWA, CAA, RCRA, etc.) and specific projects (e.g., climate change) which are needed to address environmental problems faced by tribes. Tribes negotiate specific activities with EPA through program workplans, identify the measures and outputs for accountability, and ensure the effectiveness for this federal funding. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: As tribes environmental programs become increasingly sophisticated, additional resources are needed for implementation of priority actions to protect tribal environments. EPA is requesting $20 million to support a multi-media implementation grant program (MMTI), which will assist federally recognized tribal governments in implementing environmental programs, going beyond establishing an environmental presence. In FY 2012, MMTI assistance agreements will fund the implementation of tribal programs with approved plans and/or tribal laws/codes aimed at addressing the most critical tribal environmental priorities and related to EPAs mission to protect both human health and the environment. Activities submitted must include a plan for measuring outcomes of the funded project. MMTI assistance agreements, while not covering capacity building activities, directly link MMTI activities to results and successes achieved through the GAP. Environmental areas that the program assists include, but are not limited to: Indoor air quality Tribal water quality standards Voluntary cleanup Spill containment and emergency response Integrated pest management plan Source water protection Pollution prevention Oil pollution prevention Performance Targets: Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands): (+$20,000.0) This reflects funding for a new grant program that will allow the Agency to provide multi-media grants to tribes for implementation of environmental programs and projects.
901
Statutory Authority: Annual Appropriation Acts Note: EPA is currently seeking authorization of appropriations language to support this program: $20,000,000 shall be for grants to federally recognized Indian tribes for implementation of environmental programs and projects as defined by the Administrator that complement existing Tribal environmental program grants, including interagency agreements.
902
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $194,818.5

$194,818.5 0.0

$200,857.0 0.0

$164,757.0 0.0

($36,100.0) 0.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff that carries excess nutrients, toxics and other contaminants to waterbodies, is the greatest remaining source of surface and groundwater quality impairments and threats in the United States. Grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are provided to states, territories, and tribes to help them implement their EPA-approved nonpoint source (NPS) management programs by remediating past NPS pollution and preventing or minimizing new NPS pollution. Section 319 broadly authorizes states to use a range of tools to implement their programs, including: regulatory and non-regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration projects. EPA directs States to focus $100 million of Section 319 funds on the development and implementation of watershedbased plans that are designed to restore impaired waters (listed under CWA Section 303(d) to meet water quality standards.14 Implementation of watershed-based plans helps states achieve load reductions contained in Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and thereby to achieve water quality standards. Through these implementation projects, states have remediated nearly 215 waterbodies that were primarily impaired by NPS pollution so that they now meet water quality standards. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The pervasiveness of nonpoint source pollution requires cooperation and involvement from EPA, other federal agencies, the states, local governments and concerned citizens to address NPS pollution problems. In FY 2012, EPA will work closely with and support the many efforts of states, interstate agencies, tribes, local governments and communities, watershed groups, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other federal agencies, and others to develop and implement their local watershed-based plans and restore surface and groundwaters nationwide.
14
See and https://www.cfda.gov for more information.
903
In FY 2012, states will continue to develop and implement watershed-based plans to restore impaired waterbodies to meet water quality standards. These watershed-based plans, a key emphasis of the national nonpoint source control program, will move EPA toward the strategic goal of more waters attaining designated uses, and enable states to determine the most costeffective means to meet their water quality goals through the analysis of sources and relative significance of pollutants of concern; cost-effective techniques to address those sources; availability of needed resources, authorities, and community involvement to effect change; and monitoring that will enable states and local communities to track progress and make changes over time that they deem necessary to meet their water quality goals. Full requirements for these plans are described in detail in the NPS program grant guidelines. EPAs website includes examples of watershed-based plans15 and links to State websites with numerous additional plans. The Mill Creek, Pennsylvania watershed plan16, for example, provides a detailed 20-page list of 600 best management practices that need to be implemented on 200 farms in the watershed to restore river water quality, including the precise acreage and linear feet of the practice, modeled results, and site-by-site costs. This planning approach clarifies what all watershed participants roles should be to achieve clean water. EPA will continue to forge and strengthen strategic partnerships with the agricultural and forestry communities, and other groups that have an interest in achieving water quality goals in a cost-effective manner. Agricultural sources of pollution in the form of animal waste, fertilizer, and sediments have a particularly profound effect on water quality. Therefore, EPA will work closely with the USDA to ensure that federal resources -- including both Section 319 grants and Farm Bill funds -- are managed in a coordinated manner to protect water quality from agricultural pollution sources. More broadly, EPA will work with states to ensure that they develop and implement their watershed-based plans in close cooperation with state conservationists, soil and water conservation districts, and all other interested parties within the watersheds. EPA will continue to work closely with a broad set of partners to promote the implementation of low impact development (LID) practices that can prevent new development activities from harming water quality as well as assist in the restoration of waterbodies when previously developed areas are redeveloped. Runoff from developed and developing areas is a leading source of degradation to urban/suburban streams. Working with states, cities, developers, watershed associations, and others, EPA will continue to spread knowledge and adoption of LID practices. EPA will continue to track the steady increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of nonpoint source projects financed with Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) loans to prevent polluted runoff. EPA will encourage state, tribal, and local governments to use CWSRF loans to finance nonpoint source projects where appropriate. Additionally, EPA is currently initiating a project to work with state partners to complete a detailed evaluation of how states are using 319 resources, including implementation of TMDLs
15 16
http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/examples.do?pageId=52&navId=40 http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/lib/watershedmgmt/nonpoint_source/implementation/mill_creek_ plan.pdf
904
and restoring impaired waters, with the goal of beginning to implement study recommendations in FY2012. A key emphasis will be on improving program accountability and ensuring that States are using cost effective approaches to protect and restore their waters. In FY 2012, EPA will begin to implement some program reforms, including incentives to states to implement more effective nonpoint source management programs. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
4.5
Data Avail 3/2011
4.5
4.5
Pounds (Million)
Measure Type
Measure
(bpg) Estimated additional reduction in million pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
8.5
Data Avail 3/2011
8.5
8.5
Pounds (Million)
Measure Type
Measure
(bph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
700
Data Avail 3/2011
700
700
Tons (Thousand)
The programs output measures are to reduce the amount of runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment through Section 319 funded projects, which usually take several years to implement.
905
EPA expects that funding reductions in FY 2012 may result in FY 2013 and beyond in a decrease in the programs ability to reduce contaminated runoff. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$36,100.0) This reduction will decrease funding for nonpoint source programs, including implementation of nonpoint source projects and statewide nonpoint source protection activities. Statutory Authority: Clean Water Act Section 319
906
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $18,494.3

$18,494.3 0.0

$18,711.0 0.0

$19,085.0 0.0

$374.0 0.0
$18,711.0
$18,711.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Pesticides Enforcement grants program ensures pesticide product and user compliance with provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Areas of focus include inspections relating to reducing chemical risks and protecting vulnerable populations. Additionally, the program provides compliance assistance to the regulated community through such resources as EPAs National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center, seminars, guidance documents, brochures, and outreach to foster knowledge of and compliance with environmental laws pertaining to pesticides.17 The program also sponsors training for state/tribal inspectors through the Pesticide Inspector Residential Training Program (PIRT) and for state/tribal managers through the Pesticide Regulatory Education Program (PREP). FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue to award state and tribal pesticides enforcement grants to assist in the implementation of the compliance and enforcement provisions of FIFRA. These grants support state and tribal compliance and enforcement activities designed to protect the environment from harmful chemicals and pesticides. Enforcement and pesticides program grant guidance is issued to focus regional, state and tribal efforts on the highest priorities. EPAs support to state and tribal pesticide programs will emphasize reducing chemical risks by: conducting targeted inspections of pesticide use involving six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates; implementing container/containment requirements; and conducting targeted pesticide producer establishment inspections of facilities such as contract manufacturers or fumigant producers. These grants also will help states and tribes to protect vulnerable populations by conducting compliance (inspection) and enforcement activities, including those involving worker protection at pesticide producing establishments located in environmental justice areas. States will continue inspecting facilities for compliance with pesticide requirements.
17
For additional information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.
907
Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the strategic objective to Ensure Chemical Safety. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$374.0) This change reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. Statutory Authority: FIFRA.
908
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,195.4

$13,195.4 0.0

$13,520.0 0.0

$13,140.0 0.0

($380.0) 0.0
$13,520.0
$13,520.0 0.0
Program Project Description: EPAs mission as related to pesticides is to protect human health and the environment from pesticide risk and to realize the value of pesticide availability by considering the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of pesticides.18 The Agency provides grants to states, tribes and other partners, including universities, non-profit organizations, other federal agencies, pesticide users, environmental groups, and other entities, as necessary, to assist in strengthening and implementing EPAs pesticide programs. The program focuses on areas such as worker safety activities (including worker protection and certification and training), protection of endangered species,2 protection of water resources from pesticides, and promotion of environmental stewardship and Integrated Pest Management related activities. The Agency achieves this goal through implementation of its statutes and regulatory actions. Pesticides program implementation grants ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions made at the national level are translated into results at the local level. EPA provides resources for those closest to the source of potential risks from pesticides since they are in a position to better evaluate risks and implement risk reduction measures. Stakeholders at the local level, including states and tribes, provide essential support in implementing pesticides programs. The Agency engages stakeholders, including states in the regulatory process, and considers their input regarding effectiveness and soundness of regulatory decisions. The states and tribes also develop data to measure program performance. Under pesticide statutes, responsibility for ensuring proper pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes. Grant resources allow states and tribes to be more effective regulatory partners.
18
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
2
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)1 and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 Internet site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleQA.html.
909
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Certification and Training/Worker Protection Through the Certification and Training/Worker Protection programs, EPA protects workers, pesticide applicators/handlers, employers, and the public from the potential risks posed by pesticides in their homes and work environments. EPA will continue to provide assistance and grants to implement the Certification and Training/Worker Protection programs. Grants fund maintenance and improvements in training networks, safety training to workers and pesticide handlers, development of Train the Trainer courses, workshops, and development and distribution of outreach materials. The Agencys partnership with states and tribes in educating workers, farmers, and employers on the safe use of pesticides and worker safety will continue to be a major focus. See http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm for more information. Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) The ESPP protects federally listed threatened or endangered animals and plants whose populations are threatened by risks associated with pesticide use. EPA complies with Endangered Species Act requirements to ensure that its regulatory decisions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered and threatened, or destroy or adversely modify habitat designated as critical to those species survival. EPA will provide grants to states, tribes and other partners, as described above, for projects supporting endangered species protection. Program implementation includes outreach, communication, education related to use limitations, review and distribution of Endangered Species Protection Bulletins, and mapping and development of endangered species protection plans. These activities support the Agencys mission to protect the environment from pesticide risk. Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure Protecting the nations water sources from possible pesticide contamination is another component of EPAs environmental protection efforts. The Agency provides funding through cooperative agreements to states, tribes, and other partners to investigate and respond to water resource contamination by pesticides. Stakeholders and partners, including states and tribes, are expected to evaluate local pesticides uses that have the potential to contaminate water resources, and take steps to prevent or reduce contamination where pesticide concentrations approach or exceed levels of concern. EPAs Cooperative Agreements for Pesticides typically include the following three-tier approach: 1. Evaluate: pesticides that may have the potential to threaten water quality locally; 2. Manage: If the evaluation identifies that the pesticide may be found at levels locally that pose water quality concerns, take actions to manage those pesticides and mitigate exposure; and
910
3. Demonstrate Progress: For pesticides that are actively managed, examine available data and trends to demonstrate improvement in water quality. Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP): The PESP forms partnerships between EPA and pesticide user groups to reduce pesticide use and risk through development and implementation of pollution prevention strategies and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. PESP currently has almost 200 partners and supporters. They range from federal partners (e.g., Department of Defense) to state partners (e.g., Maryland Department of Agriculture) to trade associations and individual companies. EPA will continue to support risk reduction by providing assistance to promote the use of safer alternatives to traditional chemical pest control methods. EPA supports the development and evaluation of new pest management technologies that contribute to reducing both health and environmental risks from pesticide use. For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/pesp/. Tribal The Agency will support tribal activities implementing pesticide programs through grants. Tribal program outreach activities support tribal capacity to protect human health by reducing risk from pesticides in Indian country. This task is challenging given that aspects of Native Americans lifestyles, such as subsistence fishing or consumption of plants, that were specifically grown as food and possibly exposed to pesticides not intended for food use, may increase exposure to some chemicals or create unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/tribes/. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the following programs through grants to states, tribes, partners, and supporters: Certification and Training/Worker Protection, Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) Field Activities, Pesticides in Water, Tribal Program, and Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this program. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$280.0) This decrease reflects the reduction in outreach and education activities. (-$100.0) This decrease reflects the reduction to funding for emerging issues. Statutory Authority:
911
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; Endangered Species Act (ESA).
912
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $225,941.1

$225,941.1 0.0

$229,264.0 0.0

$250,264.0 0.0

$21,000.0 0.0
$229,264.0
$229,264.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to provide federal assistance to states (including territories and the District of Columbia), tribes qualified under CWA Section 518(e), and interstate agencies to establish and maintain adequate measures for the prevention and control of surface and groundwater pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Prevention and control activities supported through these grants include providing permits, monitoring and assessment, water quality standards development, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, surveillance and enforcement, water quality planning, advice and assistance to local agencies, training, and public information. Section 106 grants also may be used to provide in-kind support through an EPA contract if requested by a state or tribe. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: The Section 106 Grant Program supports prevention and control measures that improve water quality. In FY 2012, EPA will designate the requested additional $21 million in Section 106 investment funding to strengthen the base state, interstate and tribal programs. States are working to achieve the goals of the CWA while facing decreasing funding and relying more on federal support The additional funding support to state programs will allow them to focus additional resources to continue development of water quality standards, identification of impaired waters, development of TMDLs for use in permit actions, and development of more complex and challenging broad scale Water Quality Standards (WQS) and TMDLs for nutrients and mercury. The funding also will allow states to target activities for reduction and control of stormwater, to expand green infrastructure management approaches, and to provide support to initiatives, such as the Clean Water Act Action Plan. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to foster a watershed approach as the guiding principle of their clean water programs. This approach conducts and assesses monitoring efforts, develops TMDLs, and writes National Pollution
913
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits with the goal of sustaining and improving the entire watershed. The CWA Section 106 tribal program increase will fund an increased number of tribes to protect water quality, retain traditional uses of existing high quality waters on tribal lands, and support the expansion of tribal monitoring programs. As of the end of FY 2010, 162 of the 254 tribes had completed monitoring strategies and 101 tribes were providing data electronically. Monitoring and Assessment: EPAs goal is to achieve greater integration of federal, regional, state, and local level monitoring efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic scales and to serve multiple CWA programs in a cost-efficient and effective manner. Continued funding will ensure that scientifically defensible monitoring data are available to address issues and problems at each of these scales. In FY 2012, EPA will continue working with states and tribes to enhance their water quality monitoring programs. Monitoring Initiative funds for states and tribes will continue to support the statistically-valid National Aquatic Resource Surveys of national and regional water conditions and to support implementation of state and tribal monitoring strategies. In FY 2012, $18.5 million will be designated for states and tribes under the Initiative: $8.5 million for monitoring as part of statistically-valid reports on national water condition, and $10 million to implement monitoring strategies. Through the Monitoring and Assessment Partnership, EPA will work with states to develop and apply innovative and efficient monitoring tools and techniques to optimize availability of high quality data to support CWA program needs and to expand the use of monitoring data and geospatial tools for water resource protection to set priorities and evaluate effectiveness of water protection. This will allow EPA, states, and tribes to continue to report on the condition of the nation's waters, and make significant progress toward assessing trends in water condition in a scientifically-defensible manner. As part of the National Surveys, EPA, states, and tribes will collaborate to conduct field sampling for the second National Lakes Assessment to determine changes since 2007. This second lakes survey will be conducted in FY 2012 and the report will be completed in FY 2014. A report of the second National Streams Assessment and a Baseline Condition of Rivers and a fifth report on National Coastal Condition will be issued in FY 2012. Analytical work for the National Wetland Condition Assessment will take place during FY 2012 for a report to be issued in FY 2013. A portion of the FY 2012 CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds will be allocated for sampling for the second National Rivers and Streams Assessment. Review and Update Water Quality Standards: States and authorized tribes will continue to review and update their water quality standards as required by the CWA. The Agencys goal is that 85 percent of state and territorial submissions will be approvable in FY 2012. EPA also encourages states to continually review and update
914
water quality criteria in their standards to reflect the latest scientific information from EPA and other sources. EPAs goal for FY 2012 is that 64.3 percent of states will have updated their standards to reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years. Finally, EPA will continue to work with tribes that want to establish water quality standards. Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads: In impaired watersheds, EPA policy guides states to develop TMDLs, critical tools for meeting water restoration goals, within 8 to 13 years from the time the impairment is identified on a 303(d) list. While the pace of TMDL completion has been affected as states have begun to tackle more challenging TMDLs, such as broad-scale mercury and nutrient TMDLs, they are still encouraged by EPA to develop TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable. Also, EPA will continue to work with states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georeferenced water quality data made available to the public via the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System (ATTAINS). States and EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs. States have developed more than 38 thousand TMDLs; however, over 50 thousand TMDLs remain to be completed. TMDLs are an important water quality management tool, as they identify applicable water quality targets for restoring impaired waters and establish point and nonpoint source loading limits. The additional Section 106 funding will enhance states' abilities to address the number of TMDLs that remain to be completed and to develop TMDLs that more readily facilitate implementation of point and nonpoint source load reductions. Providing Permits: The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be permitted and requires pretreatment programs to control discharges from industrial and other facilities to the nations wastewater treatment plants. EPA is working with states to structure the permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis as well as to address recent increases in the permit universe arising from court orders and environmental concerns. In FY 2012, EPA will work with states to advance the integrity of the NPDES program and to integrate program and enforcement oversight so that the most significant actions affecting water quality are included in an accountability system and are addressed. EPA also will work with states to optimally balance competing priorities, schedules for action items based on the significance of the action, and program revisions. States are encouraged to seek opportunities to incorporate efficiency tools such as electronic reporting, watershed permitting, and trading. As updates are made to the NPDES regulations and program requirements, EPA continues to work with states to incorporate new requirements into their regulations. In one recent example, new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) regulations were finalized in FY 2008. In FY 2009, states began issuing permits to comply with these regulatory requirements. States also were required to revise their regulations to adopt the provisions of the new rules by 2009 and revise their statutes by 2010. In FY 2011, EPA will issue a precedent-setting general permit for the application of pesticides. In FY 2012, EPA will work with the 44 authorized states as they develop their NPDES pesticides general permits and assist in a national effort to educate the pesticides application industry regarding how to comply with the new permits.
915
Reduction and control of stormwater is a key management approach to improving water quality impacted by wet weather events. Stormwater discharges are a significant cause of water quality impairment, especially in urban areas where rain water flows over impervious cover, carrying pollutants and erosive flows into the nation's waterbodies. EPA is revising the stormwater regulations to better protect the nation's waters from stormwater discharges. EPA intends to propose more protective standards on discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites. Through collaboration with states and partner organizations, green infrastructure management approaches will be used to promote prevention, reduction and elimination of water pollution caused by wet weather events. Expanding Surveillance and Enforcement: Despite significant progress reducing water pollution from the largest sources, the country still faces serious regulatory and compliance challenges in attaining the water quality goals of the CWA. In October 2009, the agency issued its Clean Water Act Action Plan to reduce pollution sources and achieve more consistent compliance performance. In implementing this plan, EPA issued the Interim Guidance to Strengthen Performance in the NPDES Program on June 22, 2010. This guidance directs EPA regional offices and states to expand NPDES planning to include consideration of enforcement and permitting in an integrated way and to take action where states have demonstrated long-standing problems with permit quality or enforcement programs. In addition, EPA is currently evaluating new program approaches to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. In FY 2012, EPA will continue working closely with states to implement the Interim Guidance and to begin implementing new approaches as they are developed. Working with Tribal Water Pollution Control Programs: In FY 2012, EPA will work with tribal programs to expand activities that address water quality and pollution problems on tribal lands. Working with tribal governments, EPA will continue to monitor the implementation of the Clean Water Act Section 106 Tribal Guidance, which sets out a framework for tribes to establish, implement and expand their Water Pollution Control Programs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work closely with states and tribes with a focus on collaboration and transparency, both in how EPA allocates funds, and how states and tribes use Section 106 grants to address water pollution problems. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDL] on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
39,101
38,749
41,235
43,711
TMDLs
916
Measure Type
Measure
TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.]
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Output
Measure
(bpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2010 Target
95
FY 2010 Actual
142
FY 2011 CR Target
100
FY 2012 Target
100
Units
Percent Permits
Measure Type
Measure
(bpn) Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Data Avail 3/2011
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
22.5
22.5
22.5
Percent Dischargers
Measure Type
Measure
(bpw) Percent of States and Territories that, within the preceding 3year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or sources not considered in previous
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
66
67.9
64.3
64.3
Percent States and Territories
917
Measure Type
Measure
standards.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
2,809
2,909
3,073
3,273
Segments
Measure Type
Efficiency
Measure
(bpm) Cost per water segment restored.
FY 2010 Target
771,000
FY 2010 Actual
581,231
FY 2011 CR Target
771,000
FY 2012 Target
721,715
Units
Dollars
A key performance measure for the Water Pollution Control Program is the percentage of water body segments, identified by states in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now attained (SP-10). State partners play a key role in developing and implementing plans and documenting progress made toward reaching the FY 2015 target for this measure (3,360 waterbodies). The Agency has been successful in meeting or exceeding performance targets and continues to target, through an allocation formula, a portion of the appropriated funds to support statistically-valid surveys of water condition. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$21,000.0) This reflects an increase to support base programs managed by the states, interstates and tribes, as well as to provide additional resources to address TMDL, nutrient, and wet weather issues. The additional funding will allow them to focus on the continued development of water quality standards, identification of impaired waters, development of TMDLs for use in permit actions, and development of more complex and challenging Water Quality Standards. Section 106 funding also will be used to target activities for reduction and control of stormwater and to expand green infrastructure management approaches. Statutory Authority:
918
Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1256 et seq. Section 106.
919
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $4,484.8

$4,484.8 0.0

$4,940.0 0.0

$5,039.0 0.0

$99.0 0.0
$4,940.0
$4,940.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Pollution prevention (P2) is one of EPAs primary tools for encouraging environmental stewardship by the federal government, states, industry, communities, and individuals. EPAs efforts in the P2 area are designed to promote source reduction eliminating or reducing waste at the point of generation. Unlike recycling or waste treatment, pollution prevention requires improvements in production processes and technologies, development and use of safer materials and products, and implementation of improved practices. P2 approaches generate results in the form of reduced use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reduced generation of greenhouse gases; cost savings in production, operation and waste management; and increased use of safer chemicals and products. These efforts are integral to achieving the Administrators priorities for taking action on climate change and reducing chemical risks. EPAs overall pollution prevention efforts include two major components: a State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) Program, described here, and a counterpart Environmental Program and Management (EPM) program, described under Pollution Prevention Program. The STAG (categorical grant) program employs a combination of collaborative efforts, innovative programs, and technical assistance and education to support stakeholder efforts to minimize and prevent adverse environmental impacts by preventing the generation of pollution at the source. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/. The program accomplishes its mission through several centers of results, which include Environmentally Preferable Purchasing; Green Suppliers Network; Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative; Green Chemistry; Design for the Environment; Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare; Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance, each of which employs a unique combination of source reduction strategies in generating results to achieve the programs national goals and performance measures. The P2 Program contributes to EPAs Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance center of results. Please see the Pollution Prevention Program section of Environmental Program and Management Section for a description of the programs other components.
920
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the P2 Grant Program will continue supporting states and state entities (i.e., colleges and universities) and federally-recognized tribes and intertribal consortia in their efforts to help businesses identify environmental strategies and solutions for reducing or eliminating pollution at the source. The program supports projects that reflect comprehensive and coordinated pollution prevention planning and implementation efforts within the state or tribe to ensure that businesses and industry have ample opportunities to implement pollution prevention as a costeffective way of meeting or exceeding federal and state regulatory requirements. P2 Grants are awarded by EPAs regional offices. This enables the Agency to focus resources on targeted regional priorities. In addition to supporting traditional P2 technical assistance programs, many states use P2 grants to assist businesses by initiating regulatory integration projects to implement pollution prevention strategies in state core media programs, train regulatory staff on P2 concepts and best practices, and examine opportunities for incorporating pollution prevention into permits, inspections, and enforcement. States also have established programs in non-industrial sectors such as hospitality, agriculture, energy, health, and transportation. The Agency also will continue to support the Pollution Prevention Information Network (PPIN) Grant Program. These grants fund the services of a network of regional centers, collectively called the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) that provides high quality, peerreviewed information to state technical assistance centers. The PPIN grants support work such as increasing awareness, accessibility, and usability of pollution prevention information through the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm and www.p2rx.org. Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pollution Prevention and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$99.0) This increase is for pollution prevention grants to enable increased support for state and tribal pollution prevention technical assistance activities. Statutory Authority: Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. -- Sections 6601-6610; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
921
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $107,095.7

$107,095.7 0.0

$105,700.0 0.0

$109,700.0 0.0

$4,000.0 0.0
$105,700.0
$105,700.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant Program provides grants to states and tribes with primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). These grants help to ensure the safety of the nations drinking water resources and protect public health. The states are the primary implementers of the national drinking water program and ensure that the systems within their jurisdiction are in compliance with drinking water rules. NPDWRs set forth monitoring, reporting, compliance tracking, and enforcement elements to ensure that the nations drinking water supplies do not contain substances at levels that may pose adverse health effects. These grants are a key implementation tool under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and support the states role in a federal/state partnership of providing safe drinking water supplies to the public. States use these grant funds to: Provide technical assistance to owners and operators of water systems; Maintain compliance data systems; Compile and analyze compliance information; Respond to violations; Certify laboratories; Conduct laboratory analyses; Conduct sanitary surveys; and Build state capacity. Some states and tribes do not have primary enforcement authority. Funds allocated to the State of Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes without primacy are used to support direct implementation activities by EPA, developmental grants, and treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) grants to Indian tribes to develop the PWSS program on Indian lands with the goal of tribal authorities achieving primacy.19
19
For more information see: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html
922
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPA will continue its support of state and tribal efforts to meet existing drinking water standards through the PWSS Grant Program. This includes working with the states to ensure that systems can acquire basic implementation capabilities and a full suite of expertise to provide public health protection. These resources also will be used to assist states and tribes as they update and strengthen their capacity development strategies so that their programs will continue to meet the evolving needs of the small water systems. The Agency is requesting an additional $4 million to support state data management, improve data quality, and allow the public access to compliance monitoring data not previously available. EPA will use the increased funding for associated program support costs or in-kind assistance for the benefit of states working in concert with the Agency to collect and display all compliance monitoring data as part of implementing the Drinking Water Strategy. This will improve transparency and efficiency as it will replace the Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version (SDWIS/State) and reduce the need for state resources to maintain individual compliance databases. EPA will fund its share of the joint effort with Environmental Program and Management appropriations funding. The Agency will continue to emphasize that states should use their PWSS funds to ensure that: Public drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance; Public drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting newer health-based standards and are prepared for recent regulatory requirements (e.g., Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule or LT2, Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule or Stage 2, and Ground Water Rule or GWR ); Data quality issues are identified and addressed; and All systems are having sanitary surveys conducted according to the required schedule. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment & source
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
92
91
91
Percent Population
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=cca066b833c552bdf3c9ff011e576c7f
923
Measure Type
Measure
water protection.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Measure Type
Measure
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
90
89.6
90
90
Percent Systems
Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. The performance measures that directly relate to the PWSS grant program are the population and the number of community water systems that supply drinking water meeting all health-based standards. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$4,000.0) This reflects an increase to the PWSS grant program to support management of state and system data. This will improve transparency and efficiency as it will replace the Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version (SDWIS/State) and reduce the need for state resources to maintain individual compliance databases. EPA will fund its share of the joint effort with Environmental Program and Management appropriations funding. Statutory Authority: SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f300j9 as added by Public Law 93523 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments, Section 1443.
924
Categorical Grant: Radon Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $8,572.4

$8,572.4 0.0

$8,074.0 0.0

$8,074.0 0.0

$0.0 0.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0 0.0
Program Project Description: Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. The law directs EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise the public of steps they can take to reduce exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute training centers to ensure a supply of competent radon service providers, establish radon contractor proficiency programs, and assist states with program development through the administration of a grants program. Indoor radon is one of the main causes of lung cancer for non-smokers. EPAs non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes public action to reduce health risks from indoor radon. EPA assists states and tribes through technical support and the State Indoor Radon Grant Program (SIRG), which provides categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs that assess and mitigate radon risks. Section 306 of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA) authorizes radon grant assistance to states, as defined by TSCA Title III. States and tribes are the primary implementers of radon testing and risk reduction programs. This voluntary program promotes partnerships among national organizations, the private sector, and state, local, and tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk reduction. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, states will: Continue to encourage risk reduction actions among consumers, homeowners, real estate professionals, homebuilders, and local governments; Work with EPA to ensure that SIRG funds achieve the following results: homes built with radon resistant new construction, homes mitigated, and schools mitigated or built with radon resistant new construction; and
925
Work with EPA to report progress toward performance measures. The Indoor Air program is not regulatory. Instead, EPA works toward its goal by promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary education and outreach programs. Additionally, EPA operates the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV. R&IE is the only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) radon laboratory. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements and plans to improve transparency by making state radon grantee performance data available to the public via a website or other easily accessible means. The State Indoor Radon Grants fund outreach and education programs in most states to reduce the public health impact of radon, with an average award per state of $160,000 annually. EPA targets this funding to support states with the greatest populations at highest risk. Grant dollars are supplemented with technical support to transfer best practices from high-achieving states to promote effective program implementation across the nation.
Performance Targets: Work under this program also supports performance results in the Indoor Air: Radon Program under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
No change in program funding. Statutory Authority: CAA Amendments of 1990; Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the SARA of 1986; TSCA, Section 6, Titles II and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671); and IRAA, Section 306.
926
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $223,152.7

$223,152.7 0.0

$226,580.0 0.0

$305,500.0 0.0

$78,920.0 0.0
$226,580.0
$226,580.0 0.0
Program Project Description: This program includes funding for multi-state, state, and local air pollution control agencies. Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides EPA with the authority to award grants to a variety of agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the air pollution control agencies funded from the STAG appropriation, to conduct and promote certain types of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to air pollution. Section 105 of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to award grants to state and local air pollution control agencies to develop and implement continuing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and for the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set to protect public health and the environment. The continuing programs, funded under Section 105, include development and implementation of emission reduction measures, development and operation of air quality monitoring networks, and a number of other air program areas. Section 106 of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to fund interstate air pollution transport commissions to develop or carry out plans for designated air quality control regions. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: State Implementation Plans (SIPs) provide a blueprint for the programs and activities that states carry out to achieve and maintain NAAQS. Although there is no definite schedule for updating SIPs, there are a number of events that trigger SIP updates. For example, when EPA promulgates a new NAAQS, states must update their SIPs within three years. States currently are experiencing an increased workload resulting from EPAs commitment to review each NAAQS according to CAA deadlines. SIP preparation is becoming more complicated due to the regional nature of air pollution. Regional air quality management strategies require additional and more complicated modeling, refined emissions inventories, and increased stakeholder involvement. States also are addressing new sources of air pollution such as biomass facilities and agricultural sources, and preparing new and more complicated planning strategies to address greenhouse gases. In FY 2012, EPA will work with states to correct any deficiencies in their SIP submissions, and provide technical assistance in implementing their plans for the 8-hour ozone standard, the PM2.5 standard, the lead standard, and regional haze.
927
In FY 2012, states with approved or delegated permitting programs will continue to implement new climate change requirements as part of their permitting programs. The new climate requirements have strained state programs already dealing with budget shortfalls and personnel retention issues. Continued funding in FY 2012 will assist in avoiding delays in evaluating and approving permits. In October 2006, EPA revised the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for 24-hour concentrations. Due to recent court action, the Agency is reviewing the annual standard, which was not revised in 2006. Although the final rule did not revise the air monitoring network design criteria, a number of states voluntarily shifted monitoring equipment to new locations to investigate possible problem areas with respect to the revised NAAQS. The final rule also provided that there be a better balance of filter-based and continuous monitoring methods employed to ensure more objectives would be served by each agencys network. The multi-pollutant monitoring site network (NCore) became operational on January 1, 2011. This network will serve multiple objectives such as measuring long-term trends of air pollution, validating models, and providing input to health and atmospheric science studies. EPA has been working closely with the states to implement this network of approximately 80 stations across the nation. These stations will measure particles, including filter-based and continuous mass for PM2.5, perform chemical speciation for PM2.5, and for the first time, measure PM10-2.5 mass. Stations also measure gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), and ozone, and record basic meteorology. Finally, as improved technologies for monitoring PM on a continuous basis are commercialized and approved as official methods, states are expected to transition to wider use of continuous methods in preference to older filterbased methods that have higher operating costs. A revised final PM NAAQS is expected by October 2011. EPA is consulting with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on the appropriate methods and network design that might be needed to measure progress towards meeting a secondary PM NAAQS designed to protect public welfare. In October 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the NAAQS for lead by revising the standards to a level ten times tighter than the previous standards. To ensure protection under the revised NAAQS, EPA has been working with states to improve the lead monitoring network by requiring monitors to be placed in areas with sources such as industrial facilities that emit one ton or more of lead per year. This portion of the lead network, which comprises approximately 100 monitoring stations, began operations on January 1, 2010. EPA also has proposed additional monitoring of lead at approximately 65 of the 80 NCore multi-pollutant monitoring stations and near sources that emit over one-half ton of lead, which would include an additional 90 locations. These two additional monitoring programs are expected to begin operations in January 2012. A 12-month monitoring study also will be required at approximately 20 general aviation (non-jet) airports across the nation to determine the extent to which violations of the NAAQS are occurring at a subset of the most active general aviation airports. EPA is reconsidering the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would provide for an even more protective ozone standard one that is consistent with the CASACs advice to the agency. The Agencys reconsideration will lead to additional ozone nonattainment areas, including many areas that
928
have never been classified as nonattainment, and do not have any established ozone monitoring stations. In July 2009, EPA proposed new requirements for monitoring of ozone in smaller urban and non-urban areas as well as extending the length of the required ozone monitoring season. Under a reconsidered ozone standard, the Agency does not anticipate the new monitoring requirements will change, but does anticipate additional areas will be subject to the requirements. The additional monitoring requirements may result in an additional 175 new ozone monitoring stations in FY 2012 and FY 2013. As part of its commitment to review each NAAQS according to the CAA, EPA finalized revisions to the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS in January 2010. Revisions to the NO2 NAAQS also have substantial implications for monitoring, including the potential deployment of approximately 170 new monitoring stations in locations not currently being monitored. EPA is working closely with states on any changes to the NO2 monitoring design and also working jointly with the states to deploy a few pilot sites in 2011. EPA also finalized a revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary NAAQS (published June 2, 2010). The monitoring requirements will result in 163 new monitors nationwide, which will begin operation by January 2013. EPA also plans to propose the SO2 and NO2 secondary NAAQS by July 2011 and finalize the NAAQS by March 2012, which could also impact monitoring requirements. EPA also will propose revisions to the CO NAAQS in 2011 and finalize revisions by August 2011. Proposed revisions to the CO NAAQS would result in substantial changes to the CO monitoring network. Existing CO stations could be moved to new locations or to newly established near-road monitoring sites required by the NO2 NAAQS and monitoring technology for all sites will begin transition to high-sensitivity CO units. This program also supports state and local characterization of air toxics problems and implementation of measures to reduce health risks from air toxics. The characterization work includes collection and analysis of emissions data and monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY 2012, funds for air toxic ambient monitoring also will support the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS), consisting of 27 air toxics monitoring sites operated and maintained by state and local air pollution control agencies across the country, and the associated quality assurance, data analysis, and methods support. Finally, this program will support state efforts in implementing Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards for major sources and regulations to control emissions from area sources. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(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.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
33
Data Avail 12/2011
37
41
Percent
929
(+$37,420.0) This reflects an increase to support expanded core state workload for implementing revised and more stringent NAAQS and reducing public exposure to air toxics. The workload of state and local air quality agencies is increasing in several areas. State and local agencies will need to develop state implementation plan (SIP) revisions for new, more protective NAAQS, increasing their workload. State and local agencies already have an existing backlog of needed SIP revisions. State and local agencies also will be considering regional/multi-state air quality management strategies. These strategies require additional and more complicated modeling, refined emissions inventories, and increased stakeholder involvement. (+$1,500.0) Funding is requested to support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The STAG funds will be used by states to facilitate the collection, review and use of greenhouse gas emissions data collected under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GGRP), and linked state-based reporting programs. Specifically, states would use the STAG funds: to develop data management systems to transfer and receive greenhouse gas data; to work with EPA on adding capabilities to EPA's reporting tools; to carry out state-specific review and verification tasks related to reported greenhouse gas emissions data, conduct training and outreach to affected facilities and other stakeholders; and to promote the use and publication of greenhouse gas emission data. (+$25,000.0) This reflects an increase to assist in permitting sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The Agency will reach out to smaller sources to assist in ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (+$15,000.0) This reflects an increase for additional state air monitors required by revised NAAQS. EPA has made a commitment to review each of the NAAQS every five years, as required by the Clean Air Act. For each revision, states may be required to establish new monitoring sites, sometimes using new types of monitoring equipment. Statutory Authority: CAA, Sections 103, 105, and 106.
930
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $5,401.9

$5,401.9 0.0

$5,099.0 0.0

$5,201.0 0.0

$102.0 0.0
$5,099.0
$5,099.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Toxics Substances Compliance grants program builds environmental partnerships with states and tribes to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health threats from toxic substances such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and lead-based paint. State grants are used to ensure compliance with standards for the proper use, storage and disposal of PCBs. Proper handling prevents persistent bio-accumulative toxic substances from contaminating food and water. The asbestos funds ensure compliance with standards to prevent exposure of school children, teachers, and staff to asbestos fibers in school buildings. The funds also support compliance with other Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) asbestos regulations such as the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. The program assures that asbestos and lead abatement workers have received proper training and certification to ensure protection during the abatement process and minimize the publics exposure to these harmful toxic substances. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will continue to award state and tribal grants to assist in the implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions of TSCA. These grants protect the public and the environment from PCBs, asbestos, and leadbased paint. States receiving grants for the PCB program and for asbestos programs must contribute 25 percent of the total cost of the program being funded. For all three programs, funds are used to train inspectors, including train-the-trainer; provide inspection equipment including sampling and personal protective equipment; and fund travel and salary costs associated with conducting inspections. EPA also plans to continue to incorporate technology such as the use of portable personal computers and inspection software to improve efficiencies of the inspection process and support state and tribal inspection programs. For asbestos, there are approximately 1,000 inspections conducted annually by the states funded under this program; for PCBs, states conduct approximately 350 inspections a year; for lead-based paint, there are approximately 6,000 inspections a year. EPAs inspection coverage in these states is focused on oversight, training, and support. States provide valuable coverage which is critical to providing protections to communities against PCB contamination, preventing exposure to asbestos fibers to
931
school age children, teachers, and custodial staff in schools, and protecting the public from lead paint contamination. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the strategic objective to Ensure Chemical Safety. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$102.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. Statutory Authority: TSCA.
932
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective(s): Improve Air Quality (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $13,408.0

$13,408.0 0.0

$13,300.0 0.0

$13,566.0 0.0

$266.0 0.0
$13,300.0
$13,300.0 0.0
Program Project Description: This program includes funding for tribal air pollution control agencies and/or tribes. Through Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 105 grants, tribes may develop and implement programs for the prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Through CAA Section 103 grants, tribal air pollution control agencies or tribes, colleges, universities, or multi-tribe jurisdictional air pollution control agencies and non-profit organizations may conduct and promote research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to ambient or indoor air pollution on tribal lands. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Tribes will assess environmental and public health conditions on tribal lands by developing emission inventories and, where appropriate, siting and operating air quality monitors. Tribes will continue to develop and implement air pollution control programs for Indian Country, acting as states to prevent and address air quality concerns. EPA will continue to fund organizations for the purpose of providing technical support, tools, and training for tribes to build capacity to develop and implement programs, as appropriate, and will work to reduce the number of days in violation of the Air Quality Index. This program supports the agencys priority of building strong tribal partnerships. Performance Targets: Work under this program supports the performance results in Federal Support for Air Quality Management under Environmental Programs and Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
(+$266.0) This reflects an increase to assist tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation.
933
Statutory Authority: CAA, Sections 103 and 105.
934
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $65,746.2

$65,746.2 0.0

$62,875.0 0.0

$71,375.0 0.0

$8,500.0 0.0
$62,875.0
$62,875.0 0.0
Program Project Description: In 1992, Congress established the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) to provide a mechanism for federal efforts to assist tribal governments in assuring environmental protection on Indian lands. The purpose of GAP is to support development of tribal environmental protection programs. See http://www.epa.gov/aieo/gap.htm for more information. GAP provides general assistance grants to build capacity to administer environmental regulatory programs that may be authorized by EPA in Indian country and provides technical assistance in the development of programs to address environmental issues on Indian lands. GAP grants help build the basic components of a tribal environmental program which may include planning, developing, and establishing the administrative, technical, legal, enforcement, communication and outreach infrastructure. GAP grants build a strong foundational tribal environmental program from which tribes are more prepared to apply and successfully take advantage of the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program proposed in this budget. Some uses of GAP funds include the following: Assess the status of a tribes environmental condition; Develop appropriate environmental programs and ordinances; Conduct public education and outreach efforts to ensure that tribal communities are informed and able to participate in environmental decision-making; and Promote communication and coordination between federal, state, local and tribal environmental officials. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, GAP grants will assist tribal governments in building environmental capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available federal and other information, and build
935
environmental programs tailored to their needs. As part of EPAs tribal investment, EPA is requesting an additional $8.5 million for GAP to increase the base funding tribes are able to receive to address a wider set of program responsibilities and decrease staff turnover rates, and also to fund targeted initiatives aimed at national and regional concerns. GAP funds are a key means by which tribes leverage other EPA and federal funding to contribute towards a higher overall level of environmental and human health protection per dollar invested. Many tribes have expressed the need to start implementing high priority environmental programs, and by increasing GAP grant funding, tribes will develop stronger, more sustainable environmental programs, allowing more tribes to advance to program implementation under the new MultiMedia Tribal Implementation Program proposed in this budget. These GAP grants also will be used to develop environmental education and outreach programs, develop and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and ecological threats.
EPA has successfully implemented its first full budget and performance cycle using a database system called the Tribal Program Management System (TPMS) to help standardize, centralize, and integrate regional data, and assign accountability for data quality. In FY 2012, EPA will continue working to enhance and integrate the GAP Online workplan development and reporting system for improved data management and access to grant information. This enhanced GAP online electronic system, in conjunction with the updated guidance, helps emphasize outcomebased results. Additionally, building off the environmental planning framework developed in FY 2011, EPA will further its effort to develop and clarify programmatic goals, identifying clear pathways within each major EPA environmental program area for tribes. Each area (water, air, waste, and toxics) has a workgroup to develop helpful guidance for tribes. The guidance will identify key program development and implementation steps (i.e., steps from needs assessment and program planning through enforcement and performance measurement), the key requirements of each step, and the available technical and funding resources. The final guidance document will provide a roadmap for tribal program capacity building efforts.
936
The Inspectors General of EPA and the Department of Interior jointly released a report in May 2007, Tribal Successes, Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resources, which highlights successful environmental protection practices by tribes. EPAs tribal activities were positively viewed in this report. EPA will continue efforts to further assist tribes in establishing environmental protection through collaboration, partnerships and other practices that lead to tribal success. See Tribal Success, Protecting the Environment and Natural Resources: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070503-2007-P-00022JT.pdf for more information. In FY 2012, EPA will address the environmental needs of tribes in these times of fiscal uncertainty by increasing base funding for the Tribal GAP and address a wider set of program responsibilities and challenges, such as climate change adaptation. An independent program evaluation of the GAP was conducted to determine GAPs effectiveness in building tribal environmental capacity. The reports concluded that GAP is successful in building a foundation of environmental capacity among tribes, as defined as capability in one or more of five indicator areas technical, legal, enforcement, administrative and communications. Although the extent of capacity building varies across indicator areas for tribes, GAP funding is essential for tribes to achieve their environmental goals. See Evaluation of the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/ GAPFinalReport.pdf for more information. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
18
22
Percent
Measure Type
Measure
(5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country (cumulative.)
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
52
54
Percent
937
Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(5PS) Percent of Tribes with an environmental program (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
70
FY 2012 Target
73
Units
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$8,500.0) This reflects an increase in base funding available for GAP grants, which will provide tribes with a stronger foundation to build tribal capacity. It will further EPAs partnership and collaboration with tribes to address a wider set of program responsibilities and challenges. EPA also will fund targeted assistance initiatives focused on long-standing and mutually agreed-upon concerns in Indian country. Statutory Authority: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. 4368b (1992), as amended.
938
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $11,323.6

$11,323.6 0.0

$10,891.0 0.0

$11,109.0 0.0

$218.0 0.0
$10,891.0
$10,891.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) grant program is implemented by federal and state government agencies that oversee underground injection activities in order to prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Underground injection is the disposal of fluids beneath the earths surface in porous rock formations through wells or other similar conveyance systems. Billions of gallons of fluids are injected underground, including the majority of hazardous wastewater that is land disposed. In recent years, the use of injection has expanded to include injection of water for later use, and injection for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) at experimental and demonstration sites. When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective method of managing fluids. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established the UIC program to provide safeguards so that injection wells do not endanger current and future underground sources of drinking water. The most accessible underground fresh water is stored in shallow geological formations (i.e., shallow aquifers) and is the most vulnerable to contamination from improper practices. EPA provides financial assistance in the form of grants to states and tribes that have primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and manage UIC programs. Eligible Indian tribes who demonstrate intent to achieve primacy also may receive grants for the initial development of UIC programs and be designated for Treatment As a State (TAS) if their programs are approved. Where a jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to assume primacy, EPA uses grant funds for direct implementation of federal UIC requirements. EPA directly implements programs in ten states and shares responsibility in seven states. EPA also administers the UIC programs for all but two tribes.20
20
See the following websites for more information: https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=c1307f57fe8bec34f1a65660eff495a8&cck=1&au=&ck= and http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfm
939
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Ensuring safe underground injection of fluids, including waste fluids, is a fundamental component of a comprehensive source water protection program that, in turn, is a key element in the agencys multi-barrier approach to providing clean and safe drinking water. The UIC Program continues to manage or close the approximately 500 thousand shallow injection wells (Class V)21 to protect our groundwater resources. The requested funding allows states and tribes to continue administration of existing permitting programs, continue to provide current levels of program oversight, implementation tools, public outreach, and underground sources of drinking water protection efforts for injection wells. Geologic Sequestration (GS) is the process of injecting CO2 captured from an emission source (e.g., a power plant or industrial facility) into deep, subsurface rock formations for long-term storage. It is part of a process known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. EPAs UIC program regulates underground injection of CO2. In December 2010, a rule was finalized which established a new class of underground injection wellClass VIwith new federal requirements to allow the injection of CO2 for the purpose of GS. The rule builds on, and tailors, existing UIC regulatory components including siting, construction, operation, monitoring and testing, and closure for injection wells that address the pathways, such as unplugged wells, through which underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) may be endangered. In addition to protecting USDWs, the rule provides a regulatory framework to implement a consistent approach to permitting GS projects across the U.S. and supports the development of a potentially key climate change mitigation technology. In FY 2012, states and EPA (where EPA directly implements) will continue to carry out regulatory functions for all types of wells. For GS wells, states and EPA will continue to process UIC permit applications for experimental carbon sequestration projects. EPA also will process primacy applications and review permits for GS wells. States and EPA will process UIC permits for other nontraditional injection streams such as desalination brines and treated waters injected for storage and recovered at a later time. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(aps) Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
90
Percent (Class Wells)
21
As represented in calendar year 2010 annual inventory.
940
Measure Type
Measure
(apt) Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) [approximately 23,640 in FY 2010] that are closed or permitted (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
20,840
Wells
The program has developed an annual performance measure to demonstrate the protection of source water quality. EPA has developed annual measures for the UIC program that are indicators of the effectiveness of the UIC program in preventing contamination of underground sources of drinking water and protecting public health. The UIC measures were modified for FY 2012 to cover a wider and more comprehensive universe of existing wells. FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (+$218.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. Statutory Authority: SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-2, Section 1443.
941
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective(s): Preserve Land (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $3,184.3

$3,184.3 0.0

$2,500.0 0.0

$1,550.0 0.0

($950.0) 0.0
$2,500.0
$2,500.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) expanded the eligible use of LUST funds to include certain release prevention/detection activities, but it did not authorize LUST funds for all prevention/detection activities. Thus, some states still need STAG money to fund some basic programmatic functions for Underground Storage Tank (UST) release prevention and detection programs. EPA recognizes that the size and diversity of the regulated community puts state authorities in a good position to regulate USTs and to set priorities. In furtherance of that goal, EPA provides funding to states under the authority of Section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), through Performance Partnership Agreements and through the UST categorical grants for release detection and release prevention activities to encourage owners and operators to properly operate and maintain their UST systems. For more information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/overview.htm. EPA will continue to make grants to states under Section 2007 of the SWDA to support core program activities as well as some EPAct leak prevention activities. Major activities for these UST categorical grants focus on developing and maintaining state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the federal program, and ensuring that owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tank systems in accordance with UST regulations.22 EPA also will assist the states in implementing the EPAct provisions such as conducting on-site inspections on the three-year cycle, and prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tank systems. As of September 30, 2010, there were approximately 597,000 federally-regulated active USTs at approximately 215,000 sites that are regulated by the UST technical regulations under Subtitle I of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These regulations seek to ensure that UST systems are designed and operated in a manner that prevents the tank systems from leaking and to detect and clean up those leaks as soon as possible when leaks occur. EPA provides funding to states, regulates these programs, develops guidelines, and provides technical
22
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/title42ch82-IX12-08.pdf.
942
assistance to develop state capacity to encourage owners and operators to properly operate and maintain their underground storage tank systems. FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: In FY 2012, the programs focus will continue to be on the need to bring all UST systems into compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements, and implement the provisions of EPAct. States will continue to use the UST categorical grant funding to implement their leak prevention and detection programs.23 Funding from the STAG account is primarily intended for states core UST prevention activities (which are not LUST eligible) such as, compliance assistance, state program approvals, and technical equipment reviews and approvals. Specifically, states will fund such activities as: Approving specific technologies to detect leaks from tank systems; Ensuring that tank owners and operators are complying with notification and other requirements; Ensuring equipment compatibility; Conducting inspections; Implementing operator training; Prohibiting delivery for non-complying facilities; Seeking state program approval to operate the UST program in lieu of the federal program; and Requiring secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers. Performance Targets: Measure Type
Outcome
Measure
(ST1) Minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities each year.
FY 2010 Target
<9,000
FY 2010 Actual
6,328
FY 2011 CR Target
<8,550
FY 2012 Target
<8,120
Units
UST Releases
23
For more information on grant guidelines under EPAct see: http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/epact_05.htm.
943
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$950.0) This reflects a decrease to align program funding with state need for core UST prevention activities, which are not eligible for funding under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank appropriation. Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 2007(f)and Sections 9001-9014, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle I.
944
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development Program Area: Categorical Grants Goal: Protecting America's Waters Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Actuals $16,236.1

$16,236.1 0.0

$16,830.0 0.0

$15,167.0 0.0

($1,663.0) 0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0 0.0
Program Project Description: The Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) were initiated in FY 1990 to enable EPA to provide technical and financial support to assist states, tribes, and local governments toward the national goal of an overall increase in the acreage and condition of wetlands. Grants are used to develop new or refine existing state and tribal wetland programs in one or more of the following areas: (1) monitoring and assessment; (2) voluntary restoration and protection; (3) regulatory programs including 401 certification; and (4) wetland water quality standards. States and tribes develop program elements based on their goals and resources. Grants support development of state and tribal wetland programs that further the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and improve water quality in watersheds throughout the country. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis under the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA. Funding is split among EPA regional offices according to the number of states and territories per regional office. Each regional office is required by regulation to compete the award of these funds to states, tribes, local governments, interstate agencies, and intertribal consortium.24 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan: Strong state and tribal wetland programs are an essential complement to the Federal CWA Section 404 regulatory program. The WPDGs are EPAs primary resource for supporting state and tribal wetland program development. Resources in FY 2012 will assist states and tribes to develop and enhance the four core elements of this program as stated above. Through these program elements, states and tribes can begin to assess wetland location and condition, document stresses or improvements to wetland condition, provide incentives for wetland restoration and protection, and develop regulatory controls to avoid, minimize, and compensate for wetland impacts. In 2009, EPA further developed the four elements of a comprehensive wetland program through the Enhancing State and Tribal Programs (ESTP) initiative. Under this effort, EPA is continuing to work more efficiently with state and tribes to develop specific aspects for their programs.25 In addition to the ESTP program, the EPA Five Star Restoration Program (FSRP)
24 25
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/#financial, http://water.epa.gov/grantsfunding/wetlands/restore/index.cfm For further information on the core elements of a state/tribal wetland program and the ESTP initiative, please see http://www.epa.gov/ owow/wetlands/initiative/estp.html.
945
provides approximately 30 challenge grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects while bringing together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landowners and government agencies to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands, streams, and coasts.
The target of the WPDG is to substantially build or increase the capacity in wetland regulation, monitoring and assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration and protection in states/tribes. This includes assistance to states/tribes/local governments to build or refine their wetlands programs and for the 5-Star Restoration Challenge Grant program. Performance Targets: Measure Type Measure
(4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative).
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Output
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
Acres
Measure Type
Measure
(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 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 CR Target
FY 2012 Target
Units
Outcome
No Net Loss
No net loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Acres
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands): (-$1,663.0) This reflects a decrease to the Wetland Development Program, which will reduce the number of assistance agreements from approximately 95 to about 85 agreements. Statutory Authority: 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act (CWA); Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 GLWQA; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
946
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment GOAL 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality .......................... 949 GOAL 2: Protecting Americas Waters .................................................................................. 956 GOAL 3: Cleaning Up Our Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development ....... 969 GOAL 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution ............................... 975 GOAL 5: Enforcing Environmental Laws ............................................................................. 980 NPM: Office of Administration and Resource Management ............................................... 990 NPM: Office of Environmental Information .......................................................................... 991 NPM: Inspector General .......................................................................................................... 992 Verification and Validation...................................................................................................... 993
947
948
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY GOAL 1: TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate change, and protect and improve air quality. Objective 1 - Address Climate Change: Reduce the threats posed by climate change by reducing GHG emissions and taking actions that help communities and ecosystems become more resilient to the effects of climate change.
Performance Data SubHeading Performance Measures
FY 2009
Target Actual 143.4
FY 2010
Target 143.0 Actual Data Avail 12/2011
CR 2011 Target
156.9
FY 2012 Unit Target

168.7 MMTCO2e
(PM G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings sector.
130.2
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 89.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). 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 noncarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. (PM G06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector. 9.5 22.0 15.8 Data Avail 12/2011 26.4 41.4 MMTCO2e
(1) Mitigate Greenhouse Gases
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 0.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions from the SmartWay program. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). 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. (PM G16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the industry sector. 267.3 293.7 304.0 Data Avail 12/2011 346.2 372.9 MMTCO2e
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 201 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions from ENERGY STAR for the Industrial Sector, Natural Gas Star, Combined Heat and Power Partnership, Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), and the Landfill Rule. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). Baseline data for carbon emissions related to
949
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
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 noncarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. (PM G17) Percentage of registered facilities that submit required and complete GHG data by the annual reporting deadline of March 31. 100 Percent Facilities
Additional Information: The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry tracks the number registered facilities emitting greenhouse gases. Approximately 13,000 reporters will be required to submit reports by March 31, 2011 (the first reporting cycle), but the exact number of required reporters is unknown and may vary each year. (PM AD1) Cumulative number of major scientific models and decision support tools used in implementing environmental management programs that integrate climate change science data 3 Major and Tools Models
Additional Information: The baseline in 2011 is 4 major scientific models/decision support tools. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by integrating considerations of climate data into major scientific models and decision support tools. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate, and every action EPA takes must be resilient to these fluctuations. (PM AD2) Cumulative number of major rulemakings with climate sensitive, environmental impacts, and within existing authorities, that integrate climate change science data 1 Major Rulemakings
(2) Adapt to Climate Change
Additional Information: The baseline in 2011 is 0 major proposed rules. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by integrating considerations of climate data into major rule making processes. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate, and every action EPA takes must be resilient to these fluctuations. (PM AD3) Cumulative number of major grant, loan, contract, or technical assistance agreement programs that integrate climate science data into climate sensitive projects that have an environmental outcome 1 Major Programs
Additional Information: The baseline in 2011 is 0 programs. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by integrating considerations of climate data into grant, loan, contract, and technical assistance programs. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate, and every action EPA takes must be resilient to these fluctuations.
950
Objective 2 - Improve Air Quality: Achieve and maintain health-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air pollutants and indoor air contaminants.
FY 2009
Target Actual 5,700,000
FY 2010
Target 8,950,000 Actual Data Avail 12/2011
CR 2011 Target
6,000,000
FY 2012 Unit Target

6,000,000 Tons Emitted
(PM A01) Maintain annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from electric power generation sources nationwide at or below 6 million tons
9,400,000
Additional Information: The baseline in 1980 is 17.4 million tons of SO2 emissions from electric utility sources. Statutory SO2 emissions capped in 2010 at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level. Allowable SO 2 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. 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. The data is contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. (PM M9) Cumulative reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline. 10 12.5 11 Data Avail 12/2011 12 12 Percent Reduction
(1) Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 15,972 million people parts per billion. 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. (PM M91) Cumulative reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline. 5 17 6 Data Avail 12/2011 15 15 Percent Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 2,581 million people micograms per cubic meter. The PM-2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter PM-2.5 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. (PM M92) Cumulative percent reduction in the number 29 59 33 Data Avail 37 41 Percent of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 12/2011 Reduction since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value. Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 for the Air Quality Index (AQI) is zero percent reduction and the 2004 result is a 15.5% reduction. The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the national air quality standard for the pollutant, which is the level EPA has set to protect public health. AQI values below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. When AQI values are above 100, air quality is considered to be unhealthy for certain sensitive groups of people, then for everyone as AQI values get higher. (PM M94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application. 78 76 78 Data Avail 12/2011 78 78 Percent Permits Issued
951
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 61%. New Source Review (NSR) requires stationary sources of air pollution to get permits before they start construction. Permits are legal documents that the source must follow, and they specify what construction is allowed, what emission limits must be met, and often how the source must be operated. Usually NSR permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases. (PM M95) Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application. 100 87 100 Data Avail 12/2011 100 100 Percent Permits Issued
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 100%. Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air pollution sources after the source has begun to operate. Usually Title V permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases. Title V permits must be renewed every five years. (PM M96) Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application. 95 70 99 Data Avail 12/2011 99 99 Percent Permits Issued
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 75%. Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air pollution sources after the source has begun to operate. Usually Title V permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases. Title V permits must be renewed every five years. (PM MM9) 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. Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero. (PM N35) Cumulative millions of tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) reduced since 2002 from mobile sources 1.52 1.52 1.69 Data Avail 12/2011 1.86 2.03 Tons Reduced 23 47 26 Data Avail 12/2011 29 32 Percent Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2000 for Carbon Monoxide emissions reduced from mobile sources is 79.2 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. (PM O33) Cumulative millions of tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources 1.54 1.54 1.71 Data Avail 12/2011 1.88 2.05 Tons Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2000 for Volatile Organic Compounds emissions reduced from mobile sources is 7.7 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. (PM O34) Cumulative millions of tons of Nitrogen 3.05 3.05 3.39 Data Avail 3.73 4.07 Tons
952
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual 12/2011
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target

Reduced
Oxides (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
Additional Information: The baseline in 2002 for Nitrogen Oxide emissions reduced from mobile sources is 11.8 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. (PM P34) Cumulative tons of PM-2.5 reduced since 2000 from mobile sources 110,190 110,190 122,434 Data Avail 12/2011 136,677 146,921 Tons Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2002 for Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) emissions reduced from mobile sources is 510,550 tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. (PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline. 36 Data Avail 12/2011 36 Data Avail 12/2011 36 37 Percent Reduction
(2) Reduce Air Toxics (PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of 59
toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
Additional Information: The baseline in 1993 is 7.24 million tons and the 2007 result is a 39 percent reduction. The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years with intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. Data Avail 12/2011 59 Data Avail 12/2011 59 59 Percent Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 1993 is 7.24 million tons and the 2007 result is a 53 percent reduction. The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years with intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. (PM R16) Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign. >20 33 >30 Data Avail 12/2011 >30 >30 Percent Aware
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 27%. Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign.
(4) Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
(PM R17) Additional health care professionals trained annually on the environmental management of asthma triggers.
2,000
4,614
2,000
Data Avail 12/2011
2,000
3,000
Professionals Trained
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 2,360 trained health care professionals. (PM R22) Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance. 1,000 1,765 1,000 Data Avail 12/2011 1,000 1,000 Schools
953
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 3,200 schools. The Tools for Schools Program is a comprehensive resource to help schools maintain a healthy environment in school buildings by identifying, correcting, and preventing indoor air quality problems. Poor indoor air quality can impact the comfort and health of students and staff, which, in turn, can affect concentration, attendance, and student performance. (PM R50) Percent of existing homes with an operating radon mitigation system compared to the estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level. 11.5 12.0 12.0 Data Avail 12/2011 12.5 13.3 Percent Homes
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 6.9 percent of homes with radon operating mitigation systems. Radon causes lung cancer, and is a threat to health because it tends to collect in homes, sometimes to very high concentrations. As a result, radon is the largest source of exposure to naturally occurring radiation. (PM R51) Percent of all new single-family homes (SFH) in high radon potential areas built with radon reducing features. 31.5 36.1 33 Data Avail 12/2011 34.5 36 Percent Homes
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 20.7 percent of all new single-family homes. Radon causes lung cancer, and is a threat to health because it tends to collect in homes, sometimes to very high concentrations. As a result, radon is the largest source of exposure to naturally occurring radiation.
Objective 3 - Restore the Ozone Layer: Restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the harmful effects of UV radiation.
FY 2009
Target Actual 3,414
FY 2010
Target <3,811 Actual Data Avail 12/2011
CR 2011 Target
<3,811
FY 2012 Unit Target

<3,811 ODP Tons
(1) Reduce Consumption of Ozonedepleting Substances
(PM S01) Remaining US Consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer, measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
<9,900
Additional Information: The baseline in 1989 for Ozone Depleting Substances consumed is 15,240 tons. The base of comparison for assessing progress is the domestic consumption cap of Class II 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 (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
954
Objective 4 - Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation: Minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts should unwanted releases occur.
FY 2009
Target Actual 90
FY 2010
Target 90 Actual Data Avail 12/2011
CR 2011 Target
90
FY 2012 Unit Target

90 Percent Readiness
(PM R35) Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations.
90
( 1 ) Monitor for Radiation and Prepare for Radiological Emergencies
Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is a 50% level of readiness. The level of readiness is measured as the percentage of response team members and assets that meet scenario-based response criteria. (R36) Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an emergency Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is 2.5 days. (PM R37) Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP. Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 150 days. 70 75 70 Data Avail 2011 70 70 Days 0.8 0.8 0.7 Data Avail 12/2011 0.8 0.8 Days
955
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS Protect and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities. Objective 1 - Protect Human Health: Reduce human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters, including protecting source waters.
FY 2009
Target Actual 81.2
FY 2010
Target 87 Actual 87.2
CR 2011 Target
87
FY 2012 Unit Target

87 Percent Population
(PM 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
87
Additional Information: In 2005, 86% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards. (PM aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable healthbased drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment & source water protection. 90 92.1 90* 92 91* 91 Percent Population
(1) Water Safe (PM apc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF. to Drink
Additional Information: In 2005, 89% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. 89 92 86* 91.3 89* 89 Percent
Additional Information: In 2005, the fund utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was 85 percent. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM aph) Percent of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance.) 95 88 95 87 95 95 Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 2007, 92% of community water systems had undergone a sanitary survey. Prior to FY 2007, this measure tracked states rather than community water systems, in compliance with this regulation. (PM apm) Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection. 90 89.1 90 89.6 90 90 Percent Systems
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
956
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: In 2005, 89% of community water systems meet all applicable health based drinking water standards. (PM aps) Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water. Additional Information: (PM apt) Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) [approximately 23,640 in FY 2010] that are closed or permitted (cumulative). Additional Information: In 2010, there were approximately 23,640 wells. (PM dw2) Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. 95 97.2 95 97.3 95 95 Percent Months 20,840 Number Wells 90 Percent Class wells
Additional Information: In 2005, community water systems provided drinking water that met all applicable health based drinking water standards during 95percent of "person months." (PM pi1) Percent of population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (served by community water systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling average basis. 73 80 73 82 75 78 Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 95% of the population in American Samoa, 10% in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 80% of Guam served by CWS received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. This measure is on a four quarter rolling average basis.
(2) Fish and

Shellfish Safe to Eat
(PM fs1) Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
5.2
Data Avail 1/2011
5.1
Data Avail 3/2011
4.9
4.9
Percent Women
Additional Information: Baseline is 5.7% published by CDC in 2005 (based on data collected in 2002-3) Universe is population of women of childbearing age. (PM ss1 ) Number of waterborne disease outbreaks 2 0 2 Data Avail 3/2011 2 2 Outbreaks
(3) Water Safe attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact for Swimming with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5year average.
957
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: Very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this measure. In 2005, two waterborne diseases were reported. Universe is not applicable to this baseline. (PM 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. 93 95 95 95 95 95 Percent Days/Season
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open 96% 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 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a watershed basis, and protect urban, coastal, and ocean waters.
FY 2009
Target Actual 2,505
FY 2010
Target 2,809* Actual 2,909
CR 2011 Target
3,073*
FY 2012 Unit Target

3,273 Segments
(PM L) Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
2,270
(2) Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Additional Information: 2002 baseline: 39,798 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. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM Opb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal. 96 91 98 Data Avail 5/2011 92 93 Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2003, 77% of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal. (PM bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF. 94.5 98 92* 100 94.5* 94.5 Percent
Additional Information: In 2002 and 91% is used as the baseline for this measure. It was calculated using data collected annually from all 51 state CWSRF programs (50 states and Puerto Rico). *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
958
FY 2009
Target Actual Data Avail 12/2010
FY 2010
Target 86 Actual Data Avail 3/2011
CR 2011 Target
86
FY 2012 Unit Target

86 Percent POTWs
(PM bpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards
86
Additional Information: The most recent baseline is 2005, at 86%. It is calculated by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) using data collected in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) on major publicly-owned treatment works. (PM bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only) 4.5 3.5 4.5 Data Avail 3/2011 4.5 4.5 Pounds (Million)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 558,000 lbs of phosphorus from nonpoint sources. (PM bpg) Estimated additional reduction in million pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only) 8.5 9.1 8.5 Data Avail 3/2011 8.5 8.5 Pounds (Million)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 3.7 million lbs of nitrogen from nonpoint sources. (PM bph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only) 700 2,300 700 Data Avail 3/2011 700 700 Tons (Thousand)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 1.68 million tons of sediment from nonpoint sources. (PM bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDL] on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.] 33,540 36,487 39,101 38,749 41,235 43,711 TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, more than 30,000 state TMDLs were completed through FY 2008. 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. (PM bpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year. 95 147 95 142 100 100 Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states as environmentally or programmatically significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2005, 104% of the designated priority permits were
959
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
22.5
FY 2012 Unit Target
issued in the fiscal year. (PM bpn) Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year. 22.5 23.3 22.5 Data Avail 3/2011 22.5 Percent Dischargers
Additional Information: The universe consists of all major NPDES permitted facilities. The data is pulled from PCS and ICIS databases. The SNC rates are calculated on a three year rolling average and reflect the percentage of majors that have been in SNC for one or more quarters within the particular fiscal year. In 2005, 19.7% of major facilities were in Significant Noncompliance. (PM bpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from States and Territories that are approved by EPA. 85 93.2 85 90.9 85 85 Percent Submissions
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 87.6% submissions approved. Expected approval rates are expected to decline in 2011 and 2012 due to the increasing complexity of technical and policy issues raised in state standards revisions submitted to EPA. (PM bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDL] 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.] 38,978 41,866 44,560 46,817 49,375 51,923 TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, EPA and states completed more than 35,000 total TMDLs through FY 2008. 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. (PM bpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year. 95 144 95 138 100 100 Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states or EPA regions as environmentally or programmatically significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2008, 119% of the designated priority permits were issued in the fiscal year. (PM bpw) Percent of States and Territories that, within the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or sources not considered in previous standards. 68 62.5 66 67.9 64.3 64.3 Percent States and Territories
960
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 70% of states and territories submitting acceptable water quality criteria reflecting new scientific information. In response to an EPA national priority, states are focusing on adopting water quality criteria for nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus). Because developing these criteria is a complex multi-year process for many states, EPA expects some decline in performance in the short term. (PM pi2) Percent of time that sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). 62 65 62 52 63 64 Percent Time
Additional Information: The sewage treatment plants in the Pacific Island Territories compiled 59% of the time with BOD & TSS permit limits. (PM sf3) At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than to equal to 0.35 ug l-1 and light clarity( Kd) )levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1. No Target Established 75 75 Percent Stations
Additional Information: In 2005, Total water quality was at chl < 0.2 ug/l, light attenuation < 0.13/meter, DIN < 0.75 micromolar, and TP < 0.2 micromolar. (PM sf4) At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to .25 uM. Additional Information: (PM sf5) Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10 ppb total phosphorus criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh. Maintain Not Maintained Maintain Not Maintained Maintain Maintain Parts/Billion No Target Established 75 75 Percent Stations
Additional Information: In 2005, The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in the Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation 3A, 13 ppb in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow-weighted from total phosphorus discharges from storm water treatment areas ranged from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W. Effluent limits will be established for all discharges, including storm water treatment areas. (PM uw1) Number of urban water projects initiated addressing water quality issues in the community. 3 Projects
961
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: This measure tracks progress in the implementation of grants that help communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and surrounding land. Projects that address water quality in the community will be tracked through grantee reporting, and can include the following activities (as authorized under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act): planning, outreach, training, studies, monitoring, and demonstration of innovative approaches to manage water quality. (PM uw2) Number of urban water projects completed addressing water quality issues in the community. 0 Projects
Additional Information: This measure tracks progress in the implementation of grants that help communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and surrounding land. Projects that address water quality in the community will be tracked through grantee reporting, and can include the following activities (as authorized under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act): planning, outreach, training, studies, monitoring, and demonstration of innovative approaches to manage water quality. (PM wq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative). 6,891 7,530 8,512 8,446 9,016 9,566 Causes
Additional Information: In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states. (PM wq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative). 102 104 141 168 208 238 Watersheds
Additional Information: In 2002, there were 10 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watershed of focus having 1 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. Watersheds at this scale average 22 square miles in size. "Improved" means that 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 associated with the impairments. (PM 202) Acres protected or restored in National Estuary Program study areas. 100,000 125,437 100,000 89,985 100,000 100,000 Acres
(3) Improve Coastal and Ocean Water
Additional Information: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002. (PM co5) Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan). 98 99 98 90.1 98 95 Percent Sites
Additional Information: The baseline was calculated in 2005 at 60 sites.
(4) Increase Wetlands
(PM 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.
No Loss
Net
No Loss
Net
No Loss
Net
No net loss
No Loss
Net
No Loss
Net
Acres
962
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: EPA receives data for this measure from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). ACE recently finalized their database and was able to collect actual data for the first time in FY 2009. (PM 4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative). 88,000 103,507 110,000 130,000 150,000 170,000 Acres
Additional Information: From 1986-1997, the US had an annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. From 1998-2004, the US achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. (PM 433) Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic systems (using a 40-point scale.) No Target Established No Target Established 23.4 23.9 Scale
Additional Information: The ecosystem health index for the Great Lakes in 2002 was 20. (PM 606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes. 5.9 6.0 6.3 7.3 8.0 8.7 Cubic (million) Yards
Additional Information: 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation (PM 620) Cumulative percentage decline for the longterm trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples. 5 6 10 43 37 40 Percent Decline
(5) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Additional Information: 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: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; and L Ontario- 1.2ug/g. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program (GLFMSP) samples are collecting in alternating locations in each lake by year. In even years, samples are collected from a more shallow site and, in general, have higher contaminant concentrations than samples collected in odd years where samples are collected from a deeper location. Two alternating sites were chosen to give a greater spatial representation of the lake. However, these two sites are not representative of the entire Great Lakes, in fact, GLFMSP samples collected in a specific site are only representative of that site. (PM 625) Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern. Additional Information: Universe of 261. Baseline of 11. (PM 626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative). Additional Information: 1 1 1 3 AOCs 21 12 20 12 26 31 BUIs Removed
963
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target 4 Actual
CR 2011 Target
4
FY 2012 Unit Target

10 Number Responses/Plans
(PM 629) Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative). Additional Information: (PM 630) Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries draining targeted watersheds. Additional Information: (PM 635) Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative). Additional Information: (PM 627) Number of non-native invasive species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Additional Information: (PM 628) Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level (cumulative). Additional Information: (PM 632) Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loading. Additional Information: (PM 633) Percent of populations of native aquatic nonthreatened and non-endangered species self-sustaining in the wild (cumulative). Additional Information: (PM 634) Number of acres of wetlands and wetlandassociated uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
0.5
Average Loadings
15,000
15,000
20,000
Acres
1.1
1.0
1.0
Number of Species
1,000
1,500
2,600
Number of Acres
2% increase
2% increase
8% increase
Percent (Acres)
33%; 48/147
33%; 48/147
35%; 51/147
Number of Species
5,000
5,000
7,500
Acres
964
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
0
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: (PM 636) Number of species delisted due to recovery. Additional Information: (PM 637) Percent of days of the beach season that the Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming. Additional Information: (PM cb3) Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million lbs). Additional Information: (PM cb4) Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million lbs). 64 65 66 67 No Target Established No Target Established Percent Achieved Goal 50 49 52 51 No Target Established No Target Established Percent Achieved Goal 94 Percent Days 0 1 Species
(6) Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Additional Information: (PM cb5) Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million lbs). Additional Information: (PM cb6) Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model. 1 Percent Achieved Goal 67 64 71 69 No Target Established No Target Established Percent Achieved Goal
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 33% goal achievement (52.82 million lbs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 46% goal achievement (74.63 million lbs reduced since 1986.) (PM cb7) Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 1 Percent Achieved Goal
965
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
watershed model. Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 56% goal achievement (8.02 million lbs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 62% goal achievement (8.83 million lbs reduced since 1986.) (PM cb8) Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model. 1 Percent Achieved Goal
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 47% goal achievement (0.79 million tons reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 61% goal achievement (1.03 million tons reduced since 1986.) (PM 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. 2.5 2.2 2.5 Data Avail 12/2011 2.5 2.6 Scale
(7) Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
Additional Information: In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.2 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. (PM xg1) Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in impaired segments in 13 priority coastal areas (cumulative starting in FY 07). 96 131 96 170 202 234 Impaired Segments
Additional Information: In 2008, Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands habitats included 3,769,370 acres. (PM xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of important coastal and marine habitats. 26,000 29,344 27,500 29,552 30,000 30,600 Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 25,215 acres were restored, enhanced, or protected in the Gulf of Mexico. (PM li5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing tradeequalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE lbs/day. 52 Data Avail 3/2011 55 56 Percent Achieved Goal
(8) Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Additional Information: The 2000 TMDL baseline is 59,146 Trade-Equalized (TE) pounds/day. The 2014 TMDL target is 22,774 TE/pounds/day. (PM li8) Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres. 250 Acres
966
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: The long-term goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY 2010. EPA is revising this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress. (PM li9) Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to diadromous fish passage from the 2012 baseline of 17.7 river miles by removal of dams and barriers or by installation of bypass structures. 38 Miles
Additional Information: The long-term goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY 2010. EPA is revising this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress. (PM 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. 600 1,730 1,800 4,453 4,953 5,453 Acres
(9) Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
Additional Information: In 2008, 1,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions. The universe of potentially recoverable shellfish areas is approximately 10,000 acres which are closed due to nonpoint source pollution. (PM ps3) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands. 3,000 5,751 6,500 10,062 12,363 13,863 Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands were restored (PM 4pg) Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.Mexico border area since 2003. 108.2 108.8 Million Pounds/Year
(10) Sustain and Restore the U.S.Mexico Border Environmental Health
Additional Information: The baseline starts at the beginning of FY 2003, with zero pounds of biological oxygen demand (BOD) removed from Border region waters. Wastewater infrastructure project completions since FY 2003 are the basis of reporting for this cumulative measure. (PM xb2) Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003. 1,500 1,584 28,434 52,130 54,130 100 (Annual) Homes
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to safe drinking water as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes since this measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S.-Mexico border area lacking access to safe drinking water in 2003 (98,515 homes). The known universe was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources. This measure was modified from cumulative to annual, beginning in FY 2012, to better capture annual program progress. (PM xb3) Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico 105,500 43,594 246,175 254,125 461,125 1,282 (Annual) Homes
967
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003. Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to adequate wastewater sanitation as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes since this measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S.-Mexico border area lacking access to adequate wastewater sanitation services in 2003 (690,723). The known universe of unconnected homes was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources. This measure was modified from cumulative to annual, beginning in FY 2012, to better capture annual program progress.
968
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas. Objective 1 - Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities: Support sustainable, resilient, and livable communities by working with local, state, tribal, and federal partners to promote smart growth, emergency preparedness and recovery planning, brownfield redevelopment, and the equitable distribution of environmental benefits.
FY 2009
Target Actual 1,295
FY 2010
Target 1,000* Actual 1,326
CR 2011 Target
1,000*
FY 2012 Unit Target

1000 Properties
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
1,000
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1,295 properties. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM B32) Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding. 60 93 60* 109 60* 60 Properties
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program cleaned up 93 properties. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(2) Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
(PM B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse.
1,000
2,660
1,000*
3,627
1,000*
1000
Acres
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program made 2,660 acres of land ready for reuse. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM B34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities. 5,000 6,490 5,000* 5,177 5,000* 5000 Jobs
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged 6,490 jobs. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites. 0.9 1.06 0.9* 1.4 0.9* 0.9 Dollars (Billions)
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged $1.06B in cleanup and redevelopment funding. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(3) Reduce
Chemical Risks at Facilities and
(PM CH2) Number of risk management plan audits and inspections conducted.
400
654
400
618
560
578
Audits
Additional Information: Between FY 2000 and FY 2009, 5,641 Risk Management Plan audits were completed.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
969
Performance Data SubHeading in Communities Performance Measures
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Objective 2 - Preserve Land: Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products.
FY 2009
Target Actual -6
FY 2010
CR 2011 Target
1.4
FY 2012 Unit Target

1.4 Percent Increase
(PM MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion ash that is beneficially used instead of disposed.
1.8
Additional Information: In 2008, approximately 136 million tons of coal combustion ash was generated, and 40% was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results. (PM MW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands. 27 129 22 141 45 45 Dumps
(1) Waste Generation and Recycling
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for reporting identified in 2006. (PM MW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan. 16 31 23 23 14 5 Tribes
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for reporting identified in 2006. Beginning in FY 2012, RCRA program grant funding supporting the development of integrated waste management plans will no longer be offered. However, the performance target may be achieved with the assistance of other funding sources, including tribes, other EPA programs, or other federal agencies. Technical assistance to the tribes, such as that provided through tribal circuit riders, will remain available. (PM MW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled. 19.5 Data Avail 12/2010 20.5 Data Avail 12/2011 21 22 Pounds (Billions)
Additional Information: This municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
(2) Minimize Releases of Hazardous
(PM HW0) Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
100
115
100
140
100
100
Facilities
Additional Information: There are an estimated 894 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,450 facilities.
970
Performance Data SubHeading Waste and Petroleum Products Performance Measures
FY 2009
Target Actual 7,168
FY 2010
Target <9,000 Actual 6,328
CR 2011 Target
<8,550
FY 2012 Unit Target

<8,120 UST Releases
(PM ST1) Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 5 percent fewer than the prior year's target.
<9,000
Additional Information: Between FY 1999 and FY 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2009 was 7,168. (PM ST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with both release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target. 65 66.4 65.5 68.6 66 66.5 Percent
Additional Information: Implementing the 2005 Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA and states are inspecting infrequently inspected facilities, and are finding many out of compliance, impacting our ability to achieve compliance rate goals. As a result, the significant operational compliance targets have been adjusted to reflect a 0.5% increase each year to maintain aggressive goals.
Objective 3 - Restore Land: Prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants and clean up and restore polluted sites.
FY 2009
Target Actual 214
FY 2010
Target 170 Actual 199
CR 2011 Target
170
FY 2012 Unit Target

170 Removals
(PM 132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.
195
Additional Information: Between 2002 and 2009 EPA completed an average of 203 Superfund-lead removal response actions.
(2) Emergency Preparedness and Response
(PM 135) PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
170
192
170
170
Removals
Additional Information: In FY 2010, EPA will begin implementing a new measure to track removals undertaken by potentially responsible parties, either voluntarily or pursuant to an enforcement instrument, where EPA has overseen the removals. (PM 337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance. Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010. 15 48 30 35 Percent
971
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target 15 Actual 36
CR 2011 Target
30
FY 2012 Unit Target

35 Percent
(PM 338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance. Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010. (PM C1) Score on annual Core NAR.
55
87.9
60
70
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009, the average Core NAR Score was 84.3 percent for EPA headquarters, regions, and special teams prepared for responding to emergencies (PM 112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration. 12,250 12,944 12,250* 11,591 12,250* 12,400 Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tank cleanups. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM 113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country. 30 49 30 62 38 42 Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 848 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian country. This is a subset of the national total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups completed.
(3) Cleanup Contaminated Land
(PM 115) Number of Superfund assessments completed.
remedial site
900
900
Assessments
Additional Information: This new measure accounts for all remedial assessments performed at sites addressed under the Superfund program whereas our previous measure only captured a subset of these assessments (i.e., the final assessments completed at sites). By capturing the assessment work leading to final assessment decisions, including the initial screening assessments to determine Superfund eligibility, the new measure more fully accounts for the work performed during the Superfund site assessment process. As of 2010, the cumulative total number of assessments completed was 88,000. (PM 141) Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed. 20 20 22* 18 22* 22 Completions
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had completed construction at 1,080 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA. (PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control. 10 11 10* 18 10* 10 Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 1,320 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 2011 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
972
FY 2009
Target Actual 16
FY 2010
Target 15 Actual 18
CR 2011 Target
15
FY 2012 Unit Target

15 Sites
(PM 152) Superfund sites with groundwater migration under control.
contaminated
15
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 1,012 final and deleted NPL sites. (PM 170) Number of remedial completions at Superfund NPL Sites. action project No Target Established 97 No Target Established 103 113 Completions
Additional Information: This is a new performance measure for FY 2011. Since program inception through the end of FY 2009, Superfund had completed 2,603 remedial action projects at final and deleted NPL sites. (PM CA1) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control. 69 72 72 76 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, potential human exposures to toxins were controlled at 65 percent of facilities. There is a universe of 3,746 low, medium, and high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities. (PM CA2) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control. 61 63 64 67 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, migration of contaminated groundwater was controlled at 58 percent of facilities. There is a universe of 3,746 low, medium, and high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities. (PM CA5) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed. 35 37 38 42 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, cleanup remedies had been constructed at 32 percent of the universe of 3,746 low, medium and high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities. (PM S10) Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use site-wide. 65 66 65 66 65 65 Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA's Superfund program had ensured that 409 final and deleted NPL sites met the criteria to be determined ready for anticipated use site-wide.
973
Objective 4 - Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country: Support federally-recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian country.
FY 2009
Target Actual 12.6 7
FY 2010
Target Actual
FY 2011 FY 2012 Unit Target Target

18 22 Percent
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country (cumulative).
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding.
(no subobjective)
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country (cumulative.)
23
40
52
54
Percent
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding. (PM 5PS) Percent of Tribes with an environmental program (cumulative). 60 64 70 73 Percent
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding.
974
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source. Objective 1 - Ensure Chemical Safety: Reduce the risk of chemicals that enter our products, our environment, and our bodies.
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target

1.5 Percent
(PM 008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in March of 2009 estimated 4.1% of children aged 1 - 5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 5 ug/dl or greater) from 2003/4 sampling data. Data for this measure are reported biennially. (PM 009) Cumulative number of certified Renovation Repair and Painting firms 100,000 59,143 100,000 140,000 Firms
Additional Information: The baseline is zero in 2009. This year was chosen because 2010 is the first year that firms will submit applications to EPA to become certified. Over time, firms will either become certified directly through EPA (tracked through Federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP) or through an authorized State program (tracked through grant reports/ACS). (PM 012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to rodenticides. 10 5 Percent
(1) Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks
Additional Information: The total number of confirmed and likely rodenticide exposures to children in 2008 is 11,674 based data from the Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System. (PM 091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due date). Additional Information: In 2008, 99.9% of decisions were completed on time. (PM 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. No Target Established Biennial 28 Data Avail 10/2012 No Target Established 13 Percent 99 99.7 99 99 Percent
Additional Information: 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 32% in 1999-2002. Data for this measure is reported biennially. (PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides. 20 Data Avail 10/2011 21 Data Avail 10/2012 21 22 Percent
Additional Information: Baseline year is 1998 using Doane Marketing Research, Inc. a private sector research database. Baseline was 3.6% of total acreage. Results are reported end of calendar year.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION 975
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target 70 Actual 75
CR 2011 Target
70
FY 2012 Unit Target

70 Dockets
(PM 164) Number of pesticide registration review dockets opened.
Additional Information: Baseline for registration review work dockets is 71 opened in 2008. (PM 240) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions 45 40 45 50 45 45 Days
Additional Information: Baseline for S18 decisions is 45 days in 2005. (PM 247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment. 100 97 100 Data Avail 10/2011 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: 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 2 year analysis from 2004-2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical submissions and is 100%. (PM 266) Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general population. No Target Established Biennial 50, 50 Data Avail 10/2011 No Target Established 50, 50 Percent
Additional Information: NHANES (2001-2002 baseline) measure is based on NHANES 95th percentile concentrations for six non-specific organophosphate analytes (0.45 mol/L), and a chlorpyrifos-specific metabolite (TCPy) (12.4 g/L). Data for this measure are reported biennially. (PM D6A) Reduction in concentration of PFOA in serum in the general population. 1 Percent Reduction
Additional Information: Baselines are derived from the Centers for Disease Controls National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) concentration data in the general population and results are reported biennially. PFOA baselines are based on 2005/2006 geometric mean data in serum: 3.92 g/L. (PM E01) Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed 3 5 Chemicals
Additional Information: For FY 2010, it is anticipated that EDSP decisions will have been completed for 13 chemicals. Several factors will impact the schedule for completing EDSP decisions including, for example, the number of pesticide cancellations and other actions that will remove a chemical from commerce and/or discontinue manufacture and import, the number of pesticide cancellations involving minor agricultural uses, the number of pre-enforcement challenges to test orders, unforeseen laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen technical problems with completing the Tier 1 assays for a particular chemical. (PM E02) Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued 40 40 Chemicals
Additional Information: Through FY 2010, it is anticipated that Tier 1 test orders will have been issued for 67 chemicals. Annual performance targets for this measure will be subject to obtaining an approved Information Collection Request and the EPA resources available for issuing EDSP Tier 1 test orders.
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
2
FY 2012 Unit Target

4 Assays
(PM E03) Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached
Additional Information: Through FY 2010, it is anticipated that validation decisions will have been reached for 15 screening and testing assays. There are several steps within the validation process including: preparation of detailed review papers, performance of prevalidation studies, validation by multiple labs, and peer reviews. A decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay could occur during any of these steps while a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs after all the steps are successfully completed. (PM HC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals 230 270 300 500 Hazardous Units
Additional Information: The cumulative baseline through FY 2009 is 1,095. This is made up on US and internationally sponsored Hazard Characterization through 2009. International HCs started being produced in the early 1990's and US sponsored HCs started to be produced in 2007. (PM J11) Reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphates and carbamate insecticides in the general population. 10 Percent
Additional Information: Moderate to severe exposure incidents reported during 2008 is 316 as reported in the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning Data System. (PM J15) Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in children. 50, 50 Percent
Additional Information: NHANES (2001-2002 baseline) measure is based on NHANES 95th percentile concentrations for six non-specific organophosphate analytes (0.55 mol/L), and a chlorpyrifos-specific metabolite (TCPy) (16.0 g/L). Data for this measure are reported biennially. (PM 011) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions 2,000 1,770 1,500 1,712 1,500 1,200 Decisions
(2) Protect Ecosystems from Chemical Risks
Additional Information: Actual in FY 2005 is 501 product re-registrations. The 2010 target was exceeded due to a high number of products withdrawn by the registrants (initially undercounted due to a system coding error which has been corrected). The program is anticipating a decline to the outyear target given the smaller universe of decisions to be made. (PM 230) Number of pesticide registration review final work plans completed. 70 70 70 70 Work Plans
Additional Information: Baseline for final work plans for registered pesticides reviewed is 47 in 2008. (PM 268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl). No Target Established Biennial 5, 0, 20 6.7, 0, 33 No Target Established 5, 0, 10 Percent
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: Based on FY 1992 - 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, urban watersheds that exceeded the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks are 73% for diazinon, 37% for chlorpyrifos, and 13% for carbaryl. Data for this measure are reported biennially. (PM 269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos). 0, 10 0, 8 No Target Established 0, 10 Percent
Additional Information: Based on FY 1992 - 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, agricultural watersheds that exceeded the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks are 18% for azinphos-methyl and 18% for chlorpyrifos. Data for this measure are reported biennially. (PM 276) Percent of registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk prior to consultation with DOC and DOI. 5 Percent
Additional Information: The baseline is 0% for each annual reporting period as percentages are not cumulative. The data is tracked by OPP using internal tracking numbers. The data is obtained from ecological risk assessments and effects determinations prepared to support a registration review case.
(3) Ensure
Transparency of Chemical Health and Safety Information
(PM C18) Percentage of historical CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate.
20
Percent
Additional Information: Prior to January 2010, the number of TSCA CBI claims had not been reviewed or challenged, where appropriate, was 994. (PM C19) Percentage of CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate, as they are submitted. 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: Prior to January 2010, the percent of TSCA CBI claims that were routinely reviewed or challenged, where appropriate, was 0%.
Objective 2 - Promote Pollution Prevention: Conserve and protect natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
FY 2009
Target Actual 4.67
FY 2010
CR 2011 Target
28.6
FY 2012 Unit Target

27.8 Gallons (Billions)
(PM 262) Gallons of water reduced through pollution prevention.
1.79
Additional Information: Baseline is 51.3 billion gallons reduced through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers. (PM 263) Business, institutional and government costs reduced through pollution prevention. 130 276.5 1,060 Data Avail 11/2011 1,042 847 Dollars (Millions) Saved
(1) Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship
Additional Information: Baseline is 3.1 billion dollars saved through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers. (PM 264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced through pollution prevention. 494 494 1,625 Data Avail 11/2011 1,549 1,064 Pounds (Millions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 4.8 billion pounds reduced through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers. (PM 297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset through pollution prevention. 2 1.618 5.9 Data Avail 11/2011 5.7 6.3 MTCO2e (Millions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 6.5 MMTC02e reduced through 2008. Results are compiled using data reported by P2's seven centers. (PM P25) Percent increased in use of safer chemicals Additional Information: In 2009 476 M lbs. of safer chemicals were reported to be in commerce by Design for the Environment (DfE). 7 Percent
GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws. Objective 1 - Enforce Environmental Laws: Pursue vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards in communities. Assure strong, consistent, and effective enforcement of federal environmental laws nationwide.
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target

21,000 Inspections/Evaluatio ns
(PM 409) Conduct 21,000 federal inspections and evaluations.
Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 21,000 annually. The FY 2012 President's Budget provides additional resources to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to strengthen its monitoring program and expand the use of electronic reporting. The President's Budget also provides additional resources to EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response for enforcement and compliance activities for two programs: Oil Spill Prevention and Preparedness, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste and Risk Management Programs. (PM 410) Initiate 3,900 civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases. Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 3,900 cases annually. 3,900 Cases
(1) Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence
(PM 411) Conclude 3,800 civil administrative enforcement cases.
judicial
and
3,800
Cases
Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 3,800 annually. (PM 412) Review the overall compliance status of 100 percent of the open consent decrees. Additional Information: FY 2009 baseline: 100 percent. (PM 418) Increase the percentage of criminal cases having the most significant health, environmental, and deterrence impacts to 43 percent. Additional Information: FY 2010 baseline: 36 percent. (PM 419) Maintain a 75 percent rate for criminal cases with individual defendants. Additional Information: FY 2006-2008 baseline: 78 percent. (PM 420) Increase the percentage of criminal cases with 40 Percent 75 Percent 43 Percent 100 Percent
GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
980

charges filed to 40 percent. Additional Information: FY 2006-2010 baseline: 36 percent. (PM 421) Maintain a 85 percent conviction rate for criminal defendants. Additional Information: FY 2006-2010 baseline: 87 percent. 85 Percent
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
(2) Support Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality (3) Support Protecting America's Waters
(PM 400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 480 million estimated pounds of air pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
480
410
480
480
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 480 million pounds, annual average over the period.
(PM 402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 320 million estimated pounds of water pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
320
1,000
320
320
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 320 million pounds, annual average over the period. For FY 2010, two stormwater home builder actions contributed to more than half of the one billion pound pollutant reduction result. (PM 078) Address all Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
(4) Support Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
Additional Information: In FY 2009, the Agency will have addressed 100 percent of Cost Recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000. (PM 285) Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 99 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government. 95 100 95 98 95 99 Percent
Additional Information: 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 PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites. (PM 405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 6,500 million estimated pounds of hazardous waste through concluded enforcement actions. 6,500 11,800 6,500 6,500 Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2008 Baseline: 6,500 million pounds. The results for this measure are driven by a small number of very large cases and do not necessarily
981
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
represent typical annual results. For example, in FY 2010 over 99% of the total 11.75 billion pounds of hazardous waste reduced, treated, or eliminated came from two cases - CF Industries Inc. (9.87 billion pounds) and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation (1.86 billion pounds). (PM 417) Obtain commitments to clean up 300 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions. 300 Million Cubic Yards
Additional Information: FY 2007-2009 baseline: 300 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media, annual average over the period.
(5) Support Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
(PM 404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 3.8 million estimated pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants through concluded enforcement actions.
3.8
8.3
3.8
3.8
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: The program used existing data to estimate results for FY 2005-2008, which yielded an approximate average baseline of 3.8 million pounds. FY 2010 results were driven by a small number of enforcement cases, which yielded the majority of the 8.3 million pounds addressed.
982
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY

Performance Data Performance Measures
FY 2009
Target Actual 100
FY 2010
Target 90 Actual 100
CR 2011 Target
90
FY 2012 Unit Target

90 Percent
Human Health Risk Assessment
(PM H83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents.
90
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health outcomes long-term goal. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Human Health and Ecosystems Research
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data long-term goal. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H31) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H32) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible subpopulations long-term goal. 100 100 100 64 100 100 Percent
RESEARCH
983
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H26) Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's mechanistic information is cited as supporting a decision to move away from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions. 16.5 N/A No Target Established N/A No Target Established No Target Established Percent
Additional Information: Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of externally peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's research avoids or confirms the use of default assumptions by the total number of externally peer-reviewed risk assessments produced by EPA during that period. For the purposes of this calculation, ORD's products include both EPA-authored and EPA-funded reports. (PM I20) Percentage of Ecological research publications in "high-impact" journals. 21.3 Data Available November 2012 No Target Established Biennial No Target Established 23.3 Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews. (PM I21) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in 100 100 88 support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for 100 100 100 Percent causal diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological degradation. Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM I22) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast 100 93 100 100 100 100 Percent
RESEARCH
984
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
the ecological impacts of various actions. Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM I23) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and EPA office needs for 100 93 100 100 100 100 Percent environmental restoration and services tools and methods to protect and restore ecological condition and services. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
Research Homeland Security
- (PM H72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
100
85
100
100
100
90
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security initiatives. 100 100 100 100 100 90 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
Research
(PM H66) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
100
100
100
92
100
100
Percent
RESEARCH
985
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Water Quality
WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H68) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered 100 86 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H70) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM H92) Percentage of WQRP publications in high impact journals. No Target Established Biennial 15.7 Data Unavailabl e 15.7 16.7 Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
Research Land Protection and

RESEARCH
(PM H89) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports on
986
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
100
FY 2012 Unit Target

100 Percent
Restoration
technologies, methods, and models to manage material streams and reduce uncertainty in assessments. Additional details are described in the MYP. (PM H90) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal. 100 100 100 100
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports, technologies, methods, and models related to the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites. Additional details are described in the MYP. (PM H87) Percentage of Land publications in high impact journals. No Target Established Biennial 26.7 Data Unavailabl e 26.7 27.7 Percent
Additional Information: High impact journals are an indication of quality and influence. This measure evaluates the percentage of Land publications that are accepted within these prestigious journals and their subsequent impact on the field. The criteria and the 'impact factor' data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer review panel (BOSC).
Research: Drinking Water
(PM 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.
100
93
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1, which supports the Office of Water (OW) in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk management decisions. 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. (PM I35) Percentage of planned methodologies, data, and tools delivered in support of EPA's Office of Water and other key stakeholders needs for developing health risk assessments under the SDWA. 100 100 100 86 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP'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.
Research: Global
(PM H77) Percentage of Global publications in high impact journals.
24.6
Data Available November
Biennial
Percent
RESEARCH
987
FY 2009
Target Actual 2011
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Change
(PM H79) Percentage of planned outputs delivered. 100
Additional Information: The criteria and the "impact factor" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs will be outlined in the program's revised Multi-Year Plan. This measure will track progress toward completing those milestones across the program.
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
(PM I06) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
100
100
100
88
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year. (PM I08) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year. (PM I10) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year. (PM I12) Percent of SP2 publications in "high impact" journals. No Target Established Biennial 37.2 Data Avail 11/2011 37.2 38.2 Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors.
Research: Clean Air
(PM H35) Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard setting and air quality management decisions. (Research)
100
100
100
80
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Beginning in FY 2008, this measure will track the program's success in completing its planned outputs on time. Prior to FY 2008, the measure tracked success in completing both planned outputs and planned actions in response to independent review recommendations.
Research:
RESEARCH
(PM I28) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
988
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
FY 2012 Unit Target
Sustainability
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORDidentified and developed metrics to quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability. Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM I29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORDdeveloped decision support tools and methodologies. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM I30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious. (PM I31) Percentage of Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) publications in "high impact" journals. 35.3 35.4 No Target Established Biennial No Target Established No Target Established Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews
RESEARCH
989
PERFORMANCE - ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
FY 2009
Target Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR 2011 Target
15
FY 2012 Unit Target

20 Percent
(PM 007) Percent of GS employees (DEU) hired within 80 calendar days. Additional Information: In FY 2009, 10.7 % og GS employees (DEU) were hired on average in 189.2 days. (PM 008) Percent of GS employees (Other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days Additional Information: In FY 2009, 14.6% of GS employees (other than DEU) were hired on average in 163 days. (PM 009) Increase in number and percentage of certified acquisition staff (1102)
23
25
Percent
335,80
Number, Percent
Additional Information: There were 304 GS-1102 Staff on board as of July 26, 2010. There were 240 GS-1102 Staff, 78.9%, certified as of September 2, 2010. (PM 010) Cumulative percentage reduction GreenHouse Gas (GHG) Scopes 1 & 2 emissions. in 5 Percent
Additional Information: For FY 2009, Scope 1 emissions were 34,242 MTCO2e and Scope 2 emissions were 109,538 MTCO2e. (PM 098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption. 12 18 15 18.3 18 21 Percent
Additional Information: On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order 13423, "Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management," requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce their Green House Gas intensity and energy use by 3% annually through FY 2015. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 346,518 BTUs per square foot.
990
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

FY 2009
Target Actual 55
FY 2010
Target 60 Actual 60
CR 2011 Target
60
FY 2012 Unit Target

72 Systems
(PM 052) Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
50
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no data flows using CDX. (PM 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. 60 59 65 69 65 80 Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no nodes for states and tribes. (PM 054) Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA. 130,000 184,109 210,000 231,700 210,000 215,000 Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no users. (PM 408) Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that are certified and accredited. 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Additional Information: FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to Federal agencies and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to strengthen information system security. The continued goal, as required by FISMA, is for the Agency to achieve a continuous 100% compliance status with Certification and Accreditation (C&A) of all reportable systems.
991
NPM: INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2009
Target Actual 272
FY 2010
Target 334 *ARRA:20 Actual 391
CR 2011 Target
334 *ARRA:50
FY 2012 Unit Target

375 Actions
(PM 35A) Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction.
318
Additional Information: The baseline is a moving averge for the three most recent years. For the period concluding with fiscal year 2010, the baseline is 375 actions. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 2011 Target. (PM 35B) Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action. 903 983 903 *ARRA:90 945 903 *ARRA:110 950 Recommendations
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 865 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective actions. The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 2011 Target. (PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations. 120 150 120 30 120 110 Percent
Additional Information: The baseline reflects potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget from identified opportunities for savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries and settlements. The baseline is a moving average for the three most recent years. For the period concluding with fiscal year 2010, the baseline is 112%. (PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions. 80 95 75 *ARRA:3 115 80 *ARRA:8 85 Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 80 criminal, civil and administrative actions, which has remained constant over time. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 2011 Target.
992
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
The data verification and validation has been updated from 2011 to reflect changes in performance measures. The complete FY 2012 data verification and validation is available at: http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.htm
993
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents Appendix A Coordination with Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................ 996 Environmental Programs ...................................................................................................... 996 Enabling Support Programs ................................................................................................ 1030 Major Management Challenges............................................................................................. 1038 EPA User Fees ......................................................................................................................... 1063 Working Capital Fund ........................................................................................................... 1067 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 1068 STAG Categorical Program Grants...................................................................................... 1073 Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses ................................................................................ 1073 Program Projects by Program Area ..................................................................................... 1083 Expected Benefits of the Presidents E-Government Initiatives......................................... 1102 Superfund Special Accounts .................................................................................................. 1109 FY 2011 High Priority Performance Goals .......................................................................... 1111 EPA IG Comments on FY 2012 Budget ................................................................................ 1113 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act .......................................................................... 1116
994
995
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies Environmental Programs Goal 1- Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Objective: Address Climate Change Voluntary climate protection programs government-wide stimulate the development and use of renewable energy technologies and energy efficient products that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effort is led by EPA and DOE with significant involvement from USDA, HUD and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Agencies throughout the government make significant contributions to the climate protection programs. For example, DOE will pursue actions such as promoting the research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies (for example, renewable energy sources). The Treasury Department will administer proposed tax incentives for specific investments that will reduce emissions. EPA is working with DOE to demonstrate technologies that oxidize ventilation air methane from coal mines. EPA will be responding to the Presidents directive to work with NHTSA to develop a coordinated national program that will set further standards to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and later. EPA is broadening its public information transportation choices campaign as a joint effort with DOT. EPA coordinates with each of the above-mentioned agencies to ensure that our programs are complementary and in no way duplicative. This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA, DOT, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Commerce, United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to prepare the Fifth National Communication to the Secretariat as required under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The FCCC was ratified by the United States Senate in 1992. A portion of the Fifth National Communication describes policies and measures (such as ENERGY STAR) undertaken by the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation status of the policies and measures, and their actual and projected benefits. One result of this interagency review process has been a refinement of future goals for these policies and measures which were communicated to the Secretariat of the FCCC in 2010. The U.S. Climate Action Report 2010: Fifth National Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is available at:. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usa_nc5.pdf EPA works primarily with the Department of State, USAID and DOE as well as with regional organizations in implementing climate-related programs and projects. In addition, EPA partners with others worldwide, including international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Energy Agency, the OECD, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan.
996
The Agency coordinates its global change research with other federal agencies through the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).1 Objective: Improve Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperates with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies in achieving goals related to ground level ozone and particulate matter (PM). EPA continues to work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service in developing its burning policy and reviewing practices that can reduce emissions. EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) work with state and local agencies to integrate transportation and air quality plans, reduce traffic congestion, and promote livable communities. EPA continues to work with the Department of the Interior (DOI), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service in developing its regional haze program and deploying the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring network. The operation and analysis of data produced by the PM monitoring system is an example of the close coordination of efforts between the EPA, and state and tribal governments. For pollution assessments and transport, EPA is working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on technology transfer using satellite imagery. EPA will work to further distribute NASA satellite products and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) air quality forecast products to Regions, states, local agencies, and Tribes to provide a better understanding of air quality on a day-to-day basis and to assist with PM forecasting. EPA also will work with NASA to develop a better understanding of PM formation using satellite data. EPA works with the Department of the Army on advancing emission measurement technology and with NOAA for meteorological support for our modeling and monitoring efforts. EPA collects real-time ozone and PM measurements from State and local agencies, which are then sent to NOAA to both feed the Air Quality Forecast model and offer initial verification of its results. To better understand the magnitude, sources, and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works with the Department of Energy (DOE) and DOT to fund research projects. A program to characterize exhaust emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being co-funded by DOE and DOT. Other DOT mobile source projects include TRANSIMS (TRansportation ANalysis and SIMulation System) and other transportation modeling projects; DOE is funding these projects through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. EPA also works closely with DOE on refinery cost modeling analyses and the development of clean fuel programs. For mobile sources program outreach, the Agency is participating in a collaborative effort with DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to educate the public about the impacts of transportation choices on traffic congestion, air quality, and human health. This community-based public education initiative also includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In addition, EPA is working with DOE to identify opportunities in the Clean Cities program. EPA also works with other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on air emission issues, and other programs targeted to reduce air toxics from mobile
1
For more information, see <http://www. globalchange.gov/>.
997
sources are coordinated with DOT. (These partnerships can involve policy assessments and toxic emission reduction strategies in different regions of the country.) EPA also is working with the National Highway Transportation Administration and the USDA on greenhouse gas transportation rules. EPA continues to work with DOE, DOT, and other agencies as needed on the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. To develop air pollutant emission factors and emission estimation algorithms for aircraft, ground equipment, and military vehicles, EPA has partnered with the Department of Defense. This partnership will provide for the joint undertaking of air-monitoring/emission factor research and regulatory implementation. To reduce air toxics emissions that may inadvertently increase worker exposure, EPA is continuing to work closely with the Department of Labors Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to coordinate the development of EPA and OSHA standards. EPA also works closely with other health agencies such as the CDC, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on health risk characterization for both toxic and criteria air pollutants. To assess atmospheric deposition and characterize ecological effects, EPA works with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the USDA, and the U.S. Forest Service. EPA has worked extensively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Study to identify mercury accumulations in humans. EPA also has worked with DOE on the Fate of Mercury study to characterize mercury transport and traceability in Lake Superior. EPA is a partner with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the development of the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, providing air quality indicators as well as air pollution health effects expertise. To determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution, EPA will continue to work closely with the USDA through the joint USDA/EPA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF). The AAQTF is a workgroup set up by Congress to oversee agricultural air quality-related issues and to develop cost-effective ways in which the agricultural community can improve air quality. In addition, the AAQTF coordinates research on agricultural air quality issues to avoid duplication and ensure data quality and sound interpretation of data. In developing regional and international air quality programs and projects, and in working on regional agreements, EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development (USAID), and the DOE, as well as with regional organizations. EPAs international air quality management program complements EPAs programs on childrens health, Trade and the Environment, and trans-boundary air pollution. In addition, EPA partners with other organizations worldwide, including the United Nations Environment Programme, the European Union, the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the
998
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, and our air quality colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and Japan. EPA works closely, through a variety of mechanisms, with a broad range of federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, industry, non-profit organizations, and individuals, as well as other nations, to promote more effective approaches to identifying and solving indoor air quality problems. At the federal level, EPA works closely with several departments or agencies: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and coordinate programs aimed at reducing childrens exposure to known indoor triggers of asthma, including secondhand smoke; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on home health and safety issues including radon; Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to identify and mitigate the health hazards of consumer products designed for indoor use; Department of Education (DoEd) to encourage construction and operation of schools with good indoor air quality; and Department of Agriculture (USDA) to encourage USDA extension agents to conduct local projects designed to reduce risks from indoor air quality. EPA plays a leadership role on the Presidents Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, particularly with respect to asthma and school environmental health issues. As Co-chair of the Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), EPA works with the CPSC, DOE, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and OSHA to review EPA draft publications, arrange the distribution of EPA publications, and coordinate the efforts of federal agencies with those of state and local agencies concerned with indoor air issues. EPA coordinates its air quality research with other federal agencies through the Subcommittee on Air Quality Research2 of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and Sustainability (CENRS). The Agency and NIEHS co-chaired the subcommittees Particulate Matter Research Coordination Working Group, which produced a strategic plan3 for federal research on the health and environmental effects, exposures, atmospheric processes, source characterization and control of fine airborne particulate matter. The Agency also is a charter member of NARSTO,4 an international public-private partnership established in 1995 to improve management of air quality across North America. EPA coordinates specific research projects with other federal agencies where appropriate and supports air-related research at universities and nonprofit organizations through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program. EPA collaborates with DOE, USGS, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 5 to conduct research on mercury. EPA also works with other federal agencies to coordinate U.S. participation in the Arctic Mercury Project, a partnership established in 2001 by the eight
2 3
For more information, see <http://www.al.noaa.gov/AQRS/>. For more information, see <http://www.al.noaa.gov/AQRS/reports/srppm.html>. 4 For more information, see <http://www.narsto.org/>. 5 For more information, see <http://www.epri.com/>.
999
member states of the Arctic CouncilCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S. Objective: Restore the Ozone Layer EPA works very closely with the Department of State and other federal agencies in international negotiations among Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and in developing the implementing regulations. While the environmental goal of the Montreal Protocol is to protect the ozone layer, the ozone depleting substances it controls also are significant greenhouse gases. Therefore, this work also protects the Earths climate system. According to a 2007 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,6 chemical controls implemented under the Montreal Protocol will by 2010 - have delayed the onset of serious climate effects by a decade. EPA works on several multinational environmental agreements to simultaneously protect the ozone layer and climate system, including working closely with the Department of State and other Federal agencies, including OMB, OSTP, CEQ, USDA, FDA, Commerce, NOAA, and NASA. EPA works with other agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative and Department of Commerce, to analyze potential trade implications in stratospheric protection regulations that affect imports and exports. EPA leads a task force with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Treasury, and other agencies to curb the illegal importation of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Illegal import of ODS has the potential to prevent the United States from meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol to restore the ozone layer. EPA has continued discussions with DOD to assist in the effective transition from ODS and high-GWP substitutes to a suite of substitutes with lower global warming potential (GWPs). EPA works with USDA and the Department of State to facilitate research, development, and adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA collaborates with these agencies to prepare U.S. requests for critical use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is providing input to USDA on rulemakings for methyl bromide-related programs. EPA also consults with USDA on domestic methyl bromide needs. EPA coordinates closely with Department of State and FDA to ensure that sufficient supplies of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are available for the production of life-saving metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and other lung diseases. This partnership between EPA and FDA combines the critical goals of protecting public health and limiting damage to the stratospheric ozone layer. EPAs SunWise program works with the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate the UV Index, a forecast of the next days ultraviolet radiation levels, which helps people determine appropriate sun-protective behaviors. The SunWise program also collaborates with the CDC when developing new sun safety and skin cancer prevention resources, including a shade
6
Guus J. M. Velders, Stephen O. Andersen, John S. Daniel, David W. Fahey, and Mack McFarland; The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate; PNAS 2007 104:4814-4819; published online before print March 8, 2007; doi:10.1073/pnas.0610328104.
1000
planning guide, state-specific skin cancer fact sheets, and other school- and community-based resources. SunWise collaborates with state and local governments through the SunWise Communities program. SunWise is a successful environmental and health education program that teaches children and their caregivers how to protect themselves from overexposure to the sun through the use of classroom, school, and community-based components. More than 22,000 schools have received SunWise teaching materialsreaching more than one million students over the life of the program. The most recent study of the program, conducted in 20062007, found that for every dollar invested in SunWise, between approximately $2 and $4 in medical care costs and productivity losses are saved, and concluded that from a cost/benefit and costeffectiveness perspective, it is worthwhile to educate children about sun safety.7 EPA coordinates with NASA and NOAA to monitor the state of the stratospheric ozone layer and to collect and analyze UV data, including science assessments that help the public understand what the world may have looked like without the Montreal Protocol and its amendments.8 EPA works with NASA on assessing essential uses and other exemptions for critical shuttle and rocket needs, as well as effects of direct emissions of high-speed aircraft flying in the stratosphere. EPA works with DOE on GreenChill9 and Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)10 efforts. The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA cooperative alliance with the supermarket industry and other stakeholders to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases. EPA's RAD Program 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. EPA coordinates with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that proposed rules are developed in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act. Objective: Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation EPA works primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on multiple radiation protection issues. EPA has ongoing planning and guidance discussions with DHS on Protective Action Guidance and general emergency response activities, including exercises responding to nuclear related incidents. As the regulator of DOEs Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, EPA has to continually coordinate oversight activities with DOE to keep the facility operating in compliance with its regulations. EPA also works with the Department of Transportation (DOT) on initiatives to promote the use of non-nuclear density gauges for highway paving. EPA also is working with tribes to locate and clean up radioactive wastes produced from uranium mining that contaminate tribal water resources with radionuclides and heavy metals, while identifying and providing new
7
Jessica W. Kyle, James K. Hammitt, Henry W. Lim, Alan C. Geller, Luke H. Hall-Jordan, Edward W. Maibach, Edward C. De Fabo, Mark C. Wagner; Economic Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys SunWise Program: Sun Protection Education for Young Children. Pediatrics, Vol. 121 No. 5 May 2008, pp. e1074-e1084 8 The Ozone Layer: Ozone Depletion, Recovery in a Changing Climate, and the World Avoided; Findings and Summary of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4; November 2008. 9 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill 10 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad
1001
sources of clean drinking water for these at-risk communities. EPA also works with NRC and DOE on the development of state-of-the-art tracking systems for radioactive sources in U.S. commerce and the prevention of radioactive contaminated metals and products from entering the United States. For emergency preparedness purposes, EPA coordinates closely with other federal agencies through the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee and other coordinating bodies. EPA participates in planning and implementing table-top and field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the NRC, DOE, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and DHS. EPA works closely with other federal agencies when developing radiation policy guidance under its Federal Guidance authority. This authority was transferred to EPA from the Federal Radiation Council in 1970 and tasks the Administrator with making radiation protection recommendations to the President. When signed by the President, Federal Guidance recommendations are addressed to all Federal agencies and are published in the Federal Register. Risk managers at all levels of government use this information to assess health risks from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for clean-up of radioactively contaminated sites. EPAs radiation science is widely relied on and is the objective foundation for EPA, other federal agencies and states to develop radiation risk management policy, standards and guidance. EPA is a charter member and co-chairs the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS). ISCORS was created at the direction of Congress. Through quarterly meetings and the activities of its six subcommittees, member agencies are kept informed of cross-cutting issues related to radiation protection, radioactive waste management, and emergency preparedness and response. ISCORS also helps coordinate a U.S. response to radiation-related issues internationally, such as the recent proposed revision of the Basic Safety Standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Promoting international assistance, EPA serves as an expert member of the International Atomic Energy Agencys (IAEA) Environmental Modeling for Radiation Safety, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials Working Group. Additionally, EPA remains an active contributor to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). EPA serves on both the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). Through the RWMC, EPA is able to exchange information with other NEA member countries on the management and disposal of high-level and transuranic waste. Through participation on the CRPPH and its working groups, EPA has been successful in bringing a U.S. perspective to international radiation protection policy.
1002
Goal 2- Protecting Americas Waters Objective: Protect Human Health Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure Protection EPA coordinates with other federal agencies, primarily Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Defense (DoD), on biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants of high concern, and how to detect and respond to their presence in drinking water and wastewater systems. A close linkage with the FBI and the Intelligence Analysis Directorate in DHS, particularly with respect to ensuring the timely dissemination of threat information through existing communication networks, will be continued. The Agency is strengthening its working relationships with the Water Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Federation and other research institutions to increase our knowledge on technologies to detect contaminants, monitoring protocols and techniques, and treatment effectiveness. In 2012, EPA will continue to work with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to refine coordination processes among federal partners engaged in providing emergency response support to the water sector. These efforts will include refining existing standard operating procedures, participating in cross-agency training opportunities, and planning multi-stakeholder water sector emergency response exercises. A significant effort of 2012 will be determining how USACE and EPA are to clarify their roles and responsibilities under the new National Disaster Recovery Framework. Geologic Sequestration EPA coordinates with federal agencies to plan and obtain research-related data, to coordinate regulatory programs, and to coordinate implementation of regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water during geologic sequestration (GS) activities. EPA works with the Department of Energy (DOE) to plan research on monitoring, modeling, verification, public participation, and other topics related to DOE-sponsored GS partnership programs. EPA also coordinates with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Interior (DOI), and Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure that Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations for GS sites are appropriately coordinated with efforts to deploy projects, map geologic sequestration capacity, provide tax incentives for CO2 sequestration, and manage the movement of CO2 from capture facilities to GS sites. Collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) EPA and USGS have established an IA to coordinate activities and information exchange in the areas of unregulated contaminants occurrence, the environmental relationships affecting contaminant occurrence, protection area delineation methodology, and analytical methods. This collaborative effort has improved the quality of information to support risk management decision-making at all levels of government, generated valuable new data, and eliminated potential redundancies.
1003
Tribal Access Coordination In 2003, EPA and its federal partners in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and DOI set a very ambitious goal to reduce the number of homes without access to safe drinking water. This goal remains ambitious due to the logistical challenges, capital and operation, and maintenance costs involved in providing access. EPA is working with its federal partners to coordinate spending and address some of the challenges to access on tribal lands, and expects to make measureable progress on the access issue. Source Water Protection EPA is coordinating with USDA and USGS as part of a 3-organization collaborative to support state and local implementation of source water protection actions. In addition, EPA works with USGS on coordinating mapping of source water areas on a national scale with the National Hydrography Database, as well as working with the USDA and the Department of Education Data Availability, Outreach and Technical Assistance EPA coordinates with USGS, USDA (Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), Rural Utilities Service, CDC, DOT, DoD, DOE, DOI (National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Land Management, and Reclamation), HHS (Indian Health Service) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Collaboration with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) CDC is building state capacity by directly assisting state health departments to develop skills and tools to improve waterborne disease investigation and prevention. EPA is assisting CDC by providing technical input regarding drinking water issues. The two agencies also are investigating the health risks associated with contaminant problems in drinking water distribution systems. EPA and CDC regularly share expertise and information on drinking water related health effects, risk factors, and research. Collaboration with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) In 2004, EPA and FDA issued a joint consumer advisory about mercury in fish and shellfish. The advice is for women who might become pregnant; women who are pregnant; nursing mothers; and young children. The single uniform advisory covers commercially caught fish, as well as subsistence and recreationally caught fish. EPA works closely with FDA to distribute the advisory to the public. Additional information can be found on EPAs website at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/factsheet.html. Beach Monitoring and Public Notification The BEACH Act requires that all federal agencies with jurisdiction over coastal and Great Lakes recreation waters adjacent to beaches used by the public implement beach monitoring and public
1004
notification programs. These programs must be consistent with guidance published by EPA:.,National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. EPA will continue to work with the USGS and other federal agencies to ensure that their beach water quality monitoring and notification programs are technically sound and consistent with program performance criteria published by EPA. Research While EPA is the federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other federal and nonfederal entities are conducting research that complements EPAs research priority contaminants in drinking water. For example, the CDC and NIEHS conduct health effects and exposure research. FDA also performs research on childrens risks. Many of these research activities are being conducted in collaboration with EPA scientists. The private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas as analytical methods, treatment technologies, and the development and maintenance of water resources. Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research. EPA also is working with USGS to evaluate performance of newly developed methods for measuring microbes in potential drinking water sources. EPA has developed joint research initiatives with NOAA and USGS for linking monitoring data and field study information with available toxicity data and assessment models for developing sediment criteria. Objective: Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems Watersheds Protecting and restoring watersheds will depend largely on the direct involvement of many federal agencies and state, tribal and local governments who manage the multitude of programs necessary to address water quality on a watershed basis. Federal agency involvement will include USDA (NRCS, Forest Service, and Agriculture Research Service), DOI (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Office of Surface Mining, USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NOAA, DOT, and DoD (Navy and USACE). At the state level, agencies involved in watershed management typically include departments of natural resources or the environment, public health agencies, and forestry and recreation agencies. Locally, numerous agencies are involved, including regional planning entities such as councils of governments, as well as local departments of environment, health and recreation who frequently have strong interests in watershed projects. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA and the authorized states have developed expanded relationships with various federal agencies to implement pollution controls for point sources. EPA works closely with USFWS and the
1005
National Marine Fisheries Service on consultation for protection of endangered species through a Memorandum of Agreement. EPA works with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on National Historic Preservation Act implementation. EPA and the states rely on monitoring data from USGS to help confirm pollution control decisions. The Agency also works closely with the Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that regulatory programs are fair and reasonable. The Agency coordinates with NOAA on efforts to ensure that NPDES programs support coastal and national estuary efforts; and with the DOI on mining issues. Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations The Agency is working closely with USDA to implement the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO Strategy) finalized on March 9, 1999. The Strategy sets forth a framework of actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water quality and public health impacts from improperly managed animal wastes in a manner designed to preserve and enhance the long-term sustainability of livestock production. EPA's recent revisions to the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Regulations (effluent guidelines and NPDES permit regulations) will be a key element of EPA and USDA's plan to address water pollution from CAFOs. EPA and USDA senior management meet routinely to ensure effective coordination across the two agencies. Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) EPAs SRF program, HUDs Community Development Block Grant program, and USDAs Rural Development foster collaboration on jointly funded infrastructure projects through: (1) coordination of the funding cycles of the three federal agencies; (2) consolidation of plans of action (operating plans, intended use plans, strategic plans, etc.); and (3) preparation of one environmental review document, when possible, to satisfy the requirements of all participating federal agencies. A coordination group at the federal level has been formed to further these efforts and maintain lines of communication. In many states, coordination committees have been established with representatives from the three programs. In implementation of the Indian set-aside grant program under Title VI of the CWA, EPA works closely with the Indian Health Service to administer grant funds to the various Indian tribes, including determination of the priority ranking system for the various wastewater needs in Indian Country. EPA and USDA Rural Development partner to provide coordinated financial and technical assistance to tribes. Monitoring and Assessment of Nations Waters EPA works with federal, state and tribal partners to strengthen water monitoring programs to support a range of management needs and to develop tools to improve how we manage and share water data and report environmental results. EPAs Monitoring and Assessment Partnership is a forum for EPA, states, tribes and interstate organizations to collaborate on key program directions for assessing the condition of the nations waters in a nationally consistent and representative manner. EPA is co-chair, along with USGS, of the National Water Quality
1006
Monitoring Council (NWQMC), a national forum for scientific discussion of strategies and technologies to improve water quality monitoring and data sharing. The council membership includes other federal agencies, state and tribal agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. Federal Agency Partnerships on Impaired Waters Restoration Planning The Federal Government owns about 29.6 percent of the land in the United States and administers over 90% of these public lands through four agencies: Forest Service, USFWS, National Park Service and BLM. In managing these extensive public lands, federal agencies have a substantial influence on the protection and restoration of many waters of the U.S. Land management agencies focus on water issues has increased significantly, with the Forest Service, USFWS, and BLM all initiating new water quality and watershed protection efforts. EPA has been conducting joint national assessments with these agencies to enhance watershed protection and quantify restoration needs on federal lands. National assessments of USFWS and Forest Service properties have already documented the extent and type of impaired waters on these agencies lands, developed GIS databases, reported national summary statistics, and developed interactive reference products (on any scale, local to national), accessible to staff throughout the agencies. Similar joint assessments are planned with the other major federal land management agencies. These assessments have already influenced the agencies in positive ways. The Forest Service and the USFWS have performance measures that involve impaired waters, now coordinated with the same EPA baseline. The Forest Service used their national assessment data to institute improvements in a national monitoring and best management practices training program. Also, under an MOA between EPA and Forest Service, numerous aquatic restoration projects have been jointly funded and carried out. The USFWS is using their national assessment data to develop a $10M 20M out-year budget initiative concerning water conservation, quality, and quantity monitoring and management in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and also using the assessment in National Fish Hatcheries System planning. Further, EPA assessments and datasets made significant contributions to the government-wide National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) 2010 national assessment of fish habitat condition. Nonpoint Sources EPA will continue to work closely with its federal partners to achieve our goals for reducing pollutant discharges from nonpoint sources, including reduction targets for sediments, nitrogen and phosphorous. Most significantly, EPA will continue to work with the USDA, which has a key role in reducing sediment loadings through its continued implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other conservation programs. USDA also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through these same programs and through activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA also will continue to work closely with the Forest Service and BLM especially on the vast public lands that comprise 29.6 percent of all land in the United States. EPA will work with these agencies, USGS, and the states to document improvements in land management and water quality. EPA also will work with other federal agencies to advance a watershed approach to federal land and resource management to help ensure that federal land management agencies serve as a model
1007
for water quality stewardship in the prevention of water pollution and the restoration of degraded water resources. Implementation of a watershed approach will require coordination among federal agencies at a watershed scale and collaboration with states, tribes and other interested stakeholders.
Marine Pollution Prevention

EPA works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on addressing ballast water discharges domestically, and with the interagency work group and U.S. delegation to Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) on international treaties controlling discharges from vessels. EPA will continue to work closely with the USCG, Alaska and the Cruise Lines International Association regarding regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to managing wastewater discharges from cruise ships under Title XIV. Also, EPA will continue to work with the USCG in the development of best management practices and discharge standards under the Clean Boating Act. Additionally, EPA will work with the USCG as EPA considers whether to revise its vessel sewage standards. Regarding dredged material management, EPA will continue to work closely with the USACE on standards for permit review, as well as site selection/designation and monitoring. EPA also will continue to participate in site visits and the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects. EPA works closely with a number of other federal agencies to prepare reports as well as review reports to Congress from other agencies. More specifically, EPA works with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC) to implement an action plan for assessing and reducing marine debris in response to the 2008 IMDCC Report to Congress. EPA also will continue to participate on an interagency working group tasked to review and make recommendations in a report to Congress on best management practices for the storage and disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the Federal Government. EPA also participates on the Committee on Marine Transportation Systems regarding environmental issues such as dredging and ship channel configuration, as well as reducing pollutant sources during operations and cargo handling. The Agency works with the Department of State, NOAA, USCG, Navy, and other federal agencies in developing the technical basis and policy decisions with respect to international treaties concerning marine antifouling systems, invasive species, operational discharges from vessels, and disposal of waste at sea. EPA also works with federal agencies in addressing landbased sources of marine pollution in the Gulf of Mexico and wider Caribbean Basin. EPA chairs the intergovernmental Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (Gulf Hypoxia Task Force) and is responsible for overseeing implementation of the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. Also, EPA is a member of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) which coordinates the research activities among federal agencies to assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
1008
National Estuary Program The National Estuary Program (NEP) is comprised of 28 non-profit entities with multiple and diverse partners that implement a long-term comprehensive conservation management plan unique to their estuarine watershed. The plans list priority actions that NEP will take to address the estuarys priority problems. They also identify the role that partners will play to implement each priority action. Effective implementation of the management plans depends to a great extent on the long-term commitment, collaboration, and involvement of federal and state agency partners. Federal partners that are typically engaged in management plan implementation include EPAs Office of Water; NOAAs National Estuarine Research Reserves, Sea Grant, and Habitat Protection and Restoration Programs; the USFWSs Coastal Program; and the USDAs NRCS and Forest Service. Other NEP partners include state natural resource agencies; municipal government planning agencies and water utilities; regional planning agencies; universities; industry; non-governmental organizations, and community members. Under a Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and NOAA, EPA and NOAA are collaborating to enhance coastal managers capacity to adapt to climate change and to become more resilient. Collaborative efforts include designing and presenting workshops on how to develop local climate adaptation strategies; providing information to coastal managers like the National Estuary Program Directors and local planners on incorporating climate change into local decision making about ecosystem restoration; identifying climate change indicators in order to monitor and assess trends in local water quality and living resource conditions; and enhancing local land trusts capacity to integrate climate adaptation strategies into their land conservation planning. National Ocean Policy EPA will support implementation of the Executive Order that establishes the Nations first comprehensive national policy for stewardship of the ocean, U.S. coasts and the Great Lakes. The Executive Order strengthens ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. Wetlands EPA, USFWS, USACE, NOAA, USGS, USDA, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) currently coordinate on a range of wetlands activities. These activities include: studying and reporting on wetlands trends in the U.S., diagnosing causes of coastal wetland loss, updating and standardizing the digital map of the nations wetlands, statistically surveying the condition of the Nations wetlands, and developing methods for better protecting wetland function. Coastal wetlands remain a focus area of current interagency wetlands collaboration. The agencies meet monthly and are conducting a series of coastal wetlands reviews to identify causes and prospective tools and approaches to address the 59,000-acre-per-year loss USFWS and NOAA documented in a 2008 report. Additionally, EPA and the USACE work very closely together in implementing the wetlands regulatory program under CWA Section 404. Under the regulatory program, the agencies coordinate closely on overall implementation of the permitting decisions
1009
made annually under Section 404 of the CWA, through the headquarters offices as well as the ten EPA Regional Offices and 38 USACE District Offices. The agencies also coordinate closely on policy development and litigation. EPA and USACE are committed to achieving the goal of no net loss of wetlands under the CWA Section 404 program. Great Lakes EPA is leading the member federal agencies of the Interagency Task Force 11 in the implementation of a new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Following announcement of the Initiative in 2009, EPA led development of a FY 2010 FY 2014 Action Plan (Action Plan) targeting the most significant environmental problems of the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA and the other members of the Interagency Task Force enter into interagency agreements to fund activities intended to achieve the goals, objectives, and targets of the Action Plan. This effort builds upon previous coordination and collaboration by the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) pursuant to the mandate in Section 118 of the CWA to coordinate action of the Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and state and local authorities... pursuant to which GLNPO was already engaged in extensive coordination efforts with state, tribal, and other federal agencies, as well as with our counterparts in Canada pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Federal Interagency Task Force, created by EO 13340, is charged with increasing and improving collaboration and integration among federal programs involved in Great Lakes environmental activities. The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force coordinates restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on outcomes, such as cleaner water and sustainable fisheries, and targeting measurable results. Coordination by GLNPO supports the GLWQA and other efforts to improve the Great Lakes and is leading to implementation of priority actions for Great Lakes restoration by the federal agencies and their partners. Coordinative activities to implement the Initiative include: extensive coordination among state, federal, and provincial partners, both in terms of implementing the monitoring program, and in utilizing results from the monitoring to manage environmental programs; sediments program work with the states and the USACE regarding dredging issues; implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy via extensive coordination with Great Lakes states; efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes from invasive species, habitat protection and restoration with states, tribes, USFWS, and NRCS; and coordination with these partners regarding development and implementation of Lakewide Management Plans for each of the Great Lakes and for Remedial Action Plans for the 30 remaining U.S./binational Areas of Concern. Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Bay Program is a partnership of several federal agencies, states, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and other interested stakeholders. Only through the coordinated efforts of all of these entities will the preservation
11
The Interagency Task Force includes eleven agency and cabinet organizations: EPA; Department of State, DOI, USDA, Department of Commerce, HUD, DOT, DHS, Army, Council on Environmental Quality, and HHS.
1010
and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay be achieved. Recognizing this need for coordination, office directors from the federal agencies that form the Chesapeake Bay Program meet on a regular basis. This group includes representatives of: Environmental Protection Agency Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of the Interior, National Park Service Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency Department of Agriculture, Office of Environmental Markets Department of Defense, U.S. Navy Department of Defense, U.S. Army Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Other agencies as deemed appropriate EPA also is the lead agency representing the Federal Government on the Chesapeake Executive Council, which oversees the policy direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program. In addition to the EPA Administrator, the Chesapeake Executive Council consists of the governors of the Bay states, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Secretary of Agriculture. President Obamas May 2009 Executive Order (EO) on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration has brought the federal agencies interested in the Bay and its watershed to a new level of interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO established the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay, which is chaired by EPA and includes USDA, Department of Commerce, DoD, DHS, DOI, and DOT. FLC members are Secretary and Administrator level executives. FLC members are represented in more regular meetings of the Federal Leadership Committee Designees, which includes Assistant Secretary and Assistant Administrator level executives. Daily development of deliverables under the EO is conducted by the Federal Office Directors group. Working together, the FLC agencies released a coordinated implementation strategy on May 12, 2010. These agencies also are coordinating on the development of an annual action plan and annual progress report that are required by the EO. Many of the efforts resulting from the EO and described in the implementation strategy will necessitate and foster increased and improved federal coordination. Revitalized efforts to improve and account for agricultural best management practices depend upon cooperation between EPA, USDA, USGS, and others. EPA is participating on the interagency Environmental Markets Team that is assisting in the development of a market-based approach under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load. EPA, DOI, and NOAA will expand the understanding of the toxic contaminant problem in the Bay and its watershed and develop contaminant reduction outcomes and strategies. EPA, DOT, and HUD will provide technical
1011
assistance to communities that undertake development of integrated transportation, housing, and water infrastructure plans. The EO strategy includes many other examples of how federal agencies are coordinating their efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Gulf of Mexico Key to the continued progress of the Gulf of Mexico Program is a broad multi-organizational Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional; business and industry; agriculture; state and local governments; citizens; environmental and fishery interests; and, numerous federal departments and agencies. Thirteen federal agencies formed a Gulf of Mexico Regional Partnership under the leadership of EPA, NOAA, and DOI to provide support to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a partnership of the five Gulf states. This federal workgroup includes: Council on Environmental Quality National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation Army Corps of Engineers Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce, NOAA Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Interior Department of Health and Human Services Department of State Department of Transportation Through a collaborative approach and integration of federal efforts, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governors Action Plan II (2009-2014) has identified specific actions needed to improve the health of the Gulf coastal region and addressed priority issues facing the Gulf with scientific and technical experts and resource managers to leverage the resources needed to support state and community actions. Research The Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS) is coordinating the research efforts among federal agencies to assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Urban wet weather flow research is being coordinated with other organizations such as the Water Environment Research Foundations Wet Weather Advisory Panel, the ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Council, the COE, and USGS. Research on the characterization and management of pollutants from agricultural operations (e.g., CAFOs) is being coordinated with USDA through workshops and other discussions.
1012
EPA is pursuing collaborative research projects with the USGS to utilize water quality data from urban areas obtained through the USGS National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, showing levels of pesticides that are even higher than in many agricultural area streams. These data have potential uses for identifying sources of urban pesticides, and EPA will evaluate how the USGS data could be integrated into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database system. EPA also is working to collaborate with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, the Global Water Research Coalition, the National Research Council, Institute for Research in Construction, the American Society for Civil Engineers and several university research organizations including Penn State University, the University of Houston, Louisiana Tech University, and the Polytechnic University of New York, on water infrastructure research. EPA will continue work under the MOA with the USCG and the State of Massachusetts on ballast water treatment technologies and mercury continuous emission monitors. The agency also coordinates technology verifications with NOAA (multiparameter water quality probes); DOE (mercury continuous emission monitors); DoD (explosives monitors, PCB detectors, dust suppressants); USDA (ambient ammonia monitors); Alaska and Pennsylvania (arsenic removal); Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan (storm water treatment); and Colorado and New York (wasteto-energy technologies). Community Water Priorities/Urban Waters In response to early stakeholder feedback, EPA has been working with senior executives from eleven federal agencies to form an Urban Waters Federal Partnership, with support from the White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC). Agencies include: Department of Interior Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Army Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Corporation for National and Community Service This partnership seeks to help communities especially underserved communities transform overlooked urban waters into treasured centerpieces and drivers of urban revival. The partnerships will advance urban waters goals of: empowering and supporting communities in revitalizing their urban waters and the surrounding land; helping communities establish and maintain safe and equitable public access to their urban waterways; and linking urban water restoration to other community priorities such as employment, education, economic revitalization, housing, transportation, health, safety and quality of life. To meet these goals, the
1013
partnership will leverage member agencies authorities, resources, expertise and local support. This federal partnership will advance an action agenda including the selection of Urban Waters Federal Partnership Pilots for place-based projects, the identification of policy actions needed to integrate federal support to communities and to remove barriers to local and community action, and other actions such as sharing information and providing information on urban waters to communities in the nation. Goal 3-Cleaning Up Our Communities Objective: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities Brownfields EPA continues to lead the Brownfields Federal Partnership. The Partnership includes more than 20 federal agencies dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties. Partner agencies work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and redevelop brownfields. The Brownfields Federal Partnership's on-going efforts include promoting the Portfields and Mine-Scarred Lands projects and looking for additional opportunities to jointly promote community revitalization by participating in multi-agency collaborative projects, holding regular meetings with federal partners, and supporting regional efforts to coordinate federal revitalization support to state and local agencies. Sustainable Communities EPA will continue to work through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities with HUD and DOT to help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide. This partnership is coordinating federal housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments to protect the environment, promote equitable development, and help address the challenges of climate change. In addition, EPA will also continue work with FEMA to ensure long-term sustainability considerations are included in post-disaster planning efforts, and work with NOAA on encouraging sustainable development practice in coastal-communities. EPA cosponsors the Governors Institute on Community Design with the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This program works with governors and their cabinets on challenging issues related to improving environmental and public health outcomes of growth and development. Environmental Justice EPA will continue its work in partnership with other federal agencies to address the environmental and public health issues facing communities with environmental justice concerns. In 2012, the Agency will continue its efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with all levels of government, and throughout the public and private sectors. The issues range from lead exposure, asthma, safe drinking water and sanitation systems to hazardous waste clean-up, renewable energy/wind power development, and sustainable environmentally-sound economies. EPA and its federal partners are utilizing EPA's collaborative problem-solving model, based on the experiences of federal collaborative partnerships, to improve the federal government's
1014
effectiveness in addressing the environmental and public health concerns facing communities. As the lead agency for environmental justice pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA shares its knowledge and experience and offers assistance to other federal agencies as they enhance their strategies to integrate environmental justice into their programs, policies and activities. U.S.-Mexico Border The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, in November 1993, to assist communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. To this purpose, the governments established two international institutions, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), to support the financing and construction of much needed environmental infrastructure. The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local communities and other sponsors in developing and implementing environmental infrastructure projects. The BECC also certifies projects as eligible for NADBank financing. The NADBank, with headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is capitalized in equal shares by the United States and Mexico. NADBank provides new financing to supplement existing sources of funds and foster the expanded participation of private capital. A significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services such as potable water and wastewater treatment and the problem has become progressively worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission and Mexicos national water commission, Comisin Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), to further efforts to improve drinking water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km on the U.S. and 300 km on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program represents a successful joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments in working with the 10 Border States and local communities to improve the regions environmental health, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission and Mexicos national water commission, Comisin Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), to further efforts to improve drinking water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km on the U.S. and 300 km on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border. Research Research in ecosystems protection is coordinated government-wide through the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS). EPA actively participates in the CENRS and all work is fully consistent with, and complementary to, other Committee member activities. EPA scientists staff two CENRS Subcommittees: the Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (SES) and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ). EPA has
1015
initiated discussions within the SES on the subject of ecosystem services, and potential ERP collaborations are being explored with the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and with USDA Forest Service. Within SWAQ, the ERP has contributed to an initiative for a comprehensive census of water availability and quality, including the use of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program methods and ongoing surveys as data sources. In addition, EPA has taken a lead role with USGS in preparing a SWAQ document outlining new challenges for integrated management of water resources, including strategic needs for monitoring and modeling methods, and identifying water requirements needed to support the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Consistent with the broad scope of the EPAs ecosystem research efforts, EPA has had complementary and joint programs with FS, USGS, USDA, NOAA, BLM, USFS, NGOs, and many others specifically to minimize duplication, maximize scope, and maintain a real time information flow. For example, all of these organizations work together to produce the National Land Cover Data used by all landscape ecologists nationally. Each contributes funding, services and research to this uniquely successful effort. EPA expends substantial effort coordinating its research with other federal agencies, including work with DoD in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, DOE and its Office of Health and Environmental Research. EPA also conducts collaborative laboratory research with DoD, DOE, DOI (particularly the USGS), and NASA to improve characterization and risk management options for dealing with subsurface contamination. The Agency also is working with NIEHS, which manages a large basic research program focusing on Superfund issues, to advance fundamental Superfund research. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also provides critical health-based information to assist EPA in making effective cleanup decisions. EPA works with these agencies on collaborative projects, information exchange, and identification of research issues and has a MOU with each agency. EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Navy recently signed a MOU to increase collaboration and coordination in contaminated sediments research. Additionally, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has proved an effective forum for coordinating federal and state activities and for defining continuing research needs through its teams on topics including permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and Brownfields. EPA has developed an MOU12 with several other agencies [DOE, DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA, and USDA] for multimedia modeling research and development. Other research efforts involving coordination include the unique controlled-spill field research facility designed in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. Geophysical research experiments and development of software for subsurface characterization and detection of contaminants are being conducted with the USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
12
For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU, http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
1016
The Agency coordinates its research fellowship programs with other federal agencies and the nonprofit sector through the National Academies Fellowships Roundtable, which meets biannually.13 EPA is coordinating with DoDs Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) in an ongoing partnership, especially in the areas of sustainability research and of incorporating materials lifecycle analysis into the manufacturing process for weapons and military equipment. EPA's People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design competition for sustainability will partner with NASA, NSF, OFEE, USAID, USDA, CEQ, and OSTP. Several Federal agencies sponsor research on variability and susceptibility in risks from exposure to environmental contaminants. EPA collaborates with a number of the Institutes within the NIH and CDC. For example, NIEHS conducts multi-disciplinary biomedical research programs, prevention and intervention efforts, and communication strategies. The NIEHS program includes an effort to study the effects of chemicals, including pesticides and other toxics, on children. EPA collaborates with NIEHS in supporting the Centers for Childrens Environmental Health and Disease Prevention, which study whether and how environmental factors play a role in childrens health and with the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development on the development and implementation of the National Childrens Study. Objective: Preserve Land Pollution prevention activities entail coordination with other federal departments and agencies. EPA coordinates with the General Services Administration (GSA) on the use of safer products for indoor painting and cleaning, with the Department of Defense (DoD) on the use of safer paving materials for parking lots, and with the Defense Logistics Agency on safer solvents. The program also works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other groups to develop standards for Environmental Management Systems. In addition to business, industry, and other non-governmental organizations, EPA works with federal, state, tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation and safe recycling of wastes. Partners in this effort include the Environmental Council of States and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. The Federal Government is the single largest potential source for green procurement in the country, for office products as well as products for industrial use. EPA works with the Office of Federal Environmental Executive and other federal agencies and departments in advancing the purchase and use of recycled-content and other green products. In particular, the Agency is currently engaged with other organizations within the Executive Branch to foster compliance with Executive Order 13423, and in tracking and reporting purchases of products made with recycled contents, in promoting electronic stewardship and achieving waste reduction and recycling goals. In addition, the Agency is currently engaged with the DoD, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Postal Service, and other agencies to foster proper
13
For more information, see <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/fellowships/roundtable.html>.
1017
management of surplus electronics equipment, with a preference for reuse and recycling. With these agencies, and in cooperation with the electronics industry, EPA and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive launched the Federal Electronics Challenge which will lead to increased reuse and recycling of an array of computers and other electronics hardware used by civilian and military agencies. Objective: Restore Land Superfund Remedial Program The Superfund Remedial program coordinates with several other federal agencies, such as ATSDR and NIEHS, in providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish the programs mission. In FY 2012, EPA will have active interagency agreements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also substantially contributes to the cleanup of Superfund sites by providing technical support for the design and construction of many fund-financed remediation projects through site-specific interagency agreements. This federal partner has the technical design and construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA regions in implementing most of Superfunds remedial action projects. This agency also provides technical on-site support to Regions in the enforcement oversight of numerous construction projects performed by private Potentially Responsible Parties. Superfund Federal Facilities Program The Superfund Federal Facilities Program coordinates with federal agencies, States, Tribes, state associations, and others to implement its statutory responsibilities to ensure cleanup and property reuse. The Program provides technical and regulatory oversight at federal facilities to ensure human health and the environment are protected. EPA has entered into Interagency Agreements (IAGs) with DOD, DOE, and other federal agencies to expedite the cleanup and transfer of federal properties. A Memorandum of Understanding has been negotiated with DOD to continue the Agencys oversight support through September 30, 2011 for the acceleration of cleanup and property transfer at specific Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations affected by the first four rounds of BRAC. In addition, EPA is currently in negotiations with DOD to extend BRAC oversight support through FY 2016. EPA has signed IAs with the DOE to expedite the cleanup and to support DOE's efforts of reducing the footprint at the Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, Hanford, and the Idaho National Laboratory sites using DOE's ARRA funding. EPA also has signed an IA with DOE to provide funding for EPA Region 9 to conduct a radiological study to determine the radiological contamination in soil and groundwater at the Santa Susana site. EPA will continue to provide technical input regarding innovative and flexible regulatory approaches, streamlining of documentation, integration of projects, deletion of sites from the National Priorities List, field assessments, and development of management documents and processes.
1018
Superfund Financial Responsibility Regulations EPA currently is developing new regulations that, for the first time, will require facilities in the hardrock mining and mineral processing, chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and electric power generation industry to provide appropriate financial responsibility demonstrations for damage to human health and the environment that may be the result of those manufacturing activities. This effort will require close coordination with the DOI (BLM) and USDA (Forest Service) related to mining/mineral processing activities on federal lands, and DoD and DOE regarding the other industrial facilities that will be potentially impacted. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The RCRA Permitting and Corrective Action Programs coordinate closely with other Federal agencies, primarily the DoD and DOE, which have many sites in the corrective action and permitting universe. Encouraging federal facilities to meet the RCRA Corrective Action and permitting programs goals remains a top priority. RCRA Programs also coordinate with the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of State to ensure the safe movement of domestic and international shipments of hazardous waste. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund in addition to other resources to administer their corrective action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup. States are key to achieving the objectives and long-term strategic goals. Except in Indian Country where EPA directly funds oversight and clean-up activities, EPA relies on state agencies to implement the LUST Program, including overseeing cleanups by responsible parties and responding to emergency LUST releases. LUST cooperative agreements awarded by EPA are directly given to the states to assist them in implementing their oversight and programmatic role. Emergency Preparedness and Response EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. EPA implements the Emergency Preparedness program in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies to deliver federal assistance to state, local, and tribal governments during natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. This requires continuous coordination with many federal, state and local agencies. The Agency participates with other federal agencies to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level. The National Response Plan (NRP), under the direction of the DHS, provides for the delivery of federal assistance to states to help them deal with the consequences of terrorist events as well as
1019
natural and other significant disasters. EPA maintains the lead responsibility for the NRPs Emergency Support Function covering inland hazardous materials and petroleum releases and participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function Leaders Group which addresses NRP planning and implementation at the operational level. EPA coordinates its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other Federal agencies, states and local governments. EPA will continue to clarify its roles and responsibilities to ensure that Agency security programs are consistent with the national homeland security strategy. Superfund Enforcement (see Goal 5)
Oil Spills Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works with other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, DOI, DOT, DOE, and other federal agencies and states, as well as with local government authorities to develop Area Contingency Plans. The Department of Justice also provides assistance to agencies with judicial referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. EPA will have an active interagency agreement with the USCG. EPA and the USCG work in coordination with other federal authorities to implement the National Preparedness for Response Program. Objective: Strengthen Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country EPA works under two important tribal infrastructure Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) amongst five federal agencies. EPA, the Department of the Interior, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development work as partners to improve infrastructure on tribal lands and currently focus efforts on providing access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities to tribes. The first, or umbrella MOU, promotes coordination between federal tribal infrastructure programs, including financial services, while allowing federal programs to retain their unique advantages. It is fully expected that the efficiencies and partnerships resulting from this collaboration will directly assist tribes with their infrastructure needs. Under the umbrella MOU, for the first time, five federal departments joined together and agreed to work across traditional program boundaries on tribal infrastructure issues. The second MOU, addressing a specific infrastructure issue, was created under the umbrella authority and addresses the issue of access to safe drinking water and wastewater facilities on tribal lands. Currently, the five federal agencies are working together to develop solutions for specific geographic areas of concern (Alaska, Southwest), engaging in coordination of ARRA funding, and promoting cross-agency efficiency. These activities are completed in coordination with federally recognized tribes. For more information, please see the web link: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
1020
Additionally, EPA is continuing to work closely with other federal agencies as well as the Domestic Policy Council to implement President Obamas directive regarding the tribal consultation process. The Presidents November 5th, 2009 Memorandum directs each executive department to develop a detailed plan to implement Executive Order (EO) 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments, issued by President Clinton in 2000. Under EO 13175, all departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. On June 9, 2010, EPA released the Proposed EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. EPA welcomes and continues to respond to comments from tribes on the proposed policy and plans to release a final policy after publication and comment. Goal 4 Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Objective: Chemical and Pesticide Risks Coordination with state lead agencies and with the USDA provides added impetus to the implementation of the Certification and Training program. States also provide essential activities in developing and implementing the Endangered Species and Worker Protection programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations, including emergency response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance and assistance to the states and tribes in the implementation of all pesticide program activities. EPA uses a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users, agencies implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public. Outreach and coordination activities are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions. In addition, coordination activities protect workers and endangered species, provide training for pesticide applicators, promote integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and support for compliance through EPAs Regional programs and those of the states and tribes. In addition to the training that EPA provides to farm workers and restricted use pesticide applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing specialized training for various groups. Such training includes instructing private applicators on the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment calibration, handling spill and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and pesticide and container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public works employees on grounds maintenance, to pesticide control operators on proper insect identification, and on weed control for agribusiness. EPA coordinates with and uses information from a variety of federal, state and international organizations and agencies in our efforts to protect the safety of Americas health and environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the USDA implemented the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to collect objective and statistically reliable data on pesticide residues on food commodities. This action was in response to public concern about the effects of
1021
pesticides on human health and environmental quality. EPA uses PDP data to improve dietary risk assessment to support the registration of pesticides for minor crop uses. PDP is critical to implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The system provides improved data collection of pesticide residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods, and sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children. PDP sampling, residue, testing and data reporting are coordinated by the Agricultural Marketing Service using cooperative agreements with ten participating states representing all regions of the country. PDP serves as a showcase for federal-state cooperation on pesticide and food safety issues. FQPA requires EPA to consult with other government agencies on major decisions. EPA, USDA and FDA work closely together using both a MOU and working committees to deal with a variety of issues that affect the involved agencies missions. For example, agencies work together on residue testing programs and on enforcement actions that involve pesticide residues on food, and agencies coordinate review of antimicrobial pesticides. The Agency coordinates with USDA/ARS in promotion and communication of resistance management strategies. Additionally, EPA actively participates in the Federal Interagency Committee on Invasive Animals and Pathogens (ITAP) which includes members from USDA, DOL, DoD, DHS and CDC to coordinate planning and technical advice among federal entities involved in invasive species research, control and management. While EPA is responsible for making registration and tolerance decisions, the Agency relies on others to carry out some of the enforcement activities. Registration-related requirements under FIFRA are enforced by the states. The HSS/FDA enforces tolerances for most foods and the USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service enforces tolerances for meat, poultry and some egg products. EPAs objective is to promote improved health and environmental protection. The success of this objective is dependent on successful coordination not only with other countries, but also with various international organizations such as the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), OECD, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the CODEX Alimentarius Commission. NAFTA and cooperation with Canada and Mexico play an integral part in the harmonization of data requirements. EPA collaborates with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and NAFTA Commission. These activities serve to coordinate policies, harmonize guidelines, share information, correct deficiencies, build other nations capacity to reduce risk, develop strategies to deal with potentially harmful pesticides and develop greater confidence in the safety of the food supply. The nexus of environmental protection and international trade is a priority for EPA engagement. EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities sustain environmental protection since the 1972 Trade Act mandated inter-agency consultation by the U.S. Trade Representative
1022
(USTR) on trade policy issues. EPA is a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG), interagency mechanisms that are organized and coordinated by USTR to provide advice, guidance and clearance to the USTR in the development of U.S. international trade and investment policy. To effectively participate in the international agreements on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, EPA must continue to coordinate with other federal agencies and external stakeholders, such as Congressional staff, industry, and environmental groups. Similarly, the Agency typically coordinates with FDAs National Toxicology Program, the CDC/ATSDR, NIEHS and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on matters relating to OECD test guideline harmonization. EPA also works closely with the Department of State in leading the technical and policy engagement for the United States Government at international negotiations on global mercury. EPA provided the impetus for UNEPs Global Mercury Program, and the agency continues to work with developing countries and with other developed countries in the context of that program. In addition to the Department of State, EPA collaborates closely with several federal agencies including DOE and USGS; and has developed a strong network of domestic private sector and non-governmental partners interested in working on this issue. Building on EPAs coordination and planning with UNEP, the Agency is working closely with all federal partners in preparation for Rio 2010, which is a follow up to the Earth Summit that took place in Rio de Janerio in 1992. EPA is a leader in global discussions on mercury and was instrumental in the launch of UNEPs Global Mercury Program, and the agency will continue to work with developing countries and with other developed countries in the context of that program. In addition, we have developed a strong network of domestic partners interested in working on this issue, including the DOE and the USGS. One of the Agencys most valuable partners on pesticide issues is the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), which brings together a broad cross-section of knowledgeable individuals from organizations representing divergent views to discuss pesticide regulatory, policy and implementation issues. The PPDC consists of members from industry/trade associations, pesticide user and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest groups and others. The PPDC provides a structured environment for meaningful information exchanges and consensus building discussions, keeping the public involved in decisions that affect them. Dialogue with outside groups is essential if the Agency is to remain responsive to the needs of the affected public, growers, and industry organizations. EPA relies on data from HHS to help assess the risk of pesticides to children. Other collaborative efforts that go beyond our reliance on the data they collect include developing and validating methods to analyze domestic and imported food samples for organophosphates, carcinogens, neurotoxins and other chemicals of concern. These joint efforts protect Americans from unhealthful pesticide residue levels.
1023
EPAs chemical testing data provides information for the OSHA worker protection programs, NIOSH for research, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for informing consumers about products through labeling. EPA frequently consults with these Agencies on project design, progress and the results of chemical testing projects. The success of EPAs lead program is due in part to effective coordination with other federal agencies, states and Indian Tribes through the Presidents Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to clarify how new rules may affect existing EPA and HUD regulatory programs, and with the FHWA and OSHA on worker protection issues. EPA will continue to work closely with state and federally recognized Tribes to ensure that authorized state and tribal programs continue to comply with requirements established under TSCA, that the ongoing federal accreditation certification and training program for lead professionals is administered effectively, and states and tribes adopt the Renovation and Remodeling and the Buildings and Structures Rules when these rules become effective. EPA has a MOU with HUD on coordination of efforts on lead-based paint issues. As a result of the MOU, EPA and HUD have co-chaired the Presidents Task Force since 1997. There are fourteen other federal agencies including CDC and DoD on the Task Force. HUD and EPA also maintain the National Lead Information Center and share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule. Mitigation of existing risk is a common interest for other federal agencies addressing issues of asbestos and PCBs. EPA will continue to coordinate interagency strategies for assessing and managing potential risks from asbestos and other fibers. Mercury storage and safe disposal also are important issues requiring coordination with the Department of Energy and DoD as they develop alternatives and explore better technologies for storing and disposing high risk chemicals. Research Through EPAs ToxCastTM research efforts, a multi-component effort launched in FY 2007, the Agency is obtaining high-throughput screening data on 320 chemicals of known toxicological profiles. More than 400 endpoints are being generated on each chemical through multiple research contracts and an Interagency Agreement with the National Institutes of Health Molecular Libraries Initiative at the National Chemical Genomics Center. EPA coordinates its nanotechnology research with other federal agencies through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),14 which is managed under the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) of the NSTC Committee on Technology (CoT). The Agencys Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which awards research grants to universities and non-profit organizations, has issued its recent nanotechnology grants15 jointly with NIOSH, NIEHS, and NSF.
14 15
For more information, see <http://www.nano.gov>. For an example, see <http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2005/2005_star_nano.html>.
1024
EPA coordinates its research on endocrine disruptors with other federal agencies through the interagency working group on endocrine disruptors under the auspices of the Toxics and Risk Subcommittee of the CENR. EPA coordinates its biotechnology research through the interagency biotechnology research working group and the agricultural biotechnology risk analysis working group of the Biotechnology Subcommittee of NSTCs Committee on Science. EPA coordinates with ATSDR through a memo of understanding on the development of toxicological reviews and toxicology profiles, respectively. EPA also is coordinating improvements to the IRIS process through an ad hoc working group of federal partners (e.g., DOD, DOE, and NASA). The Agency collaborates with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on very difficult and complex human health risk assessments through consultation or review. Homeland Security research is conducted in collaboration with numerous agencies, leveraging funding across multiple programs and producing synergistic results. EPA's National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) works closely with the DHS to assure that EPA's efforts are directly supportive of DHS priorities. EPA also is working with DHS to provide support and guidance to DHS in the startup of their University Centers of Excellence program. Recognizing that the DoD has significant expertise and facilities related to biological and chemical warfare agents, EPA works closely with the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), the Technical Support Working Group, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other Department of Defense organizations to address areas of mutual interest and concern. In conducting biological agent research, EPA also is collaborating with CDC. EPA works with DOE to access and support research conducted by DOEs National Laboratories, as well as to obtain data related to radioactive materials. In addition to these major collaborations, the NHSRC has relationships with numerous other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, FDA, USGS and NIST. Also, the NHSRC is working with state and local emergency response personnel to understand better their needs and build relationships, which will enable the quick deployment of NHSRC products. In the water infrastructure arena, the NHSRC is providing information to the Water Information Sharing Networks program. The NAS has also been engaged to provide advice on the long-term direction of the water research and technical support program. Objective: Promote Pollution Prevention EPA is involved in a broad range of pollution prevention (P2) activities which can yield reductions in waste generation and energy consumption in the public and private sectors. For example, the Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation (EPP) initiative, which implements Executive Orders 12873 and 13101, promotes the use of cleaner products by federal agencies. This is aimed at stimulating demand for the development of such products by industry. This effort includes a number of demonstration projects with other federal Departments and agencies, such as the National Park Service (NPS) (to use Green Purchasing as a tool to achieve the sustainability goals of the parks), the Department of Defense (DoD) (use of environmentally
1025
preferable construction materials), and Defense Logistics Agency (identification of environmental attributes for products in its purchasing system). The program also is working within EPA to green its own operations. The program also works with the Department of Commerces National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) to develop a life-cycle based decision support tool for purchasers. Under the Suppliers Partnership for the Environment program and its umbrella program, the Green Suppliers Network (GSN), EPAs P2 Program is working closely with NIST and its Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to provide technical assistance to the process of greening industry supply chains. The EPA also is working with the Department of Energys (DOE) Industrial Technologies Program to provide energy audits and technical assistance to these supply chains. The Agency is required to review environmental impact statements and other major actions impacting the environment and public health proposed by all federal agencies, and make recommendations to the proposing federal agency on how to remedy/mitigate those impacts. Although EPA is required under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on proposed federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor Section 309 CAA require a federal agency to modify its proposal to accommodate EPAs concerns. EPA does have authority under these statutes to refer major disagreements with other federal agencies to the Council on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, many of the beneficial environmental changes or mitigation that EPA recommends must be negotiated with the other federal agency. The majority of the actions EPA reviews are proposed by the Forest Service, Department of Transportation (including the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation Administration), USACE, DOI (including Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service and National Parks Service), Department of Energy (including the Federal Regulatory Commission), and the Department of Defense. Goal 5- Enforcing Environmental Laws Objective: Address pollution problems through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws. The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on all civil and criminal environmental enforcement matters. In addition, the program coordinates with other agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein. The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program coordinates with the Chemical Safety and Accident Investigation Board, OSHA, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases and endangerment situations, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on tribal issues relative to compliance with environmental laws on tribal Lands, and with the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The program also shares information with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on cases which require defendants to pay civil penalties, thereby assisting the IRS in assuring compliance with tax laws. In addition, it collaborates with the SBA to maintain current environmental compliance information at
1026
Business.gov, a website initiated as an e-government initiative in 2004 to help small businesses comply with government regulations. The program also works with a variety of federal agencies including the Department of Labor (DOL) and the IRS to organize a Federal Compliance Assistance Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance issues. Coordination also occurs with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on wetlands issues. The United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) has a major role in determining whether areas on agricultural lands meet the definition of wetlands for purposes of the Food Security Act. Civil Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS on these issues also. EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program also coordinates with USDA on regulation of animal feeding operations and on food safety issues arising from the misuse of pesticides, and shares joint jurisdiction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on pesticide labeling and advertising. Coordination also occurs with Customs and Border Protection on implementing the secure International Trade Data System across all federal agencies, and on pesticide imports. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share jurisdiction over general-purpose disinfectants used on non-critical surfaces and some dental and medical equipment surfaces (e.g., wheelchairs). The Agency has entered into a MOU with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning enforcement of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) lead-based paint notification requirements. The Criminal Enforcement Program coordinates with other federal law enforcement agencies (i.e., Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Customs, DOL, U.S. Treasury, United States Coast Guard (USCG), Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ) and with international, state and local law enforcement organizations in the investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes. EPA also actively works with DOJ to establish task forces that bring together federal, state and local law enforcement organizations to address environmental crimes. In addition, the program has an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide specialized criminal environmental training to federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA. Under Executive Order 12088, EPA is directed to provide technical assistance to other federal agencies to help ensure their compliance with all environmental laws. The Federal Facility Enforcement Program coordinates with other federal agencies, states, local, and tribal governments to ensure compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws. In FY 2012, EPA also will continue its efforts to support the FedCenter, the Federal Facilities Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov), which is now governed by a board of more than a dozen contributing federal agencies. The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program collaborates with the states and tribes. States perform the vast majority of inspections, direct compliance assistance, and enforcement actions. Most EPA statutes envision a partnership between EPA and the states under which EPA develops national standards and policies and the states implement the program under authority delegated by EPA. If a state does not seek approval of a program, EPA must implement that program in the state. Historically, the level of state approvals has increased as programs mature and state capacity expands, with many of the key environmental programs approaching approval
1027
in nearly all states. EPA will increase its effort to coordinate with states on training, compliance assistance, capacity building and enforcement. EPA will continue to enhance the network of state and tribal compliance assistance providers. The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program chairs the Interagency Environmental Leadership Workgroup established by Executive Order 13148. The Workgroup consists of over 100 representatives from most federal departments and agencies. Its mission is to assist all federal agencies with meeting the mandates of the Executive Order, including implementation of environmental management systems and environmental compliance auditing programs, reducing both releases and uses of toxic chemicals, and compliance with pollution prevention and pollution reporting requirements. In FY 2012, the program also will work with its Regions, states and directly with a number of other federal agencies to improve Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and other statutory compliance at federal facilities, which array the full range of Agency tools to promote compliance in an effective, efficient manner. EPA works directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the Trilateral Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). EPAs border activities require close coordination with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the DOJ, and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. EPA is the lead agency and coordinates U.S. participation in the CEC. EPA works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey on CEC projects to promote biodiversity cooperation, and with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reduce potential trade and environmental impacts such as invasive species. Superfund Enforcement As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Executive Order 12580, the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program coordinates with other federal agencies in their use of CERCLA enforcement authority. This includes the coordinated use of CERCLA enforcement authority at individual hazardous waste sites that are located on both nonfederal land (EPA jurisdiction) and federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As required by E.O. 13016, the Agency also coordinates the use of CERCLA Section 106 administrative order authority by other Departments and agencies. EPA also coordinates with the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce to ensure that appropriate and timely notices required under CERCLA are sent to the Natural Resource Trustees. The Department of Justice also provides assistance to EPA with judicial referrals seeking recovery of response costs incurred by the U.S., injunctive relief to implement response actions, or enforcement of other CERCLA requirements. Under EO 12580, the Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program assists Federal agencies in complying with CERCLA. It ensures that 1) all federal facility sites on the National Priority List have interagency agreements, also known as Federal Facility Agreements or FFAs, which provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these FFAs are monitored for compliance; 3) federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an environmentally responsible manner and 4) assists Federal facilities in complying with their
1028
cleanup responsibilities. It is this programs responsibility to ensure that federal agencies, by law, comply with Superfund cleanup obligations in the same manner and to the same extent as private entities. After years of service and operation, some federal facilities contain environmental contamination, such as hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance, radioactive wastes or other toxic substances. To enable the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement program coordinates creative solutions that protect both human health and the environment. These enforcement solutions help restore facilities so they can once again serve an important role in the economy and welfare of local communities and the country.
1029
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES Enabling Support Programs Office of the Administrator (OA) The Office of the Administrator (OA) supports the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) programs and activities to protect human health and safeguard the air, water, and land upon which life depends. Several program responsibilities include policy, homeland security - including intelligence coordination - Congressional and intergovernmental relations, the Science Advisory Board, childrens health, the small business program, and regulatory innovation. EPA interacts with a number of federal agencies during its rulemaking activities. Per Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review, EPA submits significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review prior to signature and publication in the Federal Register. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), EPA submits rules to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States (head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office). EPA publishes its regulatory actions and other information through the Office of Federal Register. For regulations that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA collaborates with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and OMB. EPA collaborates with other federal agencies in the collection of economic data used in the conduct of economic benefit-cost analyses of environmental regulations and policies. The Agency collaborates with the Department of Commerces (DOC) Bureau of the Census on the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditure (PACE) survey in order to obtain information on pollution abatement expenditures by industry. In our effort to measure the beneficial outcomes of Agency programs, EPA co-sponsors with several other agencies the U.S. Forest Services National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which measures national recreation participation and recreation trends. EPA also collaborates with other natural resource agencies (e.g., United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior (DOI), and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) to foster improved interdisciplinary research and reporting of economic information by collaboratively supporting workshops and symposiums on environmental economics topics (e.g., economic valuation of ecosystem services, adoption of market mechanisms to achieve environmental goals) and measuring health and welfare benefits (e.g., represent EPA issues in cross-agency group charged with informing USDA efforts to establish markets for ecosystem services). EPA, working with USDA and DOE continues to evaluate and improve climate change integrated assessment models and is actively pursuing new research to support the development of measures of the social damages attributable to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. This information is used to generate estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC), which enables federal agencies to better incorporate climate impacts assessment and estimates of associated economic damages into policy and regulatory analyses.
1030
EPA also works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to help the MEP Centers deliver assistance on environmental and energy matters as part of their services to small and medium sized business. Under the Suppliers Partnership for the Environment program and its umbrella program, the Green Suppliers Network (GSN), EPA provides technical assistance to the process of greening industry supply chains. The EPA is also working with DOEs Industrial Technologies Program to provide energy audits and technical assistance to these supply chains. EPAs toolkits on the integration of environmental and energy considerations into lean manufacturing techniques are widely used by MEP centers, and EPA is assisting centers in developing their own sustainable manufacturing tools and curriculum. EPA also participates in interagency activities organized by the Commerce Departments Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative. The Lean Manufacturing toolkits are also used by the Department of Defense in training. The EPA, through the Aging Initiative, is a member of the Federal Interagency Forum on AgingRelated Statistics. The Forum published the 2010 report Older Americans 2010 Key Indicators of Well-Being and included an environmental indicator on air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The mission of the Forum is to encourage cooperation among the federal agencies to improve the quality and utility of the data on the aging population. Through the Aging Initiative, EPA is also a member of the Task Force on Older American Indians. The purpose of the Forum is to assist tribes funded under Title VI of the Older Americans Act. The Aging Initiative collaborates with other federal agencies to protect older adults from environmental hazards and provide opportunities for older adults to participate as environmental stewards in their communities. The Aging Initiative collaborates with federal agencies to promote sustainable communities and advocate for changes to the built environment to promote health and the well-being of elders in their communities. The Office of Childrens Health Protection (OCHP) provides leadership for cross-Agency efforts to protect children from exposure to toxins, pollution and other environmental health threats in their homes, their schools, and their communities. Children are at greater risk of harm from exposure to environmental toxins than adults because of their unique physiology and behavior patterns. The OCHP ensures that childrens unique vulnerabilities are carefully considered in agency policy and regulatory development, and that childrens environmental health is central in our outreach and public education activities. OCHP works with other federal departments and agencies to coordinate diverse program and research efforts to help ensure that childrens environmental health is protected where they live, learn, work and play. EPAs Office of Homeland Security (OHS) works closely with many other federal departments and agencies to meet the goals of presidential homeland security directives and plans. These efforts include working through the Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs) and other avenues to ensure that EPAs efforts are integrated into, and can build upon, the efforts of other federal agencies. OHS also coordinates the development of responses to inquiries from the White House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Congress, and others with oversight responsibilities for homeland security efforts. EPAs ability to effectively implement its broad range of homeland security responsibilities is significantly enhanced through coordination with other federal agencies. OHS also has a strong partnership with various elements of the
1031
Intelligence Community and collaborates with them on a weekly, if not daily basis, to ensure that interagency intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are met. This is achieved through coordination with the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, and the White House National and Homeland Security Councils. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) primarily provides the Administrator with independent peer reviews and advice on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to inform the Agencys environmental decision-making. Often, the Agency program office seeking the SABs review and advice has identified the federal agencies interested in the scientific topic at issue. The SAB coordinates with those federal agencies by providing notice of its activities through the Federal Register, and as appropriate, inviting federal agency experts to participate in the peer review or advisory activity. The SAB, from time to time, also convenes science workshops on emerging issues, and invites federal agency participation through the greater federal scientific and research community. EPA's Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) works with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and other federal agencies to increase the participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in EPA's procurements. OSBP works with the SBA to develop EPA's goals for contracting with small and disadvantaged businesses; address bonding issues that pose a roadblock for small businesses in specific industries, such as environmental clean-up and construction; and address data-collection issues that are of concern to Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) throughout the federal government. EPA's OSBP works closely with the Center for Veterans Enterprise and EPA's Regional and program offices to increase the amount of EPA procurement dollars awarded to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB). OSBP, through its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Program, also works with the Department of Education and the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) to increase the institutional capacity of HBCUs, and to create opportunities for them to work with federal agencies, especially in the area of scientific research and development. OSBP coordinates with the Minority Business Development Agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (DoD), and many other federal agencies to provide outreach to small disadvantaged businesses and Minority-Serving Institutions throughout the United States and the trust territories. OSBPs Director is an active participant in the Federal OSDBU Directors Council (www.osdbu.gov). The OSDBU Directors Council collaborates to support major outreach efforts to small and disadvantaged businesses, SDVOSB, and minority academic institutions via conferences, business fairs, and speaking engagements. The OSBPs Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman partners with SBA and other federal agencies to ensure small business concerns are considered in regulatory development and compliance efforts, and to provide networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses across the country. The Environmental Education program which is housed within the Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education (OEAEE) (formerly the Office of Environmental Education and Office of Public Affairs, respectively) provides leadership and support across EPA, the federal
1032
government, and the nation to promote environmental literacy. OEAEE participates in numerous federal interagency efforts. Examples include "Partners in Resource Education" (PRE) which includes federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service; NOAA's Ocean Education Workgroup; and Department of Education's Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE). Other examples are the Office of Science Technology and Policy's (OSTP) Subcommittee on Education relating to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education; and the U.S. Global Change Research Program's (USGCRP) Education Interagency Workgroup that focuses on climate change education and is co-chaired by NOAA and NASA. OEAEE is also supporting interagency projects with the U.S. Forest Service to provide training to their education partners on implementing quality education programs and developing and applying an assessment tool for use at nature centers. Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) OCFO makes active contributions to standing interagency management committees, including the Chief Financial Officers Council focusing on improving resources management and accountability throughout the federal government. OCFO actively participates on the Performance Improvement Council which coordinates and develops strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports as required by law for the Agency. In addition, OCFO participates in numerous OMB-led E-Gov initiatives such as the Financial Management and Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business, and has interagency agreements with DoD and USDA for processing agency payroll and travel transactions, respectively. OCFO also participates with the Department of Commerces (DOC) Bureau of Census in maintaining the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS). OCFO also coordinates appropriately with Congress and other federal agencies, such as Department of Treasury, OMB, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the General Services Administration (GSA). Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) EPA is committed to working with federal partners that focus on improving management and accountability throughout the federal government. The Agency provides leadership and expertise to governmentwide activities in various areas of human resources, grants management, contracts management, and homeland security. These activities include specific collaboration efforts with federal agencies and departments through: Chief Human Capital Officers, a group of senior leaders that discuss human capital initiatives across the federal government; Legislative and Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other federal agency representatives who assist Office of Personnel and Management in developing plans and policies for training and development across the government; and
1033
The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the principal interagency forum for monitoring and improving the federal acquisition system. The Council also is focused on promoting the Presidents specific initiatives and policies in all aspects of the acquisition system. The Agency is participating in government-wide efforts to improve the effectiveness and performance of federal financial assistance programs, simplify application and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public. This includes membership on the Grants Policy Committee, the Grants Executive Board, and the Grants.gov Users Group. EPA also participates in the Federal Demonstration Partnership to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants. EPA is working with OMB, GSA, DHS, and the DOCs National Institute of Standards and Technology to implement the Smart Card program. Office of Environmental Information (OEI) To support EPAs overall mission, OEI collaborates with a number of other federal agencies, states, and tribal governments on a variety of initiatives, including making government more efficient and transparent, protecting human health and the environment, and assisting in homeland security. OEI is primarily involved in the information technology (IT), information management (IM), and information security aspects of the projects it collaborates on. The Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council: The CIO Council is the principal interagency forum for improving practices in the design, modernization, use, sharing, and performance of federal information resources. The Council develops recommendations for IT management policies, procedures, and standards; identifies opportunities to share information resources; and assesses and addresses the needs of the federal IT workforce. E-Rulemaking: EPA serves as the Program Management Office (PMO) for the eRulemaking Program. The eRulemaking programs mission addresses two areas: to improve public access, participation in and understanding of the rulemaking process and to improve the agencies efficiency and effectiveness in promulgating regulations. The eRulemaking Program maintains a public web site, www.Regulations.gov that enables the general public to access and make comments on various documents that are published in the Federal Register, including proposed regulations and agency-specific notices. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is the agency-side of Regulations.gov, and enables the various agencies to administer public submissions regarding regulatory and other documents posted by the agencies on the Regulations.gov web site. The increased public access to the agencies regulatory process enables a more informed public to provide supporting technical/legal/economic analyses to strengthen the agencies rulemaking vehicles. The Program Management Office (PMO) coordinates the operations of the eRulemaking Program through its 38 partner Departments and Independent agencies (comprising more than 165 agencies, boards, commissions, and offices). This coordination is realized through the administrative boards that work with the PMO on dayto-day operations, ongoing enhancements, and long-range planning for program development. These administrative boards (the Executive Committee and the Advisory Board) have
1034
representative members from each partner agency and deal with contracts, budget, web site improvements, improved public access, records management, and a host of other regulatory concerns that were formally only agency-specific in nature. The coordination with the partner agencies allows for a more uniform and consistent rulemaking process across government. This coordination is further realized by the fact that more than 90 percent of all federal rules promulgated annually are managed through the eRulemaking Program. The National Environmental Exchange Network (EN): The EN is a partnership among states, tribes, and EPA. It is revolutionizing the exchange of environmental information by allowing these partners to share data efficiently and securely over the Internet. This approach is providing real-time access to higher quality data while saving time and resources, for all of the partners. Leadership for the EN is provided by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which is co-chaired by OEI and a state partner. The ENLC works with representatives from the EPA, state environmental agencies, and tribal organizations to manage the Exchange Network. FY 2012 will be a critical year for the Exchange Network to complete its current strategic plan to flow data across the spectrum of EPAs programs. Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS): ACE is the system being built by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ensure that its customs agents have the information they need to decide how to handle goods and merchandise being shipped into, or out of, the United States. ITDS is the organizational framework by which all government agencies with import/export responsibilities participate in the development of the ACE system. ACE will be a single, electronic point of entry for importers and exporters to report required information to the appropriate agencies. It also will be the way those agencies provide CBP with information about potential imports/exports. ACE eliminates the need, burden, and cost of paper reporting. It also allows importers and exporters to report the same information to multiple Federal agencies with a single submission. EPA has the responsibility and legal authority to make sure pesticides, toxic chemicals, vehicles and engines, ozone-depleting substances, and other commodities entering the country meet our environmental, human health, and safety standards. EPAs ongoing collaboration with CBP on the ACE/ITDS project will greatly improve information exchange between EPA and CBP. As a result, Customs officers at our nations borders will have the information they need to admit products that meet our environmental regulations, and to interdict goods or products that are hazardous or illegal. EPAs work on ACE/ITDS builds on the technical leadership developed by the Central Data Exchange and Exchange Network (CDX/EN). Applying the CDX/EN technology offers all agencies participating in ACE the opportunity to improve the quality, timeliness, and accessibility of their data at lower cost. At least five agencies have expressed interest in the CDX/EN technology as a way to exchange data. By FY 2012, EPA expects to have completed pilot data exchanges with Customs and Border Protection so that full-scale development can occur. This will enable EPA to share approaches and technology with other Agencies who are interested. EPA will either provide its technology and approaches to them for replication or act as a fee for service provider. This will save money and create efficiencies government-wide by eliminating redundancies in infrastructure spending that would otherwise be required across each agency.
1035
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Support: EPAs Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Reporting Tool (ASSERT) provides federal managers with the information they need, from an enterprise perspective, to make timely and informed decisions regarding the level of security implemented on their information resources. It provides the reports and information those managers need to protect their critical cyber infrastructure and privacy information. It helps agencies understand and assess their security risks, monitor corrective actions and provide standardized and automated FISMA reports. Federal agencies using EPAs FISMA Reporting Solution, and ASSERT, include: EPA, Export-Import Bank (EXIM), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the SBA. Geospatial Information: EPA works extensively with DOI, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the USDA, the DHS and over 20 other Federal agencies through the activities of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the OMB Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB). OEI leads several key initiatives within the FGDC and GeoLoB, and is one of only two agencies (the other being the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency) that participate in the Coordinating Committee, Steering Committee, and Executive Steering Committee of the FGDC, and the Federal Geospatial Advisory Committee. A key component of this work is developing and implementing the infrastructure to support a comprehensive array of national spatial data data that can be attached to and portrayed on maps. This work has several key applications, including ensuring that human health and environmental conditions are represented in the appropriate contexts, supporting the assessment of environmental conditions, and supporting emergency first responders and other homeland security situations. Through programs like the EPA National Information Exchange Network, EPA also works closely with its state and tribal partners to ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies supporting the efficient and cost effective sharing of geographically based data and services. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS): OEI works with the Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) to support EPA's involvement in the GEOSS initiative. Other partners in this initiative are: the U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), and a significant number of other federal agencies, including NASA, NOAA, USGS, HHS, Department of Energy (DoE), DoD, USDA, Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation (NSF), USDA, State, and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Under the ten-year strategic plan published by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 2005, OEI and OSA are leading EPA's development of the environmental component of the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), which will be the U.S. federal contribution to the international GEOSS effort. Earth observation data, models, and decision-support systems will play an increasingly important role in finding solutions for complex problems, including adaptation to climate change. OEI also coordinates with OMB and OSTP to connect the interagency GEOSS work with our Open Government and Data.gov activities. Chesapeake Bay Program: Operating under Executive Order No. 13508, EPA is working to help restore the Chesapeake Bay. Federal Partners in this initiative are: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USGS; U.S. Forest Service; National Park Service; and the U.S. Navy (representing Department of Defense). The States of New York,
1036
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, are also participating in the effort. Using the Exchange Network (EPAs existing network facilitating data sharing among and with the states and tribes), OEI will develop a similar resource for the agencies working on the Chesapeake Bay, and will couple it with geopositioning technologies. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) The EPA Inspector General is a member of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of Federal Inspectors General (IG), GAO, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CIGIE coordinates and improves the way IGs conduct audits, investigations and internal operations. The CIGIE also promotes joint projects of government-wide interest, and reports annually to the President on the collective performance of the IG community. The EPA OIG Office of Cyber Investigations and Homeland Security coordinate computer crime activities with other law enforcement organizations such as the FBI, Secret Service, and Department of Justice. In addition, the OIG participates with various intergovernmental audit forums and professional associations to exchange information, share best practices, and obtain/provide training. The OIG also promotes collaboration among EPAs partners and stakeholders in the application of technology, information, resources, and law enforcement efforts through its outreach activities. Further, the EPA OIG initiates and participates in collaborative audits, evaluations and investigations with OIGs of agencies with an environmental mission such as the DOI and USDA, and with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as prescribed by the IG Act, as amended.
1037
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Introduction The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the Inspector General to identify the most serious management challenges facing EPA, briefly assess the Agencys progress in addressing them, and report annually. The discussion that follows summarizes each of the management challenges that EPAs Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have identified and presents the Agencys response. EPA has established a mechanism for identifying and addressing its key management challenges. As part of its Federal Management Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process, EPA senior managers meet with representatives from EPAs OIG, GAO, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to hear their views on EPAs key management challenges. EPA managers also use audits, reviews, and program evaluations conducted internally and by GAO, OMB, and OIG to assess program effectiveness and identify potential management issues. EPA recognizes that management challenges, if not addressed adequately, may prevent the Agency from effectively meeting its mission. EPA remains committed to addressing all management issues in a timely manner and will address them to the fullest extent of our authority. 1. Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues
Summary of Challenge: According to GAO, the federal governments approach to climate change has been ad hoc and is not well coordinated across government agencies. For example, the federal government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal research dollars toward the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. EPA, as well as other agencies, has been slow to implement recommendations. Agency Response: In the past two years, EPA has taken several important actions to address climate change. Currently, EPA plays a key role in developing and implementing President Obamas ambitious climate change agenda. For instance, the Agency is participating in strategic discussions and providing technical advice and analysis on the full range of domestic climate policies and technologies. This includes market-based energy legislation, whether it be comprehensive or targeted; transportation; energy efficiency and renewable energy; and new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage. Additionally, EPA is taking regulatory actions to address climate change and continuing to implement its ongoing voluntary partnership programs. EPA, in conjunction with DOT, issued new greenhouse gas emission standards for light vehicles. EPA has also proposed new greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty vehicles and is considering appropriate regulatory actions for other transportation sources, in response to several petitions which call for the Agency to address these sources. In October 2009, EPA issued a regulation establishing, for the first time, a nationwide mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program for large sources of greenhouse gases and fuel suppliers, which account for about 85 percent of national emissions. Reporting under this program began in 2011. In July 2008, EPA proposed regulations under the
1038
Safe Drinking Water Act ensuring a protective regulatory framework for commercial-scale facilities that sequester carbon dioxide in geologic formations. EPA is responding to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and has issued under the Clean Air Act a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that threat. EPA is implementing a Renewable Fuel Standard as revised by the Energy Independent and Security Act, requiring the United States to incorporate 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including requirements for advanced and cellulosic fuels, into its fuel supply by 2022. EPA has provided extensive technical advice and economic modeling on the major climate and energy bills in the House and Senate. Recognizing that climate change cuts across many programs and offices within the Agency, senior leadership is taking steps to expand and improve communication and coordination on emerging climate change issues. Coordination mechanisms have been established among EPA offices working on climate change, including daily planning calls, regular meetings at the Deputy Administrator level, and extensive outreach across offices and with the EPA regions. These processes will ensure that the Agency receives information and input, draws effectively on its resources, and provides useful information to its stakeholders around the country. EPA has also identified two High Priority Performance Goals to improve the countrys ability to measure and control GHG emissions. Specifically, EPA will ensure that data collected for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is made publically available in a timely fashion, and that they implement regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the United States starting with model year 2012. Finally, EPA continues to deliver on all commitments under its ongoing partnership programs to reduce greenhouse gases, focused on energy efficiency, transportation, and other sectors. Experience and knowledge gained through these programs is also informing EPAs input into the broader climate policy discussion. 2. Reducing Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Summary of Challenge: In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Massachusetts v. EPA case that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In December 2009, the Agency issued an endangerment finding for six GHGs. According to OIG, although EPA is addressing these findings through regulations, voluntary programs, and research and development, the Agency faces significant challenges that are beyond its control, including political and private opposition, unverifiable data, and reliance on multiagency research. For example, EPA is developing regulations to control GHG emissions without statutory language that specifically establishes a GHG program. Also, EPA is relying on data from voluntary programs that may be unreliable and unverifiable, and on multiagency research for which it has limited control over the content, conduct, and timing of the research. Agency Response: EPA is addressing these findings through regulations, voluntary programs, and research and development. EPA agrees that it faces significant challenges that are beyond its control, including political and private opposition, and reliance on multiagency research. The
1039
Office of Air and Radiation leads the Agencys development of multiple mobile source programs to address GHG emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, ocean-going vessels, aircraft and other non-road engines. This work involves extensive Agency efforts including coordination with other federal agencies and international organizations. The Agency is also addressing the concern about unverifiable data through the landmark Greenhouse Gas Reporting program which has been established to collect and verify GHG emissions from over 10,000 large sources. The Agency has set a goal to have the data collected in 2010 publically available by June 15, 2011. 3. Improving Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Summary of Challenge: GAO reports that EPA faces many challenges related to implementation of the Clean Air Act, including those related to coordination with other federal agencies, analyses of health impacts from air pollution, and delays in regulating mercury and other air toxics. EPA also faces challenges relating to numerous regulatory proposals that have been overturned or remanded by the courts. Agency Response: Over the years, GAO has conducted various studies that identified key challenges EPA faces in implementing the Clean Air Act (Improving Childrens Health, Managing Air Toxics, Uncertainty of Health Benefits in Rules Addressing Particulate Matter, and Economic Justification for Rule for Limiting Mercury Emissions) and made recommendations intended to enhance the effectiveness of its clean air program. The Agency has devoted substantial resources to addressing GAOs recommendations and ensuring the effective implementation of clean air programs, and it is making substantial progress. Agency efforts include working with the Childrens Health Protection Advisory Committee to ensure transparency. Additionally, the Agency is using the best possible science in its decision-making processes. The Agency is working to expand toxics monitoring in affected communities, quantifying and understanding the sources of uncertainty in its benefit analyses, and issuing new rules to address mercury emissions. 4. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
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. 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. Agency Response: Over the past year, based on input from state and local stakeholders EPA has developed a Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy which will help set the course for our future efforts across the water sector and with other federal agencies, including the incorporation of sustainability into the State Revolving Loan programs.
1040
This Policy emphasizes the importance of sustainable infrastructure and systems in ensuring that communities across the nation are sustainable. EPA also continues to work with partners across the water sector to promote sustainable water and wastewater systems based on the ten Attributes of an Effectively Managed Utility. This first-of-its-kind national collaboration with six major water sector associations provides water sector a common management framework, which is helping the sector move in a unified manner towards sustainability. Building on momentum with existing partners, EPA will be reaching out to those that represent smaller systems to ensure that the framework is adopted across the spectrum of large and small utilities. To address the unique challenges faced by small and disadvantaged drinking water systems, EPA has been working with a group of states to evaluate existing implementation efforts, roadblocks to building water system capacity, and identifying best practices that can aid in the implementation of the SDWAs Capacity Development Program. Ultimately, this re-energizing effort should lead to increased sharing of implementation best practices and stronger Capacity Development programs, and ultimately help more public water systems be sustainable. Based on the efforts over the past year, EPA, states and other stakeholders will be engaging in a variety of activities to improve water system technical, managerial and financial capacity, including increasing collaboration between the Capacity Development and Drinking Water SRF Programs. Recognizing that water efficiency has significant implications for water infrastructure, EPA has continued to 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. WaterSense milestones in the last year include the release of specifications for new homes and showerheads. Sustainable Infrastructure has also been integrated into the Sustainable Communities partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Transportation (DOT). As our nation plans for future growth, we must ensure that water infrastructure and water quality are priorities as we develop policies to ensure sustainable communities. To that end, applicants were encouraged to consider water infrastructure planning with other considerations in the $100 million grant notice that was recently released by HUD. EPA is also conducting pilots with three states on incorporating sustainability into Clean Water Revolving Fund loan program priorities both on the system and community levels. 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. The following bullets give a summary of some of the other recent activities under the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative: In May, EPA convened the regions and various Headquarters offices for a national meeting to better define and invigorate efforts to promote asset management. As a
1041
follow-up to the meeting, we are working to better integrate asset management into the daily work of the Regions, as well as permits and enforcement offices. In addition to the ongoing series of asset management training courses EPA offers across the country (40 sessions conducted over the last 8 years), the Agency conducted two beta versions of a second asset management training course to deal with more advanced topics. EPA will continue its efforts to promote better management practices at the system level to improve system technical, managerial and financial capacity. Central to this effort is the Check Up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS) asset management software for drinking and wastewater systems. CUPSS is a free, easy-to-use, asset management tool for small drinking water and wastewater utilities. In partnership with state agencies and technical assistance providers, the Agency continues to promote and assist small systems to learning about and doing asset management by using CUPSS. A comprehensive marketing, user support, and training strategy will be fully implemented, with emphasis on leveraging our state and training assistance provider partners as the CUPSS Trainer Network. EPA will also be launching a self-paced, on-line training for users to learn how to use CUPSS. In the fall of 2009, EPA completed two workshops with EPA Regions 6 and 8 to introduce utilities to a program to improve their energy efficiency and management based on the Energy Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Drinking Water Utilities. Since the Guidebook was published in 2008, EPA has sponsored a total of 21 workshops around the country. EPA Regional offices are now working with over 100 utilities across the country to help them develop more detailed energy management programs based on the Guidebook. EPA is developing an energy audit tool and audit protocol for small water and wastewater systems to help them evaluate their energy usage and identify opportunities to reduce energy use. Following beta and pilot testing the tool with small utilities, EPA will launch a marketing and training effort. Growth of the WaterSense partnership to more than 600 promotional partners, 165 manufacturers, 165 retailer/distributors (including Lowe's and Home Depot), and 1000 irrigation partners as of December, 2010. The program has also signed on more than 45 builders and licensed certification providers who inspect homes prior to labeling. The first WaterSense labeled homes were completed in the fall of 2010. In 2009 (the most recent year for which we have data), WaterSense labeled products saved more than 36 billion gallons of water and more than $267 million on consumers water and sewer bills. EPA is 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
1042
into Long Term Control Plans for combined sewer overflows, and foster implementation in communities across the country. EPA continues an active schedule of outreach activities through various communications channels, including notably a series of webcasts on topics which range across the SI initiative. 5. Addressing Clean Water Issues
Summary of Challenge: EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies and others to reduce pollution in the nations waters, but many pollution sources are difficult to monitor and regulate. GAO believes the Agency should address past GAO recommendations for regulating storm water runoff and discharges from animal feeding operations and for improving the Chesapeake Bay Program and Great Lakes Initiative. In addition, among the most daunting water pollution control problems, GAO notes that the nations 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: To adequately address water quality issues pertaining to stormwater, EPA has committed to take final action on a rulemaking to address, at minimum, stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites by November, 2012. In addition, further action specific to the Chesapeake Bay watershed that may entail more stringent measures and/or accelerated implementation of proposed measures included in the national rule will also be incorporated into the final rulemaking. Other stormwater discharges, such as from existing development in urbanized areas, linear facilities (roads and other transportation venues), and certain types of industrial stormwater discharges may also be included within the scope of this new rule. Expansion of the universe of regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) is also likely under this rulemaking. This is a very complex, detailed, and difficult effort that will require substantial human and financial resources, especially given the extremely compressed schedule to which EPA has committed. EPA is in a pre-proposal stage for a rule that, under section 308 of the Clean Water Act, would collect facility information from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The rule would establish a national inventory and assist with the implementation of the CAFO NPDES regulations. In line with EPA's commitment to transparency, the Agency will be seeking public comment throughout the rulemaking process. Proposal of the rule and final action will take place by May 2012. Revised CAFO NPDES regulations require EPA and authorized States to issue permits for an expanded universe (from the 1974 regulations) of CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to Waters of the U.S. In 2002, about 4,000 CAFOs were permitted out of a total of 12,800 CAFOs. Today, EPA estimates that approximately 14,400 out of 19,200 total CAFOs may need permits, yet only 8,000 of these CAFOs have NPDES permits to date. In addition, inspections will require substantial effort to determine whether CAFOs will discharge and are in compliance with their new nutrient management plans (NMPs).
1043
EPA estimates that the NPDES CAFO rule revisions will result in an annual pollutant reduction of 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of nitrogen, and two billion pounds of sediment. To realize these pollutant reductions, States must adopt the provisions of the new regulations and then issue permits consistent with those rules. Additional Agency resources are needed to assist States in developing revised legislation, regulations, and/or permits to reflect the new regulations and to oversee State review of NMPs. States need additional resources to revise their programs, to review NMPs for every permitted CAFO, and to increase enforcement and compliance efforts to ensure that all CAFOs that discharge seek permit coverage and carry out proper operation and maintenance. Under the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Agency is establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) which will establish a rigorous accountability framework to ensure that all practices (including those for storm water systems and animal feeding operations) needed to reduce pollution and meet the Bay water quality standards, are in place by 2025. Additionally, the Agency is initiating national rulemaking to control storm water discharges from new development and redevelopment sites; reviewing each states CAFO program to ensure that they meet the programmatic requirements of the 2008 rule; reviewing each states technical standards for nutrient management to ensure they meet the requirements of the CFO regulation; and developing new CAFO regulations to more effectively address pollutant reductions necessary for the TMDL. EPA disagrees with GAOs assumption that unacceptable inconsistency exists and that finalizing the draft permitting strategy (referred to in GAO report 08-312T) would enhance consistency. The Agency believes that there is a high level of consistency in mercury criteria among the Great Lakes states, and that the state approaches for incorporating Great Lakes Initiatives (GLI) mercury requirements in permits are very similar. Rather than developing a permitting strategy, it would be more productive to ensure that the states follow the strategies they have developed, which are based on EPA-approved state requirements, and borrow from the approaches other states have developed, as appropriate. The Agency will reconvene the GLI workgroup to focus on GLI implementation issues, including consistency across states. The Agency believes that this, along with providing additional support for state implementation efforts will be more effective than a permitting strategy in achieving even greater consistency in mercury reduction strategies and goals. Agency efforts will include: Provide regional oversight regarding mercury requirements in state-issued permits and work with states to develop standard language for development and implementation of mercury Pollutant Minimization Program (PMPs) in NPDES permits, as appropriate Develop tools to assess compliance with mercury PMPs; and Assess the most effective approaches for reducing loadings by point source discharge. 6. Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
Summary of Challenge: EPA places increasing emphasis on the reuse of contaminated or oncecontaminated 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
1044
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 EPAs 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 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: According to OIG, 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 if previously undetected or new contaminants emerge, which 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. For sites remediated under CERCLA, where waste is left in place above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted access, EPA performs five year reviews (FYRs) to ensure that sites remain protective. One of the primary functions of the FYR is to determine whether new information about contaminants e.g., new toxicity data, or exposure pathways (e.g., a change in land use) at the site is available, that would compromise the protectiveness of the site. If such a change is found to compromise protectiveness, additional action will be taken to ensure that the public is protected. With the vapor intrusion pathway, many Regions did not wait for the FYR to consider the importance of this potential exposure pathway and prioritized sites for investigation before the next FYR. Superfund can take remedial action even at sites that have been deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This process addresses the vast majority of emerging contaminant situations that we observe at NPL sites. Most so called emerging contaminant issues result from changes in toxicity values or changes in detection levels, both of which will be addressed in the FYR. In the rare situation where a site is not subject to FYR, EPA has information resources such as CERCLIS, a searchable database for records of decision that can be used to identify sites where new contaminant information may lead to questions of long-term protectiveness. In these situations, EPA can relook at sites and determine whether additional action is warranted. EPA is actively involved in working with stakeholders to promote site reuse, such as with our Return to Use Initiative. The Agency makes specific inquiry of the site managers and other stakeholders about new issues that might affect site risks if the site goes into reuse. Vapor intrusion is routinely examined as a potential concern at such sites. In addition, for sites further along in the cleanup process, we always review the most recent Five Year Reviews to help determine whether there are changed conditions or anything else that might affect site safety during reuse. Site safety never takes a back seat to promotion of site reuse. EPA places a high priority on the implementation of appropriate institutional controls (ICs) in working with site stakeholders considering site reuse. For example, one of the objectives of our
1045
Return to Use Initiative is to evaluate and, if necessary, modify and implement requirements for ICs. Also, our guidance for issuing Ready for Reuse Determinations requires that ICs be in place. Finally, our Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use GPRA performance measure counts only sites that have required ICs fully implemented. EPA has also found that supporting and encouraging reuse can facilitate the successful implementation and enforcement of appropriate ICs. Specifically, EPA signs a State Superfund Contract (SSC) with the State, which outlines roles and responsibilities, including implementation and enforcement of ICs, roles and responsibilities for operations and maintenance of engineering controls. Under CERCLA, States are responsible for O&M activities, including oversight of work done by potentially responsible parties. Nevertheless, EPA is responsible for performing FYRs at sites where waste is left in place above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted access, regardless of who is performing Operations and Maintenance (O&M). This periodic review is an excellent mechanism for providing long-term stewardship of sites. In the event of natural disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes), EPA routinely makes special reviews of sites to ensure that protectiveness has not been compromised. Long-term stewardship considerations are important factors in developing enforcement agreements with responsible parties or with parties redeveloping sites. Long-term response costs are important considerations in determining the present worth value of remedial alternatives. We are working to ensure that the implementation costs associated with ICs is considered as part of the remedy selection process. In addition, EPA is developing tools to make IC information more readily available to the public, including developers. Again, under CERCLA much of this responsibility resides with the States by law, but EPA works with the States so that they understand the long-term stewardship needs of the remedies chosen for sites. The OIG overstates the level of threat associated with the site reuse issues and does not demonstrate that the process is not protective. In general, site reuse, limited recreation use along a bike path, was not inconsistent with the implemented site remediation. Recreational use is not unrestricted use and does not assume unlimited access. The new contamination that the OIG cites is noted in the previous FYR, so is not truly a new contaminant, nor was it found at a level that posed a threat to human health and the environment. In addition, institutional controls for the site worked to require a property owner who acquired a portion of the site to consult with EPA and obtain permission from the State before performing any construction on the site. EPA cannot constantly monitor all reuse plans at all sites. EPA routinely reviews reuse plans brought to them by owners, developers, and other parties to ensure they are consistent with the remedy. The onus is on the developer to share plans with EPA. EPA does not control land use and EPA cannot dictate or monitor reuse plans. However, EPA can and does work with owners to ensure appropriate reuse when those plans are brought to the Agencys attention. Generally, deleted sites with waste left in place are monitored through Five Year Reviews, which evaluate reuse activities on and near the site, as well as changed site conditions, to determine if
1046
the remedy remains protective. If no waste is left in place there should be no need to monitor site reuse. A Ready for Reuse (RfR) Determination should not be issued for every site. The Agency has found that they appear to be most useful at sites where Superfund stigma is a significant barrier to site reuse. Stigma can affect the willingness of developers to work with a site, lenders to lend funds for site redevelopment, or prospective site users to feel comfortable visiting the site. The RfR Determination does describe appropriate use and limitations on site use; however, this information is also available and taken from other documents in the site repository. OIG asserts that EPAs management of the long-term oversight and monitoring requirements for the safe reuse of contaminated sites has lagged behind the Agencys marketing of site reuse opportunities and its showcasing of successes. This gap promises to increase substantially as EPA continues to heavily promote the reuse of contaminated sites without investing in the tools needed to ensure the safe, long-term use of these sites. Promoting reuse sends a strong message to communities that EPA is a necessary participant in the dialogue. Seeing EPA as a collaborator rather than an impediment means that communities involve EPA in the reuse process, which allows EPA to communicate key messages about protectiveness. Once communities are ready to engage in a dialogue about using a site, EPA can offer a number of tools to ensure the reuse is appropriate and will enhance long-term protectiveness. Below are a few of the tools EPA actively promotes to ensure appropriate and safe reuse of sites: Ready for Reuse Determinations are environmental status reports that reiterate the limitations and opportunities associated with the reuse of sites. As noted in the OIG report, these are not mandatory for each site, but may be useful for sharing information about the site to a broader audience. EPA Headquarters consistently uses opportunities to educate remedial project managers about where and how it can be used, most recently at the 2010 National Association of Remedial Project Managers conference. Comfort and status letters are issued by Regions to convey the status of the site remediation, describe site limitations and protectiveness issues and clarify liability issues. Prospective purchaser inquiry calls provide consistent and reliable information about limitations and opportunities at sites. Frequently, these calls result in prospective purchasers determining that sites are not appropriate. However, this outcome is not deemed a failure since it provided information that future users would need to understand before using a site. EPA-funded reuse planning offers communities and key stakeholders the opportunity to engage in an educated and realistic dialogue about the reuse of sites. EPA project managers serve as information resources during these exercises, where information about institutional controls and long-term stewardship are integrated into the reuse planning process. Site reuse fact sheets provide key information to parties interested in the reuse of sites. These single-page fact sheets highlight critical remedial components in place, long term maintenance activities, and institutional controls. CERCLIS provides detailed information about the institutional controls in place at sites, in addition to their eligibility to meet performance measures that affirm all remedial components and institutional controls are in place.
1047
The Site Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) and Cross Program Revitalization Measure (CPRM) Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) performance measures have explicit criteria that are used to evaluate whether a site is protective. These measures can communicate when EPA feels that all remedial components and institutional controls are in place such that the site can accommodate its reasonably anticipated future land use. We believe that through these measures and tools we do an effective job of communicating site risks and remedies, and information site users need to know to be able to use the sites without compromising protectiveness. We will continue to explore new tools and approaches to sharing this information to ensure that our sites remain safe in their future uses. 7. Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and other Hazardous Waste Sites
Summary of Challenge: In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund, which gave the federal government the authority to ensure the cleanup of hazardous waste sites both on private and public land. GAO believes that declining appropriations (when adjusted for inflation) have slowed the pace of cleanups. Further, GAO notes that EPA has not implemented a 1980 mandate requiring businesses to demonstrate that they can pay for potential environmental cleanups, that is, to provide financial assurance. GAO has recommended that EPA (1) ensure that financial assurances are in place for sites that manufacture or use toxic chemicals; (2) improve the institutional controls at contaminated sites; (3) ensure that owners of underground storage tanks maintain access to adequate financial resources and state insurance funds provide reliable coverage for cleanups; and (4) establish a formal structure to centrally track and monitor the status of cleanup efforts. Agency Response: EPA recognizes the need for program improvements and has efforts under way to address GAOs concerns regarding the pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. While it is recognized that continued work is necessary in two of these areas to improve program implementation, such work is already underway. Specifically, in July 2009, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register identifying Hard Rock Mining as the first class of facilities for which financial responsibility requirements will be developed. In January 2010, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that identified three additional classes of facilities for which it plans to develop financial assurance requirements. This substantial regulatory effort is scheduled to continue through 2012. EPA released a strategy to ensure institutional control (IC) implementation at Superfund sites in September 2004, developed an IC tracking system to ensure that sites have appropriate ICs in place, and provided public access to IC information at Superfund sites. EPA is also developing guidance on implementation and assurance plans for ICs. These efforts recognize that there is a significant role for local and state governments in the planning, implementing, monitoring and enforcing of ICs relied upon in cleanup of many contaminated sites. In addition, OSRTI is developing three guidance documents. One clarifies the process of planning, implementing, monitoring and enforcing ICs across several EPA programs including Superfund, RCRA, UST, and Brownfields cleanups. A second document provides guidance for evaluating the contribution
1048
to remedy protectiveness of institutional controls during the five-year review process; and a third document provides guidance for developing IC Implementation and Assurance Plans. EPA has made progress on the issues of financial responsibility with respect to the underground storage tanks program on a number of fronts. The Agency has incorporated verification of financial responsibility into its EPA inspection requirement and has undertaken an examination of private insurance. The Agency has also undertaken a significant analytical study of the cleanup backlog, sifting through the data from 14 states and seeks to identify the attributes of groups of open, unaddressed releases. Efforts to improve oversight of state funds continue to evolve and publication of the Agencys guidance is expected by the end of this year. With respect to the fourth recommendation, EPA already tracks Superfund cleanup efforts through its CERCLIS database, which contains information (including site contaminant information) on all Superfund sites. 8. EPAs Framework for Assessing and Managing Chemical Risks / Transforming EPAs Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
Summary of Challenge: OIG and GAO believe that EPAs effectiveness in assessing and managing chemical risks is hampered in part by limitations on the Agencys authority to regulate chemicals under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In January 2009, GAO included EPAs process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals on its high-risk list. GAO notes that EPAs ability to protect public health and the environment depends on credible and timely assessment of the risks posed by toxic chemicals. EPAs Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which contains assessments of more than 500 toxic chemicals, is at a serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has been unable to keep its existing assessments current or to complete assessments of important chemicals of concerns. OIG reports that EPAs New Chemicals Program is limited in assessment, oversight, and transparency and that performance measures for managing risks from new chemicals neither accurately reflect program performance nor assure compliance. Agency Response: GAO identified Transforming EPAs Processes for Assessing and Controlling Chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 High-Risk Series. Regarding IRIS, GAO states that the Agency needs to take actions to increase transparency and timeliness. EPA acknowledged Streamlining Chemical Assessments Under IRIS as an Agency-level weakness under the Federal Financial Managers Integrity Act in October 2009. In May 2010, OIG identified EPAs Framework for Assessing and Managing Chemical Risks as a management challenge. Improving IRIS Process In May 2009, the Agency released a new Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process for completing health assessments. The goal of the new process is to strengthen program management, increase transparency, and expedite the timeliness of health assessments. Additionally, the Agency implemented steps to reduce the IRIS backlog by focusing resources on 47 assessments that were farther along in the assessment process. Of these 47 assessments,
1049
10 were completed, 19 are undergoing external peer review or final Agency and interagency review, three are in interagency science consultation, and 15 are in draft development or Agency review. In FY 2010, EPA released 7 major assessments (formaldehyde, dioxin, trichloroethylene, PAH mixtures, dichloromethane, methanol, chromium VI) for external peer review and public comment. These assessments are being reviewed by the NAS, EPAs SAB or other independent external peer review panels. The Agency is committed to continuing to move these assessments through the IRIS process to completion. Work has also begun on 20 additional backlogged assessments. As major assessments requiring a large commitment of FTE are completed, EPA anticipates being able to address a greater number of assessments. In addition, the program has expanded its focus to include more cumulative approaches for assessing risks to chemicals in its assessments. This significant investment of effort is focused on assessments of health effects for chemicals found in environmental mixtures and includes PAHs, dioxins, phthalates and PCBs. These cumulative approaches will increase the number of chemicals that are addressed by the IRIS Program, which are based upon the expressed needs of the Agency. The Agency established the IRIS Update Project in 2010 in response to a backlog of outdated assessments. Toxicity values older than ten years old are screened for the availability of new data or new assessment methods that could change toxicity values or the cancer descriptor. Toxicity values will be updated in batches of 8-12 assessments, reviewed by a Federal Standing Science Committee, and subject to independent external peer review. The 2009/2010 agenda for the IRIS Update Project was announced in a Federal Register Notice on October 21, 2009 (74 FR 54040). In FY 2010, to ensure that resources were focused on the greatest IRIS Program needs, the Agency expanded the role of its program and regional offices in nominating and prioritizing chemicals for IRIS assessment. The IRIS Program met extensively with internal program and regional offices to better understand their assessment needs and gather input on priorities for the current IRIS agenda. This information is being used to help determine which assessments will be completed first. Additionally, the Agency is partnering with the California Environmental Protection Agencys (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to pool resources and share information. This partnership is expected to eventually increase the IRIS Programs efficiency and output of assessments. The Agency now has an IRIS Logistics Team that coordinates IRIS-related administrative support. The Logistics Team is a matrix-managed team that includes administrative personnel who work on IRIS-related activities, which were previously performed by individual chemical managers. Having administrative coordination increases efficiency and provides more time for the chemical managers to focus on scientific work. The Agency began a pilot project in FY 2010 to advance the next generation (NextGen) of risk assessment. NextGen explores the use of molecular systems biology in developing health assessments. This collaborative effort (with the National Institute of Environmental Health
1050
Sciences, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and CalEPA) is expected to demonstrate how high throughput data can be used to rapidly develop health assessments. Additionally, EPA recently developed a web-based Health Effects Research Online (HERO) database which provides access to the scientific literature used in EPAs health and environmental risk assessments. The scientific assessments serve as the foundation for key Agency decisions to protect human health and the environment. HERO allows EPA scientists to access, review, and evaluate thousands of published research studies. The public can also use HERO to see the scientific studies EPA officials use in making key regulatory decisions. Management of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Regarding the management of chemicals, OIG asserts that 14 years after the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act and amendments to the SDWA, EPA has yet to regulate the endocrinedisrupting effects of any chemicals. The Agency established a multi-stakeholder federal advisory committee, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c). This committee was asked to provide advice to the Agency on how to design a screening and testing program for endocrine disrupting chemicals. In 1998, the EDSTAC published their final report, which included five fundamental recommendations: 1) Expand the evaluation of additional modes of action beyond estrogen disruption to include test systems that detect androgen and thyroid disruption directly and via the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) and hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroidal (HPT) axes. 2) Expand the target population beyond humans to include animal wildlife 3) Expand screening beyond pesticides (approximately 2000 chemicals) to include all chemicals to which humans and the environment are exposed (estimated at 87,000 chemicals). 4) Incorporate a two-tiered approach: Tier 1 would identify the potential of chemicals to interact with the estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. Tier 2 would identify the potential hazard and establish dose-response relationships. 5) Develop a priority setting data base that would permit the selection of chemicals for screening on the basis of both exposure and potential hazard. EPA has had three major tasks to complete before it could issue test orders to pesticide registrants and chemical manufacturers to commence testing. Validation to establish the relevance and reliability of the assays was the largest of these tasks. EPA has followed a fivestage assay validation process that included: 1) test development, 2) pre-validation testing, 3) inter-laboratory validation studies, 4) peer review and 5) regulatory acceptance, as described at the EDSP website: (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm). Each of the first three of these stages typically took a year or more to complete and had to be
1051
completed sequentially as the knowledge developed in one stage was essential to the conduct of the next stage. Peer review of these assays was completed in mid-2008. A second task was the prioritization of chemicals to be screened. EPA planned on using the high throughput in vitro assays used by the pharmaceutical industry as a means to rapidly identify those chemicals that may interact with the endocrine system. In a demonstration with 65 chemicals conducted in 1998-99, the high throughput screens failed to correctly identify most of the chemicals known to interact with hormone receptors; thus, EPA was forced to adopt a different approach for selecting chemicals. A pilot demonstration of the utility of existing information led EPA to the conclusion that this was also not a cost-effective way to prioritize and select chemicals for screening. In 2005, EPA finally proposed and took comment on using exposure information only to identify chemicals, primarily pesticides, in the first round of Tier 1 screening. This approach led to the proposal of the first list of chemicals for screening in 2007. The third task was to develop the policies and procedures which would apply to test order recipients. These include the procedures for responding to test orders, minimizing duplicative testing, providing for data compensation, and protecting sensitive information. In addition, EPA developed cost estimates for conducting the Tier 1 battery which formed the basis of an Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted to OMB in 2008. The ICR was approved in the fall of 2009, and the first test orders were issued in October 2009. Despite the fact that the EDSP has only begun to screen chemicals, EPA has been obtaining useful information regarding endocrine-related health effects, as documented by annual reports to Congress (EPA has regulated 79 pesticides on the basis of endocrine effects identified through testing required by the pesticide registration program). Additionally, the Agency plans on implementing the EDSP for pesticides on a routine basis by first issuing orders for pesticides entering Registration Review. The Registration Review program requires all pesticides currently registered to be reevaluated to ensure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. While the complexity of the scientific and regulatory process for implementing the EDSP warrant the designation of the EDSP as a management challenge, the progress made this year in issuing test orders and fully implementing the EDSP demonstrates that the EDSP should not be regarded as a material weakness. GAO has stated that EPAs framework for assessing and managing chemical risks has not yet achieved the goal of protecting human health and the environment and EPAs effectiveness in assessing and managing chemical risks is hampered in part by limitations on the Agencys authority to regulate chemicals under TSCA. In a similar vein, OIG believes EPA needs to transform its processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. EPA has announced its principles to strengthen US chemical management laws, and initiated a comprehensive effort to enhance the Agencys current chemicals management program within the limits of existing authorities, and will sustain this effort in the FY 2012 Presidents Budget. This effort includes:
1052
Using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and safety data for chemicals already in commerce and increasing transparency and public access to information on TSCA chemicals; Using data from all available sources to prioritize chemicals for assessment and conducting detailed chemical risk assessments to inform and support development and implementation of risk management actions; Using all available authorities under TSCA to take immediate and lasting action to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop safer alternatives; and Preventing introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce. Obtaining, Managing and Making Public Chemical Information: In FY 2012, EPA will continue expanding use of regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and safety data for chemicals already in commerce, improve management of TSCA information resources and maximize their availability and usefulness to the public, including: Consider issuing and implementing TSCA Section 4 Test Rules to obtain data needed to evaluate the safety of existing chemicals, including: o More than 100 HPV chemicals not sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program; o 125 or more chemicals newly identified as HPV chemicals in TCSA Inventory Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011; and, o Several other chemicals including bisphenol A (BPA) and certain nanoscale materials; Processing submission of 2011 IUR data reports for chemicals produced in volumes of greater than 25 thousand pounds per year. o In August 2010, EPA proposed modifications to the IUR rule under Section 8 of TSCA, presenting a range of options for public comment to make the reporting of chemical use information more transparent, more current, more useful, and more useable by the public. Increasing transparency by reviewing all new TSCA chemical health and safety studies claimed in FY 2012 as CBI and reviewing 4,400 CBI cases submitted prior to 2010, challenging claims and declassifying studies where appropriate; Digitizing over 20,000 TSCA documents received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8, and making those data, where appropriate, available to the public; and,
1053
Expanding electronic reporting to include all TSCA health and safety submissions and fully deploying 21st century information technology to more effectively and efficiently store and disseminate TSCA information. Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks: In FY 2012, EPA will assess the risks of priority chemicals to determine what risk management is needed and to inform and support development and implementation of risk management actions, as appropriate, by: Initiating detailed chemical risk assessments of priority chemicals that will inform the need for and support development of risk management actions, with several of the assessments being completed in FY 2012; Developing hazard characterizations for 500 additional HPV chemicals using the data obtained through TSCA test rules, the TSCA IUR and previous voluntary industry submissions, bringing the cumulative total by the end of FY 2012 to 2,165 of the 2,900 HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR; Increasing use of intelligent testing approaches to improve our ability to understand chemical risks; Developing methodologies and tools to better assess risks from high priority chemicals such as PBT chemicals in consumer products to support risk management actions on these chemicals; Analyzing the data EPA has received through its Nanoscale Materials program to understand which nanoscale materials are produced, in what quantities, and what other risk-related data are available. EPA will use this information to understand whether certain nanoscale materials may present risks to human health and the environment and warrant further assessment, testing or other action; and Enhancing the RSEI tool to help identify geographic areas with particularly high risk scores associated with toxics releases and the facilities and chemicals responsible for those conditions. Reducing Chemical Risks: In FY 2012, the Agency will continue expanding its portfolio of risk management actions, including: Advancing consideration and implementation of risk management actions initiated in FY 2010 and continued in FY 2011, including:
1054
o Consideration of Section 6 use restrictions addressing long chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), lead wheel weights, and mercury used in switches and certain measuring devices; o Consideration of Section 5 Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) addressing; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates, elemental mercury in products, benzidine dyes, certain short chain chlorinated paraffins, certain phthalates and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD); and, o Consideration of Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings addressing eight phthalates, environmental effects of bisphenol A (BPA) to aquatic species, and PBDEs; Consider initiating as appropriate new risk management actions in FY 2012, including potential Section 6 use restrictions/prohibitions, potential Section 5 Significant New Use Rules and potential Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings, informed and supported by the ten detailed chemical risk assessments to be initiated and completed in FY 2012 (see Assessment section below); Proposing, evaluating public comments and developing two final regulations implementing ten actions mandated under the recently enacted TSCA Title VI (Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Act) establishing national emission standards for formaldehyde in new composite wood products - the statute requires EPA to finalize and promulgate these regulations by January 1, 2013; Initiating stewardship activities including commitments from industry to adopt viable safer alternatives, safer best practices, voluntary withdrawal of dangerous chemicals and/or products from the market, and stewardship programs to reduce emissions; and Promoting development of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices and technologies by assessing risks and efficacy of alternatives associated with existing chemicals which present significant risks. Improving rulemaking and increasing electronic reporting under TSCA to bolster compliance at high-risk chemical manufacturing facilities under the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative. EPA has and will continue to work closely with other federal agencies to identify and address chemical risks. 9. Need for a National Environmental Policy
Summary of Challenge: OIG believes that a national environmental policy is needed to help EPA and other federal agencies ensure a comprehensive approach to environmental protection. While EPAs 2006-2011 Strategic Plan includes cross-media initiatives, it does not describe
1055
national goals that go beyond EPAs current mission and goal structure. OIG notes that Congress needs to provide EPA and other federal agencies the capacity to identify and manage environmental problems of national significance. Further, Congress and the Administration should examine ways to leverage resources. The Administration should propose to Congress the creation of expert panels to formulate a national environmental policy and subsequent quadrennial reviews of federal responsibilities. Agency Response: OIGs report asserts that there is no overarching environmental policy or framework governing environmental issues that cut across the federal government. In fact, a national environmental policy does exist in the form of authorizing statutory goals and mandates embodied in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in the various media-specific authorities under which EPA and other agencies operate. For example, NEPA provides as its purpose: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. EPA is organized consistent with its Congressional statutes, and this is entirely appropriate. Reorganizing the agency in some other manner to create more integration across media would simply create new stovepipes of a different nature. Under any organizational structure, EPA and the federal agencies must use matrix management. For example, if organized by function as suggested in the draft report (e.g., separate offices for standard-setting, monitoring, permitting, enforcement), there would have to be subunits within each of the major programs to deal with specific media (a water subunit within the Enforcement Office). Those subunits would then have to coordinate across the Agency (all water subunits within the various offices would have to coordinate standard setting, monitoring, permitting, etc.). It is entirely possible that, if the Agency had been structured along functional lines, we would now be bemoaning the fragmented nature of water regulations. Efforts are also ongoing to assure intra-agency coordination across media. EPA uses high-level, cross-agency councils and committees to address coordination on topics such as science, environmental justice, Indian policy, agriculture, international activities, performance management, and information management. EPA has also established operating procedures to guarantee cross-program engagement on rules and policies. In addition, EPA establishes issuespecific initiatives as needed to deal with cross-media concerns. For example, EPA recently launched a cross-program initiative on the regulation of electric utilities. An initiative is also underway to better harmonize EPAs place-based activities. EPA has had considerable success in achieving its mission, and is confident that success will continue in the future. The Agencys mission is already guided by statements of national policy and specific national objectives, as outlined in major existing environmental statutes. Like any large organization, EPA must coordinate across disparate internal offices. However, these coordination issues would not disappear if the Agency were reorganized along different lines.
1056
Creating a new National Environmental Policy and Quadrennial Review framework would require a large investment of time and resources, but is not likely to substantially improve our environmental results. 10. 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 EPA must address the limitations in the availability, quality, and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data. Agency Response: EPA acknowledges that 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. Within 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. Below are a few examples of these programs and the efforts made to enhance oversight or correct issues with state delegation. Improving Oversight through the State Review Framework: As noted by OIG, the Enforcement Program's collaboration with the States to develop and implement the State Review Framework (SRF) is the cornerstone of efforts in that program to improve oversight. The SRF is a program management tool used to provide consistent assessment of EPA and State core Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resources Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement and compliance assurance programs. The Framework enables assessment of program effectiveness and identification of areas for management improvement that is consistent across all EPA Regions and States. The Framework was designed collaboratively by EPA and the Environmental Council of the States in 2004. Based on the data and information from the SRF evaluations, on July 2, 2009, the Administrator asked the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Office of Water, in consultation with the States, to identify concrete steps that EPA can take to enhance public transparency about water enforcement programs, strengthen program performance, and transform the information systems that support both water quality and compliance programs. A Clean Water Action Plan was subsequently developed, finalized and submitted to the Administrator on October 15, 2009. The Plan proposed three main actions to address water pollution challenges: (1) revamp the water enforcement program to focus on the 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 and accountability, and invest in 21st century technology to provide more accurate and useful information to the public and increase pressure for better compliance
1057
performance. On June 22, 2010, OECA and OW jointly issued interim guidance to the regions and the states to immediately initiate and implement certain actions, as outlined in the Plan, to strengthen performance in the NPDES program. Strengthening State-EPA Implementation of Water Programs: Beginning in June 2008, ECOS Officers asked the Agency to provide more collaboration at the national level to meet the challenges of increasing workload and declining resources. In November of 2008 work with the States culminated in the creation of the Partnership Council of the Office of Water and States (PCOWS) to 'test' the early and ongoing engagement of the States in planning, budgeting, and implementation activities for the national water program. Since its creation, PCOWS has met four times to discuss strategic priorities with the States, to ensure that core and key program activities are given appropriate priority in budget decisions, and to identify opportunities to maximize resources and reduce barriers in support of key joint priorities. Improving State-EPA Collaborations through the NEPPS Through the National Environmental Performance Partnership System EPA and the states have developed a working relationship based on a clearer understanding of mutual issues and priorities and improved allocation of roles and responsibilities. Building on this successful platform, EPA and the states are working together to share the workload more efficiently and effectively to achieve environmental and public health outcomes. In FY2011, EPA and states will be collaborating on a focused effort to identify opportunities for enhanced worksharing and resource and workload flexibility in order to maintain the effectiveness of core programs, particularly in light of widespread state budget reductions due to the economic downturn. 11. Ensuring Consistent Environmental Enforcement Compliance Summary of Challenge: GAO reports that while EPA has improved its oversight of state enforcement programs by implementing the State Review Framework (SRF), the Agency still needs to address significant weaknesses in how states enforce their environmental laws in accordance with federal requirements. Specifically, GAO states that EPA needs to identify the cause of poorly performing state enforcement programs, inform the public about how well states are implementing their enforcement responsibilities, and assess the performance of regional offices in carrying out their state oversight responsibilities. The Agency must also address problems in enforcement data and reporting. Agency Response: In FY 2004, the Agency initiated the State Review Framework (SRF) to address concerns about consistency in the minimum level of enforcement activity across states and the oversight of state programs by EPA regions. The SRF uses 12 core elements to assess enforcement activities across three key programs: the Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V), the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. The 12 core elements include data completeness, data accuracy, timeliness of data entry, completion of work plan commitments, inspection coverage, completeness of inspection reports, identification of alleged violations, identification of significant noncompliance, ensuring return to compliance, timely and
1058
appropriate enforcement, calculation of gravity and economic benefit penalty components, and final assessed penalties and their collection. The first round of reviews of 54 state and territorial programs was completed in 2007. During 2007-2008, EPA evaluated the first full round of the SRF to identify ways to streamline the reviews and other opportunities for further improvements. Based on the reviews and the evaluation, the Agency identified four areas that were recurring issues across states and programs: data completeness and accuracy; failure to identify and report significant noncompliance and high priority violations; failure to take timely enforcement; and failure to calculate and document penalties. In September 2008, the Agency made key improvements and initiated Round 2, which included additional and enhanced training for regions and states, streamlined reporting through a standard template, clearer elements, improved metrics, more explicit guidance on incorporating local agencies into reviews, better understanding of where consistency is important, a streamlined review of reports, tracking and management of the implementation of recommendations, and additional steps for communication and coordination between regions and states. The current SRF outlines the process for uniformly addressing significant problems identified in state programs. First, the region and state define the state's attributes and deficiencies and develop a schedule for implementing needed changes. Second, the region and state jointly develop a plan to address performance, using established mechanisms such as Performance Partnership Agreements, Performance Partnership Grants, or categorical grant agreements to codify the plans. Third, the region and state manage and monitor implementation of the plan to ensure progress as planned and to identify and address issues as they arise. Thirty-four Round 2 SRF reviews will be completed by the end of 2010, including six reviews of Regional Direct Implementation Programs. In 2009, EPA began to make the SRF reports publicly available on the Internet. Recent enhancements to EPAs website enable the Agency to also publish on the Internet the recommendations for improvement from the reviews and the status of their implementation. By making this information public, EPA has increased the accountability of environmental enforcement programs. In FY2011, EPA initiated an effort to improve oversight of state enforcement programs. EPA will streamline and align SRF metrics with the principles of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. This will ensure that state programs are addressing the most important problems and the most significant violations. EPA expects that this re-focusing of state programs will improve performance by directing limited resources where they are most needed. Also, as part of the streamlining effort, EPA will develop a process to review and correct state data on an annual basis. Second, EPA will make public, via the internet, key information about state program performance gathered through oversight. Third, EPA will be integrating oversight of state NPDES permitting and enforcement programs which will address performance issues resulting from the bifurcated program structure in many states and regions. EPA has made substantial progress in improving state programs through the SRF. The SRF will help maintain a level of consistency across state programs, ensuring that states meet minimum
1059
standards and implement fair and consistent enforcement of environmental laws across the country. EPA will continue to analyze trends in findings and track corrective actions that result from the SRF, to ensure continuing improvement in state performance. 12. Limited Capability to Respond to Cyber Security Attacks Summary of Challenge: OIG believes that EPA has limited capacity to effectively respond to external network threats and needs to develop an Agency-wide action plan to investigate and combat current threats. Although EPA currently monitors network traffic to identify hostile traffic at its Internet choke points, the Agency remains challenged because it does not have the resources (in equipment or staff) to adequately assess attacks against its infrastructure. The Agency needs to aggressively enhance its cyber security capabilities and address security weaknesses to strengthen its ability to detect and respond to network attacks. Agency Response: EPA does not fully agree with OIGs assertion. However, it does acknowledge that, like other federal agencies, detecting, remediating or eradicating malicious software or Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) is a challenge for the Agency. The Agency has taken steps to increase security awareness and will continue to manage the threat through Agency-wide vigilance and improved detection capabilities. Last year, the Agency affirmed a position to support continuous monitoring across the Information Technology (IT) infrastructure, and has made significant investments in technology to provide improved capability and increased visibility in the Agencys network. The Agency is implementing these new capabilities across the enterprise and is on-track to roll out this capability to ~24,000 Agency workstations. Also, the Agency has heightened awareness and vigilance across the Agencys Information Security Officer (ISO) community - sponsoring training opportunities for Agency ISOs and incorporating an entire security track into the Agencys Skillport e-Learning portal. In addition to in-house capabilities, EPA relies on relationships with other Federal Agencies (e.g., Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the vendor community to augment the Agencys cyber security capabilities - providing OEI information that can be used to detect and defend Agency IT resources. This community-based approach serves the entire Government well by providing EPA valuable information and intelligence that may not have been obtained otherwise. In addition to these relationships, EPA is leveraging existing contracts to augment existing contractor staff, and is pursuing additional contract support specifically focused on the detection of Advanced Persistent Threats (APT). The Agency relies on a community of distributed Information Security Officials to effectively manage the security of IT resources. The Agency is working to ensure that the Information Security Officials are properly recruited, trained, and equipped to meet current and future security requirements. The security of Agency resources is not tied to any single tool, but rather it is tied to a knowledgeable, trained community of security professionals who can effectively utilize available resources to protect the integrity of Agency IT assets. EPA will develop Plans of Actions and Milestones (POAM) to specifically address the actions required to improve how
1060
the Agency can better recruit, develop, and train the Information Security Officials throughout the Agency. 13. Improving the Development and Use of Environmental Information Summary of Challenge: According to GAO, while EPA has invested considerable time and resources into improving the environmental data needed to protect the environment, significant gaps remain in environmental data needed in developing, assessing, and refining environmental policy, including developing measures to gauge the effectiveness of that policy to produce desired outcomes. For example, improved data is needed to focus the Agencys efforts on the protection of the nations streams, rivers, bays, lakes, and oceans. Agency Response: EPAs statutory and programmatic structure has driven the Agency to collect environmental and exposure data in a fragmented fashion. GAO believes that EPA should emphasize the development and use of environmental indicators and information as a strategic resource and as a mechanism for ranking resource allocation and measuring success of the Agencys policies and programs. EPA acknowledges the challenges it faces in improving the development and use of environmental information. However, the Agency believes the issues raised by GAO extend beyond the scope of the Agencys responsibility. EPA lacks the statutory authorities and the resources, to collect and manage environmental data and information as would be necessary to address the challenge. GAO cites the past proposal to establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics (BES) as a step to address the challenge. While EPA does not take a position on this proposal, the Agency notes that the proposal would require Congressional leaders to enact legislation to establish a BES or equivalent. 14. Addressing Workforce and Infrastructure Issues Summary of Challenge: GAO believes that EPA lacks a comprehensive assessment of its workload, workforce, and organizational structure needed to cost effectively meet its strategic goals. GAO states that until EPA performs such an assessment and more clearly aligns its workforce planning with its strategic goals, it is at risk of not having the appropriately skilled workforce it needs to effectively achieve its mission. Agency Response: As part of ongoing resource management efforts, EPA has been exploring how to maximize the productivity of its limited staff and other resources. During each years budget process, EPA reviews the staffing and funding levels, and allocation to address all activities. The Agency currently acknowledges Workforce Planning as an internal control issue under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and has a study underway that will provide critical background information for Agency leadership to consider when making budget allocation decisions. In February 2009, the Agency procured a contractor to conduct a two-part workload benchmarking study of six major functions that it shares with other federal agencies (i.e., financial management, scientific research, regulatory development, enforcement, environmental
1061
monitoring, and permitting). The study will help EPA expand its understanding of workload drivers, major products, and staffing allocation alternatives to consider in these six functional areas. In June 2010, the Agency launched an EPA workload benchmarking baseline survey, the first part of the two-part study. The survey was sent to about 1,200 front-line managers whose staff work in one or more of the six functional areas across EPA Headquarters and Regional offices. The survey was completed in July 2010 with an 83 percent response rate. The contractor recently finalized the report summarizing the baseline survey results, including workload, drivers, and products by each functional work area and by program and office, including regional variation. As a baseline study, this report will not provide information sufficient to determine changes in workforce levels at this time. The Agency launched the second part of the study in February 2011. The results will be used to compare EPAs data to other federal agencies (with comparable functions) and identify potential best practices and/or methodologies that EPA could potentially adopt. The second part of this study is scheduled for completion in September 2011. In addition, EPA amended the OCFO FY 2012 annual planning and budget guidance to strengthen the current annual planning and budget processes to help address this challenge. A more explicit requirement was added to more fully describe workload needs in determining FTEs needed to accomplish Agency goals: Congressional appropriation staff had alerted us to the need for stronger, more detailed justification for FTE requests. The guidance required that the Agencys offices be prepared to describe specific functions and workload and to provide backup analysis if asked. In addition, EPA agreed to incorporate this change in its next (multiyear) policy document.
1062
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM In FY 2012, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and proposals are as follows: Current Fees: Pesticides The FY 2012 Budget reflects the continued collection of Maintenance Fees for review of existing pesticide registrations, and Enhanced Registration Service Fees for the accelerated review of new pesticide registration applications. Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension The Maintenance Fee provides funding for the Reregistration and Registration Review programs and a certain percentage supports the processing of applications involving me-too or inert ingredients. In FY 2012, the Agency expects to collect $22 million in Maintenance Fees under current law. Enhanced Registration Services Entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the registration action request is submitted to EPA specifically for the accelerated pesticide registration decision service. This process has introduced new pesticides to the market more quickly. In FY 2012, the Agency expects to collect $15 million in Enhanced Registration Service Fees under current law. Current Fees: Other Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee Since 1989, the Pre-Manufacturing Notifications (PMN) Fee has been collected for the review and processing of new chemical pre-manufacturing notifications submitted to EPA by the chemical industry. These fees are paid at the time of submission of the PMN for review by EPAs Toxic Substances program. PMN fees are authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act and contain a cap on the amount the Agency may charge for a PMN review. EPA is authorized to collect up to $1.8 million in PMN fees in FY 2012 under current law. Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee The Toxic Substances Control Act, Title IV, Section 402(a)(3), mandates the development of a schedule of fees for persons operating lead training programs accredited under the 402/404 rule and for lead-based paint contractors certified under this rule. The training programs ensure that lead paint abatement is done safely. Fees collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. EPA estimates that $7 million will be deposited in FY 2012.
1063
Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is administered by the Air and Radiation Program. Fee collections began in August 1992. Initially, this fee was imposed on manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light- and heavy-duty trucks and motorcycles. The fees cover EPAs cost of certifying new engines and vehicles and monitoring compliance of in-use engines and vehicles. In 2004, EPA promulgated a rule that updated existing fees and established fees for newly-regulated vehicles and engines. The fees established for new compliance programs are also imposed on manufacturers of heavy-duty, in-use, and non-road vehicles and engines, including large diesel and gas equipment (earthmovers, tractors, forklifts, compressors, etc), handheld and non-handheld utility engines (chainsaws, weed-whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors, watercraft, jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles). In 2009, EPA added fees for evaporative requirements for non-road engines. EPA intends to apply certification fees to additional industry sectors as new programs are developed. In FY 2012, EPA expects to collect $28.1 million from this fee. By FY 2012, EPA plans to have updated the fees rule to collect an additional $7 million annually compared to FY 2011. This $7 million reflects new costs that EPA will incur due to vehicle and fuels data systems and lab modernization. To offset these increases, EPA will update its existing Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance (MVEC) fee program and propose a new Fuels Fee Program that will increase Agency fee collections by approximately $7.0 million annually. 16 This includes: Initiating a rulemaking to establish a new Fuels Program Fee to recover eligible costs associated with the implementation of the new Renewable Fuels program and other core Fuels program activities, including the registration and reporting on fuels and fuel additives. This action is estimated to increase fee collections by about $2.0 million annually. Updating the existing MVEC fee to capture expanded cost-recoverable activities associated with the development, operation, and maintenance of the Agencys engine and vehicle compliance information system. This action is estimated to increase fee collections by about $2.0 million annually. Updating the existing MVEC Fee Rule to recover costs of the Lab Modernization Project currently being funded with Agency funds. This action is estimated to increase fee collections by about $3.0 million annually.
16
Note that this estimated increased fee revenue is contingent upon the lab receiving funding identified to date.
1064
Fee Proposals: Pesticides Pesticides Tolerance Fee A tolerance is the maximum legal limit of a pesticide residue in and on food commodities and animal feed. In 1954, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorized the collection of fees for the establishment of tolerances on raw agricultural commodities and in food commodities. The collection of this fee has been blocked by the Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) through 2012. Legislative language will be submitted to allow for the collection of Pesticide Tolerance fees beginning in FY 2012. Enhanced Registration Services Legislative language will be submitted proposing to publish a new fee schedule to collect an additional $17 million in FY 2012 to better align fee collections with program costs. Currently those who directly benefit from EPAs registration services cover only a fraction of the costs to operate the program, leaving the general taxpayer to shoulder the remaining burden. Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension Legislative language will be submitted to allow the collection of an additional $25 million in order to more closely align fee collections with program costs. The Presidents Budget proposes to relieve the burden on the general taxpayer and finance the costs of operating the Reregistration program from those who directly benefit from EPAs reregistration and registration review activities. Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Legislative language will be submitted to authorize the collection of user charges to support the development of an electronic manifesting system for generators and transporters of hazardous waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires transporters of hazardous waste to document information on the wastes generator, destination, quantity, and route. Currently the tracking system relies on paper copies that are not frequently digitized for data analysis or quality control. The Presidents Budget proposes to collect fees from users of the electronic manifesting system. Use of electronic records will allow EPA to more efficiently monitor and analyze future waste shipments. Full implementation of the electronic system may reduce industry reporting costs under RCRA by $200 million to $400 million annually. Fee Proposals: Other Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee Under the current fee structure, the Agency would collect $1.8 million in FY 2012. Legislative language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic Substances Control Act on Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees. In FY 2012, EPA expects to collect an additional $4 million by removing the statutory cap.
1065
Energy Star Fees The Presidents Budget proposes to begin collecting user fees from product manufacturers who seek to label their products under EPAs Energy Star program. Since 1992, the Energy Star label has served as an indicator of energy efficiency, helping consumers and businesses select qualifying products and, increasingly, Energy Star products have qualified for special rebates, tax exemptions or credits, and procurement preferences. Fee collection would start in 2013 after EPA undertakes a rulemaking process to determine products to be covered by fees and the level of fees, and to ensure that a fee system would not discourage manufacturers from participating in the program or result in a loss of environmental benefits.
1066
WORKING CAPITAL FUND In FY 2012, the Agency begins its sixteenth year of operation of the Working Capital Fund (WCF). It is a revolving fund, authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations, where the costs of goods and services provided are charged to users on a fee-for-service basis. The funds received are available without fiscal year limitation, to continue operations and to replace capital equipment. EPAs WCF was implemented under the authority of Section 403 of the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 and EPAs FY 1997 Appropriations Act. Permanent WCF authority was contained in the Agencys FY 1998 Appropriations Act. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to: (1) be accountable to Agency offices, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress; (2) increase the efficiency of the administrative services provided to program offices; and (3) increase customer service and responsiveness. The Agency has a WCF Board which provides policy and planning oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF financial position. The Board, chaired by the Associate Chief Financial Officer, is composed of twenty-three permanent members from the program and regional offices. Four Agency activities, provided in FY 2011, will continue into FY 2012. These are the Agencys information technology and telecommunications operations, managed by the Office of Environmental Information, Agency postage costs, managed by the Office of Administration and Resources Management, and the Agencys core accounting system and relocation services, which are both managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Two new functions, Background Investigations, managed by the Office of Administration and Resources Management, and Invitational Travel, managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, are also being proposed for FY 2012. The Agencys FY 2012 budget request includes resources for these six activities in each National Program Managers submission, totaling approximately $206.4 million. These estimated resources may be increased to incorporate program offices additional service needs during the operating year. To the extent that these increases are subject to Congressional reprogramming notifications, the Agency will comply with all applicable requirements. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to market its information technology and relocation services to other Federal agencies in an effort to deliver high quality services external to EPA, which will result in lower costs to EPA customers.
1067
ACRONYMS
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3 ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act APA: Administrative Procedures Act ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act CAA: Clean Air Act CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments CCA: Clinger Cohen Act
CCAA: Canadian
Clean Air Act
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980) CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CICA: Competition in Contracting Act CRA: Civil Rights Act CSA: Computer Security Act CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
1068
CWA: Clean Water Act CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act DPA: Deepwater Ports Act DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act EPACT: Energy Policy Act EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act ESA: Endangered Species Act ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; enacted as amendments to FIFRA. FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act
1069
FMFIA: Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act FOIA: Freedom of Information Act FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Act FPA: Federal Pesticide Act FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act FRA: Federal Register Act FSA: Food Security Act FUA: Fuel Use Act FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA) GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act GMRA: Government Management Reform Act GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments IGA: Inspector General Act IPA: Intergovernmental Personnel Act IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987
1070
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996 ODA: Ocean Dumping Act OPA: The Oil Pollution Act OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act PBA: Public Building Act PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act PHSA: Public Health Service Act PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act PR: Privacy Act PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act QCA: Quiet Communities Act RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
1071
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988 SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act TCA: Tribal Cooperative Agreement TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act USC: United States Code USTCA: Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987 WRDA: Water Resources Development Act WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
1072
STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses (Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title Statutory Authorities Eligible Recipients Eligible Uses FY 2010 Enacted (X1000) FY 2011 Annualized CR (X1000) FY 2012 Goal/ Objective FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $34,000.0
State and Local Air Quality Management
CAA, Section 103
Air pollution control agencies as defined in section 302(b) of the CAA
S/L monitoring and data collection activities in support of the PM2.5 monitoring network and associated program costs.
$42,500.0
$38,250.0
Goal 1, Obj. 2
CAA, Section 103
S/L monitoring and data collection activities in support of the air toxics monitoring.
Goal 1, $12,350.0 $12,350.0 Obj. 2 $9,850.0
CAA, Section 103 State and Local Air Quality Management
S/L monitoring procurement activities in support of the NAAQS
Goal 1, Obj. 2
$15,000.0
1073
Grant Title
Statutory Authorities
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2010 Enacted (X1000)
FY 2011 Annualized CR (X1000)
FY 2012 Goal/ Objective
FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $246,050.0 105 grants
CAA, Sections 105, 106
Air pollution control agencies as defined in section 302(b) of the CAA; Multi-jurisdictional organizations (nonprofit organizations whose boards of directors or membership is made up of CAA section 302(b) agency officers and whose mission is to support the continuing environmental programs of the States); Interstate air quality control region designated pursuant to section 107 of the CAA or of implementing section 176A, or section 184 NOTE: only the Ozone Transport Commission is eligible.
Carrying out the traditional prevention and control programs required by the CAA and associated program support costs, including monitoring activities (section 105); Coordinating or facilitating a multijurisdictional approach to carrying out the traditional prevention and control programs required by the CAA (sections 103 and 106); Supporting training for CAA section 302(b) air pollution control agency staff (sections 103 and 105); Supporting research, investigative and demonstration projects (section 103). Assist in the development and implementation of programs for the assessment and mitigation of radon.
$171,130.0 105 grants
$175,380.0 105 grants
Goal 1, Obj. 2
________ $600.0 106 grants
________ $600.0 106 grants $600.0 ________
Total: $226,580.0
Total: $226,580.0
106 grants
Total: $305,500.0
Radon
TSCA, Sections 10 and 306;
State Agencies, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
Goal 1, Obj. 2
$8,074.0
1074
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $250,264.0
Water Pollution Control (Section 106)
FWPCA, as amended, Section 106; TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia, Interstate Agencies
Develop and carry out surface and ground water pollution control programs, including NPDES permits, TMDLs, WQ standards, monitoring, and NPS control activities. Implement EPAapproved state and Tribal nonpoint source management programs and fund priority projects as selected by the state. To develop new wetland programs or enhance existing programs for the protection, management and restoration of wetland resources. Assistance to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to ensure the safety of the Nations drinking water resources and to protect public health.
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
Goal 2, Obj. 2
Nonpoint Source (NPS Section 319)
FWPCA, as amended, Section 319(h); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
Goal 2, Obj. 2
$164,757.0
Wetlands Program Development
FWPCA, as amended, Section 104 (b)(3); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Local Governments, Tribes, Interstate Organizations, Intertribal Consortia, NonProfit Organizations States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
Goal 2, Obj. 2
$15,167.0
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
SDWA, Section 1443(a); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
Goal 2, Obj. 1
$109,700.0
1075
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
SDWA, Section 1443(b); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
Implement and enforce regulations that protect underground sources of drinking water by controlling Class IVI underground injection wells. Develop and implement programs for monitoring and notification of conditions for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public. Development & Implementation of Hazardous Waste Programs
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
Goal 2, Obj. 1
Beaches Protection
BEACH Act of 2000; TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia, Local Governments
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
Goal 2, Obj. 1
$9,900.0
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
RCRA, Section 3011; FY 1999 Appropriations Act (PL 105-276); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts. CERCLA, as amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-118); GMRA (1990); FGCAA.
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
Goal 3, Obj. 2
$103,412.0
Brownfields
Build and support Brownfields programs which will assess contaminated properties, oversee private party cleanups, provide cleanup support through low interest loans, and provide certainty for liability related issues.
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
Goal 3, Obj. 1
$49,495.0
1076
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
SWDA, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 2007(f), 42 U.S.C. 6916(f)(2); EPAct of 2005, Title XV Ethanol and Motor Fuels, Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Sections 1521-1533, P.L. 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801.
States
Provide funding for States underground storage tanks and to support direct UST implementation programs.
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
Goal 3, Obj. 3
1077
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2011 Annualized CR (X1000) $11,670.0 States formula (includes $246.0 PREP)
FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $11,390.0 States formula (includes $246.0 PREP)
Pesticides Program Implementation
FIFRA, Sections 20 and 23; the FY 1999 Appropriations Act (PL 105-276); FY 2000 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-74); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
Implement the following programs through grants to States, Tribes, partners, and supporters: Certification and Training (C&T) / Worker Protection, Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) Field Activities, Pesticides in Water, Tribal Program, and Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program.
$11,670.0 States formula (includes $246.0 PREP)
Goal 4, Obj. 1
_________ $800.0 Tribal _________ $500.0 PESP
_________ $800.0 Tribal _________ $500.0 PESP
_________ $800.0 Tribal _________ $500.0 PESP
__________ __________ $550.0 EJ Total: $13,520.0 __________ $550.0 EJ Total: $13,520.0 Total: $13,140.0 $450.0 EJ
1078
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $1,588.0 National Community Based Organizations
Lead
TSCA, Sections 10 and 404 (g); FY 2000 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-74); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
Implement the leadbased paint activities in the Training and Certification program through EPA-authorized State, territorial and Tribal programs and, in areas without authorization, through direct implementation by the Agency. Activities conducted as part of this program include issuing grants for the training and certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint abatement and inspection activities and the accreditation of qualified training providers.
$1,557.0 National Community Based Organizations _________ $8,359.5 404(g) State/ Tribal Certification
$1,557.0 National Community Based Organizations _________ $8,359.5 404(g) State/ Tribal Certification
Goal 4, Obj. 1
_________ $8,556.5 404(g) State/ Tribal Certification
_________ $4,647.5 404(g) Direct Implementation
_________ $4,647.5 404(g) Direct Implementation
_________ $4,710.5
Total: $14,564.0
Total: $14,564.0
404(g) Direct Implementation
Total: $14,855.0
1079
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2012 Presidents Budget Dollars (X1000) $1,510.0 _________ Lead
Toxic Substances Compliance
TSCA, Sections 28(a) and 404 (g); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Territories, Federally recognized Indian Tribes, Intertribal Consortia, and Territories of the U.S.
Assist in developing, maintaining and implementing compliance monitoring programs for PCBs, asbestos, and Lead Based Paint. In addition, enforcement actions by :1) the Lead Based Paint program, and 2) States that obtained a waiver under the Asbestos program.
$ 1,485.0 Lead _________
$ 1,485.0 Lead _________
Goal 5, Obj. 1
$ 3,614 .0 PCB/Asbestos
$ 3,614 .0 PCB/Asbestos
$3,691.0 PCB/Asbestos
Total: $5,201.0 Total: $5,099.0 Total: $5,099.0
Pesticide Enforcement
FIFRA 23(a)(1); FY 2000 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-74); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
States, Territories, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia
Assist in implementing cooperative pesticide enforcement programs.
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
Goal 5, Obj. 1
$19,085.0
1080
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN, aka the Exchange Network)
As appropriate, CAA, Section 103; CWA, Section 104; RCRA, Section 8001; FIFRA, Section 20; TSCA, Sections 10 and 28; MPRSA, Section 203; SDWA, Section 1442; Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992, as amended; FY 2000 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-74); Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Section 6605; FY 2002 Appropriations Act and FY 2003 Appropriations Acts.
States, Tribes, Interstate Agencies, Tribal Consortium, Other Agencies with Related Environmental Information Activities.
Helps States, territories, Tribes, and intertribal consortia develop the information management and technology (IM/IT) capabilities they need to participate in the Exchange Network, to continue and expand data-sharing programs, and to improve access to environmental information. These grants supplement the Exchange Network investments already being made by States and Tribes.
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
ESP OEI
1081
Grant Title
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Uses
Pollution Prevention
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Section 6605; TSCA Section 10; FY 2000 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-74); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts.
Provides assistance to States and State entities (i.e., colleges and universities) and Federallyrecognized Tribes and intertribal consortia in order to deliver pollution prevention technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. A goal of the program is to assist businesses and industries with identifying improved environmental strategies and solutions for reducing waste at the source. Plan and develop Tribal environmental protection programs.
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
Goal 4, Obj. 2
Tribal General Assistance Program
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act (42 U.S.C. 4368b); TCA in annual Appropriations Acts. TCA in annual Appropriations Acts
Tribal Governments, Intertribal Consortia
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
Goal 3, Obj. 4
$71,375.0
Categorical Grant: MultiMedia Tribal Implementation
Tribal Governments
Implement Environmental programs
$0.0
$0.0
Goal 3, Obj. 4
$20,000.0
1082
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification PROGRAM PROJECTS BY PROGRAM AREA (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010 Enacted Science & Technology Clean Air and Climate Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Climate Protection Program Federal Support for Air Quality Management Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate $9,963.0 $19,797.0 $11,443.0 $2,398.0 $91,782.0 $135,383.0 $9,329.3 $20,126.8 $12,480.6 $2,381.7 $87,648.2 $131,966.6 $9,963.0 $19,797.0 $11,443.0 $2,398.0 $91,782.0 $135,383.0 $9,797.0 $16,345.0 $7,650.0 $0.0 $100,578.0 $134,370.0 ($166.0) ($3,452.0) ($3,793.0) ($2,398.0) $8,796.0 ($1,013.0) FY 2010 Actuals FY 2011 Annualized CR FY 2012 Pres Budget 2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted
Indoor Air and Radiation Indoor Air: Radon Program Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Radiation: Protection Radiation: Response Preparedness Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation $453.0 $762.0 $2,095.0 $4,176.0 $7,486.0 $485.6 $808.0 $1,962.1 $4,242.7 $7,498.4 $453.0 $762.0 $2,095.0 $4,176.0 $7,486.0 $210.0 $370.0 $2,096.0 $4,082.0 $6,758.0 ($243.0) ($392.0) $1.0 ($94.0) ($728.0)
Enforcement Forensics Support Homeland Security $15,351.0 $15,245.3 $15,351.0 $15,326.0 ($25.0)
1083
FY 2010 Enacted Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Water Sentinel Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Laboratory Preparedness and Response Safe Building Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Subtotal, Homeland Security $24,857.0 $499.0 $1,996.0 $18,576.0
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted
$13,953.7
$18,576.0
$8,632.0
($9,944.0)
$4,450.0 $23,026.0
$7,001.2 $20,954.9
$4,450.0 $23,026.0
$2,747.0 $11,379.0
($1,703.0) ($11,647.0)
$20,448.7 $438.3 $1,225.2
$24,857.0 $499.0 $1,996.0
$17,382.0 $0.0 $0.0
($7,475.0) ($499.0) ($1,996.0)
$14,305.0 $41,657.0 $593.0 $65,276.0
$15,585.7 $37,697.9 $593.0 $59,245.8
$14,305.0 $41,657.0 $593.0 $65,276.0
$12,696.0 $30,078.0 $579.0 $42,036.0
($1,609.0) ($11,579.0) ($14.0) ($23,240.0)
IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) $33,947.0 $19,177.0 $10,260.0 $9,534.0 $34,102.2 $21,934.3 $9,218.0 $7,587.2 $33,947.0 $19,177.0 $10,260.0 $9,534.0 $35,661.0 $20,195.0 $10,714.0 $9,951.0 $1,714.0 $1,018.0 $454.0 $417.0 $4,385.0 $4,054.0 $4,385.0 $4,108.0 ($277.0)
1084
FY 2010 Enacted Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Subtotal, Operations and Administration $72,918.0 $72,918.0
FY 2010 Actuals $72,841.7 $72,841.7
FY 2011 Annualized CR $72,918.0 $72,918.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $76,521.0 $76,521.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $3,603.0 $3,603.0
Pesticides Licensing Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing $3,750.0 $2,279.0 $537.0 $6,566.0 $4,146.4 $2,285.9 $505.1 $6,937.4 $3,750.0 $2,279.0 $537.0 $6,566.0 $3,839.0 $2,448.0 $544.0 $6,831.0 $89.0 $169.0 $7.0 $265.0
Research: Air, Climate and Energy Research: Air, Climate and Energy Global Change Clean Air Research: Air, Climate and Energy (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy $20,822.0 $81,605.0 $9,022.0 $111,449.0 $111,449.0 $19,646.9 $74,670.2 $8,441.0 $102,758.1 $102,758.1 $20,822.0 $81,605.0 $9,022.0 $111,449.0 $111,449.0 $20,805.0 $83,102.0 $4,093.0 $108,000.0 $108,000.0 ($17.0) $1,497.0 ($4,929.0) ($3,449.0) ($3,449.0)
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Drinking Water Water Quality Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (other activities) $49,103.0 $61,918.0 $52.0 $50,346.0 $58,586.9 $0.0 $49,103.0 $61,918.0 $52.0 $52,495.0 $66,229.0 $52.0 $3,392.0 $4,311.0 $0.0
1085
FY 2010 Enacted Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources $111,073.0 $111,073.0
FY 2010 Actuals $108,932.9 $108,932.9
FY 2011 Annualized CR $111,073.0 $111,073.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $118,776.0 $118,776.0
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Human Health Ecosystems Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subtotal, Research: Sustainable Communities $54,180.0 $71,698.0 $62,217.0 $188,095.0 $188,095.0 $54,324.6 $68,805.1 $59,873.0 $183,002.7 $183,002.7 $53,180.0 $70,698.0 $62,217.0 $186,095.0 $186,095.0 $45,392.0 $60,905.0 $64,729.0 $171,026.0 $171,026.0 ($8,788.0) ($10,793.0) $2,512.0 ($17,069.0) ($17,069.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Human Health Risk Assessment Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Endocrine Disruptors Computational Toxicology Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability (other activities) Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability $11,350.0 $20,044.0 $46,437.0 $77,831.0 $120,730.0 $12,471.9 $13,929.9 $48,819.3 $75,221.1 $116,737.5 $11,350.0 $20,044.0 $46,437.0 $77,831.0 $120,730.0 $16,883.0 $21,209.0 $57,565.0 $95,657.0 $138,057.0 $5,533.0 $1,165.0 $11,128.0 $17,826.0 $17,327.0 $42,899.0 $41,516.4 $42,899.0 $42,400.0 ($499.0)
Water: Human Health Protection Drinking Water Programs $3,637.0 $3,889.3 $3,637.0 $3,787.0 $150.0
1086
FY 2010 Enacted Congressional Priorities Congressionally Mandated Projects Total, Science & Technology $5,700.0 $848,049.0
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$4,568.0 $817,677.7
$5,700.0 $846,049.0
$0.0 $825,596.0
($5,700.0) ($22,453.0)
Environmental Program & Management Clean Air and Climate Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs Climate Protection Program Energy STAR Methane to markets Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry Climate Protection Program (other activities) Subtotal, Climate Protection Program Federal Stationary Source Regulations Federal Support for Air Quality Management Federal Support for Air Toxics Program Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate $52,606.0 $4,569.0 $16,685.0 $39,184.0 $113,044.0 $27,158.0 $99,619.0 $24,446.0 $5,934.0 $9,840.0 $300,832.0 $42,138.0 $5,272.8 $15,990.7 $46,324.6 $109,726.1 $26,195.8 $103,224.6 $23,468.8 $6,159.4 $9,840.0 $299,279.0 $52,606.0 $4,569.0 $16,685.0 $39,184.0 $113,044.0 $27,158.0 $99,619.0 $24,446.0 $5,934.0 $9,840.0 $300,832.0 $55,628.0 $5,616.0 $17,646.0 $32,529.0 $111,419.0 $34,096.0 $133,822.0 $0.0 $5,612.0 $9,495.0 $315,286.0 $3,022.0 $1,047.0 $961.0 ($6,655.0) ($1,625.0) $6,938.0 $34,203.0 ($24,446.0) ($322.0) ($345.0) $14,454.0 $20,791.0 $20,664.3 $20,791.0 $20,842.0 $51.0
Indoor Air and Radiation Indoor Air: Radon Program Reduce Risks from Indoor Air Radiation: Protection Radiation: Response Preparedness $5,866.0 $20,759.0 $11,295.0 $3,077.0 $5,408.1 $19,253.0 $11,433.3 $2,827.9 $5,866.0 $20,759.0 $11,295.0 $3,077.0 $3,901.0 $17,198.0 $9,629.0 $3,042.0 ($1,965.0) ($3,561.0) ($1,666.0) ($35.0)
1087
FY 2010 Enacted Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation $40,997.0
FY 2010 Actuals $38,922.3
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($7,227.0)
Brownfields Brownfields Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers Compliance Incentives Compliance Monitoring Subtotal, Compliance $25,622.0 $9,560.0 $99,400.0 $134,582.0 $23,628.3 $8,792.6 $97,937.7 $130,358.6 $25,622.0 $9,560.0 $99,400.0 $134,582.0 $0.0 $0.0 $119,648.0 $119,648.0 ($25,622.0) ($9,560.0) $20,248.0 ($14,934.0) $24,152.0 $24,465.3 $24,152.0 $26,397.0 $2,245.0
Enforcement Civil Enforcement Criminal Enforcement Enforcement Training Environmental Justice NEPA Implementation Subtotal, Enforcement $146,636.0 $49,637.0 $3,278.0 $7,090.0 $18,258.0 $224,899.0 $145,896.6 $49,043.2 $3,220.0 $9,567.4 $18,313.4 $226,040.6 $146,636.0 $49,637.0 $3,278.0 $7,090.0 $18,258.0 $224,899.0 $191,404.0 $51,345.0 $0.0 $7,397.0 $18,072.0 $268,218.0 $44,768.0 $1,708.0 ($3,278.0) $307.0 ($186.0) $43,319.0
Geographic Programs Great Lakes Restoration Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay Geographic Program: Great Lakes Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay Geographic Program: Puget Sound Geographic Program: South Florida Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin Geographic Program: Long Island Sound $475,000.0 $50,000.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $50,000.0 $2,168.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $430,818.2 $53,192.7 $1,752.3 $10,087.1 $40,040.4 $2,321.5 $0.0 $6,141.9 $475,000.0 $50,000.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $50,000.0 $2,168.0 $0.0 $7,000.0 $350,000.0 $67,350.0 $0.0 $4,847.0 $19,289.0 $2,061.0 $6,000.0 $2,962.0 ($125,000.0) $17,350.0 $0.0 ($2,153.0) ($30,711.0) ($107.0) $6,000.0 ($4,038.0)
1088
FY 2010 Enacted Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico Geographic Program: Lake Champlain Geographic Program: Other Lake Pontchartrain Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Geographic Program: Other (other activities) Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other Subtotal, Geographic Programs $1,500.0 $2,448.0 $3,325.0 $7,273.0 $608,441.0 $6,000.0 $4,000.0
FY 2010 Actuals $7,671.7 $486.9
FY 2011 Annualized CR $6,000.0 $4,000.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $4,464.0 $1,399.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($1,536.0) ($2,601.0)
$996.0 $1,648.9 $1,901.0 $4,545.9 $557,058.6
$1,500.0 $2,448.0 $3,325.0 $7,273.0 $608,441.0
$955.0 $2,384.0 $1,296.0 $4,635.0 $463,007.0
($545.0) ($64.0) ($2,029.0) ($2,638.0) ($145,434.0)
Homeland Security Homeland Security: Communication and Information Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Decontamination Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure $3,423.0 $1,573.3 $3,423.0 $0.0 ($3,423.0) $99.0 $156.1 $99.0 $0.0 ($99.0) $6,926.0 $7,206.3 $6,926.0 $4,257.0 ($2,669.0)
$6,737.0 $6,836.0
$6,649.0 $6,805.1
$6,737.0 $6,836.0
$1,065.0 $1,065.0
($5,672.0) ($5,771.0)
$0.0 $3,423.0 $6,369.0
$2,690.9 $4,264.2 $6,300.3
$0.0 $3,423.0 $6,369.0
$0.0 $0.0 $5,978.0
$0.0 ($3,423.0) ($391.0)
1089
FY 2010 Enacted Subtotal, Homeland Security $23,554.0
FY 2010 Actuals $24,575.9
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($12,254.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination Environmental Education Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations Exchange Network Small Business Ombudsman Small Minority Business Assistance State and Local Prevention and Preparedness TRI / Right to Know Tribal - Capacity Building Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach $7,100.0 $9,038.0 $51,944.0 $17,024.0 $3,028.0 $2,350.0 $13,303.0 $14,933.0 $12,080.0 $130,800.0 $5,715.8 $7,396.6 $52,787.0 $17,918.5 $3,488.5 $2,133.1 $13,426.7 $15,230.9 $13,040.9 $131,138.0 $7,100.0 $9,038.0 $51,944.0 $17,024.0 $3,028.0 $2,350.0 $13,303.0 $14,933.0 $12,080.0 $130,800.0 $10,795.0 $9,885.0 $52,268.0 $20,883.0 $2,953.0 $2,280.0 $14,613.0 $16,463.0 $15,070.0 $145,210.0 $3,695.0 $847.0 $324.0 $3,859.0 ($75.0) ($70.0) $1,310.0 $1,530.0 $2,990.0 $14,410.0
International Programs US Mexico Border International Sources of Pollution Trade and Governance Subtotal, International Programs $4,969.0 $8,628.0 $6,227.0 $19,824.0 $4,997.8 $8,514.5 $6,359.8 $19,872.1 $4,969.0 $8,628.0 $6,227.0 $19,824.0 $4,912.0 $8,302.0 $6,233.0 $19,447.0 ($57.0) ($326.0) $6.0 ($377.0)
IT / Data Management / Security Information Security IT / Data Management Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security $5,912.0 $97,410.0 $103,322.0 $5,881.7 $98,258.9 $104,140.6 $5,912.0 $97,410.0 $103,322.0 $6,837.0 $88,576.0 $95,413.0 $925.0 ($8,834.0) ($7,909.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
1090
FY 2010 Enacted Administrative Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance Legal Advice: Environmental Program Legal Advice: Support Program Regional Science and Technology Integrated Environmental Strategies Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis Science Advisory Board Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review $5,275.0 $1,147.0 $12,224.0 $42,662.0 $14,419.0 $3,271.0 $18,917.0 $19,404.0 $6,278.0 $123,597.0
FY 2010 Actuals $5,424.8 $1,313.8 $12,413.1 $42,826.7 $14,727.9 $3,146.2 $18,366.6 $19,041.3 $6,157.2 $123,417.6
FY 2011 Annualized CR $5,275.0 $1,147.0 $12,224.0 $42,662.0 $14,419.0 $3,271.0 $18,917.0 $19,404.0 $6,278.0 $123,597.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $5,386.0 $1,329.0 $11,685.0 $45,352.0 $15,873.0 $3,283.0 $17,509.0 $22,326.0 $5,867.0 $128,610.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $111.0 $182.0 ($539.0) $2,690.0 $1,454.0 $12.0 ($1,408.0) $2,922.0 ($411.0) $5,013.0
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Acquisition Management Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Human Resources Management Recovery Act Mangement and Oversight Subtotal, Operations and Administration $157,040.0 $13,514.0 $27,997.0 $116,687.0 $315,238.0 $82,834.0 $32,404.0 $25,487.0 $42,447.0 $0.0 $498,410.0 $161,817.5 $2,539.3 $27,326.6 $118,555.4 $310,238.8 $86,883.5 $33,272.6 $24,311.6 $43,526.7 $22,237.5 $520,470.7 $157,040.0 $13,514.0 $27,997.0 $116,687.0 $315,238.0 $82,834.0 $32,404.0 $25,487.0 $42,447.0 $0.0 $498,410.0 $170,807.0 $11,221.0 $29,266.0 $113,671.0 $324,965.0 $77,548.0 $34,119.0 $26,223.0 $44,680.0 $0.0 $507,535.0 $13,767.0 ($2,293.0) $1,269.0 ($3,016.0) $9,727.0 ($5,286.0) $1,715.0 $736.0 $2,233.0 $0.0 $9,125.0
1091
FY 2010 Enacted Pesticides Licensing Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability Science Policy and Biotechnology Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing $62,944.0 $42,203.0 $13,145.0 $1,840.0 $120,132.0
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$62,696.4 $41,584.5 $13,508.9 $1,349.5 $119,139.3
$62,944.0 $42,203.0 $13,145.0 $1,840.0 $120,132.0
$58,304.0 $37,913.0 $12,550.0 $1,756.0 $110,523.0
($4,640.0) ($4,290.0) ($595.0) ($84.0) ($9,609.0)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA: Waste Management eManifest RCRA: Waste Management (other activities) Subtotal, RCRA: Waste Management RCRA: Corrective Action RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) $0.0 $68,842.0 $68,842.0 $40,029.0 $14,379.0 $123,250.0 $0.0 $71,171.2 $71,171.2 $39,366.0 $13,063.3 $123,600.5 $0.0 $68,842.0 $68,842.0 $40,029.0 $14,379.0 $123,250.0 $2,000.0 $64,854.0 $66,854.0 $40,266.0 $9,751.0 $116,871.0 $2,000.0 ($3,988.0) ($1,988.0) $237.0 ($4,628.0) ($6,379.0)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention Endocrine Disruptors Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Pollution Prevention Program Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program $8,625.0 $54,886.0 $18,050.0 $6,025.0 $14,329.0 $8,513.2 $53,458.7 $18,014.5 $7,193.0 $13,429.3 $8,625.0 $54,886.0 $18,050.0 $6,025.0 $14,329.0 $8,268.0 $70,939.0 $15,653.0 $6,105.0 $14,332.0 ($357.0) $16,053.0 ($2,397.0) $80.0 $3.0
1092
FY 2010 Enacted Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention $101,915.0
FY 2010 Actuals $100,608.7
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $13,382.0
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) LUST / UST Water: Ecosystems Great Lakes Legacy Act National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways Wetlands Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems $0.0 $32,567.0 $25,940.0 $58,507.0 $33,030.3 $29,796.8 $27,130.2 $89,957.3 $0.0 $32,567.0 $25,940.0 $58,507.0 $0.0 $27,058.0 $27,368.0 $54,426.0 $0.0 ($5,509.0) $1,428.0 ($4,081.0) $12,424.0 $12,833.9 $12,424.0 $12,866.0 $442.0
Water: Human Health Protection Beach / Fish Programs Drinking Water Programs Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection $2,944.0 $102,224.0 $105,168.0 $2,981.4 $99,394.2 $102,375.6 $2,944.0 $102,224.0 $105,168.0 $2,708.0 $104,616.0 $107,324.0 ($236.0) $2,392.0 $2,156.0
Water Quality Protection Marine Pollution Surface Water Protection Subtotal, Water Quality Protection $13,397.0 $208,626.0 $222,023.0 $9,783.7 $201,136.3 $210,920.0 $13,397.0 $208,626.0 $222,023.0 $13,417.0 $212,069.0 $225,486.0 $20.0 $3,443.0 $3,463.0
Congressional Priorities Congressionally Mandated Projects Total, Environmental Program & Management $16,950.0 $2,993,779.0 $29,700.0 $2,988,874.6 $16,950.0 $2,993,779.0 $0.0 $2,876,634.0 ($16,950.0) ($117,145.0)
Inspector General Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
1093
FY 2010 Enacted Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Total, Inspector General $44,791.0 $44,791.0
FY 2010 Actuals $49,164.4 $49,164.4
FY 2011 Annualized CR $44,791.0 $44,791.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $45,997.0 $45,997.0
Building and Facilities Homeland Security Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Total, Building and Facilities $28,931.0 $37,001.0 $29,896.7 $39,548.8 $28,931.0 $37,001.0 $33,931.0 $41,969.0 $5,000.0 $4,968.0 $8,070.0 $9,652.1 $8,070.0 $8,038.0 ($32.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfund Indoor Air and Radiation Radiation: Protection Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations Compliance Compliance Incentives Compliance Monitoring Subtotal, Compliance $0.0 $1,216.0 $1,216.0 $14.4 $1,181.8 $1,196.2 $0.0 $1,216.0 $1,216.0 $0.0 $1,222.0 $1,222.0 $0.0 $6.0 $6.0 $9,975.0 $9,337.9 $9,975.0 $10,009.0 $34.0 $2,495.0 $2,586.2 $2,495.0 $2,487.0 ($8.0)
Enforcement Environmental Justice Superfund: Enforcement Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement $795.0 $172,668.0 $10,570.0 $891.0 $174,821.5 $9,196.2 $795.0 $172,668.0 $10,570.0 $600.0 $169,844.0 $10,530.0 ($195.0) ($2,824.0) ($40.0)
1094
FY 2010 Enacted Criminal Enforcement Enforcement Training Forensics Support Subtotal, Enforcement $8,066.0 $899.0 $2,450.0 $195,448.0
FY 2010 Actuals $8,417.3 $756.5 $2,727.0 $196,809.5
FY 2011 Annualized CR $8,066.0 $899.0 $2,450.0 $195,448.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $8,252.0 $0.0 $2,389.0 $191,615.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $186.0 ($899.0) ($61.0) ($3,833.0)
Homeland Security Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Decontamination Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Decontamination Laboratory Preparedness and Response Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (other activities) Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure Subtotal, Homeland Security $10,798.0 $9,626.0 $6,087.1 $5,111.1 $10,798.0 $9,626.0 $5,908.0 $5,635.0 ($4,890.0) ($3,991.0) $198.0 $89.6 $198.0 $0.0 ($198.0)
$1,562.0 $1,760.0
$1,179.9 $1,269.5
$1,562.0 $1,760.0
$0.0 $0.0
($1,562.0) ($1,760.0)
$33,156.0 $53,580.0 $1,194.0 $56,534.0
$40,360.7 $51,558.9 $1,194.0 $54,022.4
$33,156.0 $53,580.0 $1,194.0 $56,534.0
$29,119.0 $40,662.0 $1,172.0 $41,834.0
($4,037.0) ($12,918.0) ($22.0) ($14,700.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach Exchange Network IT / Data Management / Security $1,433.0 $1,438.6 $1,433.0 $1,433.0 $0.0
1095
FY 2010 Enacted Information Security IT / Data Management Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security $785.0 $17,087.0 $17,872.0
FY 2010 Actuals $524.3 $16,498.3 $17,022.6
FY 2011 Annualized CR $785.0 $17,087.0 $17,872.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $728.0 $15,352.0 $16,080.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($57.0) ($1,735.0) ($1,792.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review Alternative Dispute Resolution Legal Advice: Environmental Program Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review $893.0 $746.0 $1,639.0 $863.5 $658.7 $1,522.2 $893.0 $746.0 $1,639.0 $927.0 $750.0 $1,677.0 $34.0 $4.0 $38.0
Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Utilities Security Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management Acquisition Management Human Resources Management Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Subtotal, Operations and Administration $44,300.0 $3,397.0 $8,299.0 $22,486.0 $78,482.0 $2,945.0 $24,684.0 $5,580.0 $27,490.0 $139,181.0 $44,239.0 $2,630.9 $7,633.1 $21,549.0 $76,052.0 $3,240.9 $23,820.8 $4,332.7 $28,192.2 $135,638.6 $44,300.0 $3,397.0 $8,299.0 $22,486.0 $78,482.0 $2,945.0 $24,684.0 $5,580.0 $27,490.0 $139,181.0 $47,112.0 $3,765.0 $8,282.0 $22,272.0 $81,431.0 $3,243.0 $24,097.0 $7,046.0 $22,252.0 $138,069.0 $2,812.0 $368.0 ($17.0) ($214.0) $2,949.0 $298.0 ($587.0) $1,466.0 ($5,238.0) ($1,112.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability $21,264.0 $22,525.3 $21,264.0 $17,706.0 ($3,558.0)
1096
FY 2010 Enacted Human Health Risk Assessment Superfund Cleanup Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness Superfund: Federal Facilities Superfund: Remedial Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund $202,330.0 $9,632.0 $32,105.0 $605,438.0 $6,575.0 $856,080.0 $1,306,541.0 $3,404.0
FY 2010 Actuals $3,169.1
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($62.0)
$225,840.0 $9,667.5 $33,605.0 $693,835.2 $6,575.0 $969,522.7 $1,414,791.3
$202,330.0 $9,632.0 $32,105.0 $605,438.0 $6,575.0 $856,080.0 $1,306,541.0
$194,895.0 $9,263.0 $26,242.0 $574,499.0 $5,858.0 $810,757.0 $1,236,231.0
($7,435.0) ($369.0) ($5,863.0) ($30,939.0) ($717.0) ($45,323.0) ($70,310.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Enforcement Civil Enforcement Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Acquisition Management $696.0 $208.0 $904.0 $165.0 $696.0 $175.9 $871.9 $172.4 $696.0 $208.0 $904.0 $165.0 $696.0 $220.0 $916.0 $163.0 $0.0 $12.0 $12.0 ($2.0) $162.0 $152.3 $162.0 $0.0 ($162.0) $797.0 $756.8 $797.0 $0.0 ($797.0) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $832.0 $832.0
1097
FY 2010 Enacted Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance Subtotal, Operations and Administration $1,115.0 $2,184.0
FY 2010 Actuals $1,312.0 $2,356.3
FY 2011 Annualized CR $1,115.0 $2,184.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $512.0 $1,591.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted ($603.0) ($593.0)
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) LUST / UST LUST Cooperative Agreements LUST Prevention Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) $11,613.0 $63,570.0 $34,430.0 $109,613.0 $17,901.7 $55,963.6 $35,030.1 $108,895.4 $11,613.0 $63,570.0 $34,430.0 $109,613.0 $11,982.0 $63,192.0 $34,430.0 $109,604.0 $369.0 ($378.0) $0.0 ($9.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $345.0 $113,101.0 $422.5 $112,583.3 $345.0 $113,101.0 $454.0 $112,481.0 $109.0 ($620.0)
Inland Oil Spill Programs Compliance Compliance Assistance and Centers Compliance Monitoring Subtotal, Compliance $269.0 $0.0 $269.0 $263.7 $0.0 $263.7 $269.0 $0.0 $269.0 $0.0 $138.0 $138.0 ($269.0) $138.0 ($131.0)
Enforcement Civil Enforcement IT / Data Management / Security IT / Data Management Oil Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response $14,944.0 $13,494.8 $14,944.0 $19,472.0 $4,528.0 $24.0 $24.0 $24.0 $0.0 ($24.0) $1,998.0 $2,082.8 $1,998.0 $2,902.0 $904.0
1098
FY 2010 Enacted Operations and Administration Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Rent Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other activities) Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Subtotal, Operations and Administration $438.0 $67.0 $505.0 $505.0
FY 2010 Actuals
FY 2012 Pres Budget
$438.0 $51.4 $489.4 $489.4
$438.0 $67.0 $505.0 $505.0
$438.0 $98.0 $536.0 $536.0
$0.0 $31.0 $31.0 $31.0
Research: Sustainable Communities Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities Total, Inland Oil Spill Programs $639.0 $18,379.0 $549.7 $16,904.4 $639.0 $18,379.0 $614.0 $23,662.0 ($25.0) $5,283.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages Brownfields Projects Clean School Bus Initiative Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program Targeted Airshed Grants Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) $2,100,000.0 $1,387,000.0 $13,000.0 $100,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 $20,000.0 $17,000.0 $3,697,000.0 $1,695,365.8 $1,143,484.5 $16,634.7 $133,697.0 $68.2 $115,807.2 $10,000.0 $24,503.5 $3,139,560.9 $2,100,000.0 $1,387,000.0 $13,000.0 $100,000.0 $0.0 $60,000.0 $20,000.0 $17,000.0 $3,697,000.0 $1,550,000.0 $990,000.0 $10,000.0 $99,041.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10,000.0 $2,659,041.0 ($550,000.0) ($397,000.0) ($3,000.0) ($959.0) $0.0 ($60,000.0) ($20,000.0) ($7,000.0) ($1,037,959.0)
Categorical Grants
1099
FY 2010 Enacted Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection Categorical Grant: Brownfields Categorical Grant: Environmental Information Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Categorical Grant: Homeland Security Categorical Grant: Lead Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) Monitoring Grants Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) (other activities) Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Categorical Grant: Radon Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management Categorical Grant: Sector Program Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management $18,500.0 $210,764.0 $229,264.0 $4,940.0 $105,700.0 $8,074.0 $226,580.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,099.0 $13,300.0 $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,000.0 $103,346.0 $0.0 $14,564.0 $10,000.0 $0.0 $200,857.0 $18,711.0 $13,520.0
FY 2010 Actuals $10,194.2 $56,100.7 $10,618.9 $103,161.8 $2,863.1 $15,162.6 $9,500.0 $0.0 $194,818.5 $18,494.3 $13,195.4
FY 2011 Annualized CR $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,000.0 $103,346.0 $0.0 $14,564.0 $10,000.0 $0.0 $200,857.0 $18,711.0 $13,520.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $9,900.0 $49,495.0 $10,200.0 $103,412.0 $0.0 $14,855.0 $0.0 $20,000.0 $164,757.0 $19,085.0 $13,140.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $0.0 $0.0 $200.0 $66.0 $0.0 $291.0 ($10,000.0) $20,000.0 ($36,100.0) $374.0 ($380.0)
$18,314.0 $207,627.1 $225,941.1 $4,484.8 $107,095.7 $8,572.4 $223,152.7 $202.6 $2,827.2 $5,401.9 $13,408.0
$18,500.0 $210,764.0 $229,264.0 $4,940.0 $105,700.0 $8,074.0 $226,580.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,099.0 $13,300.0
$11,300.0 $238,964.0 $250,264.0 $5,039.0 $109,700.0 $8,074.0 $305,500.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,201.0 $13,566.0
($7,200.0) $28,200.0 $21,000.0 $99.0 $4,000.0 $0.0 $78,920.0 $0.0 $0.0 $102.0 $266.0
1100
FY 2010 Enacted Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development Subtotal, Categorical Grants $62,875.0 $10,891.0 $2,500.0 $0.0 $16,830.0 $1,116,446.0
FY 2010 Actuals $65,746.2 $11,323.6 $3,184.3 $63.0 $16,236.1 $1,121,749.1
FY 2011 Annualized CR $62,875.0 $10,891.0 $2,500.0 $0.0 $16,830.0 $1,116,446.0
FY 2012 Pres Budget $71,375.0 $11,109.0 $1,550.0 $0.0 $15,167.0 $1,201,389.0
2012 Pres Budget vs. 2010 Enacted $8,500.0 $218.0 ($950.0) $0.0 ($1,663.0) $84,943.0
Congressional Priorities Congressionally Mandated Projects Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants $164,777.0 $4,978,223.0 $149,665.5 $4,410,975.5 $164,777.0 $4,978,223.0 $0.0 $3,860,430.0 ($164,777.0) ($1,117,793.0)
Rescission of Prior Year Funds TOTAL, EPA
($40,000.0) $10,299,864.0
$0.0 $9,850,520.0
($40,000.0) $10,297,864.0
($50,000.0) $8,973,000.0
($10,000.0) ($1,326,864.0)
1101
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENTS E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES Grants.gov The Grants.gov initiative benefits EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location to publish grant opportunities and application packages, and by providing a single site for the grants community to apply for grants using common forms, processes and systems. EPA believes that the central site raises the visibility of our grants opportunities to a wider diversity of applicants. Grants.gov also has allowed EPA to discontinue support for its own electronic grant application system, saving operational, training, and account management costs. The grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Applicants save time in searching for Agency grant opportunities and in learning the application systems of various agencies. At the request of the state environmental agencies, EPA has begun to offer Grants.gov application packages for mandatory grants (i.e., Continuing Environmental Program Grants). States requested that the Agency extend usage to mandatory programs to streamline their application process. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-04-00-04-0160-24 020-00-04-00-04-0160-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $480.000 $428.000
Integrated Acquisition Environment The Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) is comprised of nine government-wide automated applications and/or databases that have contributed to streamlining the acquisition business process across the government. EPA leverages the usefulness of some of these systems via electronic linkages between EPAs acquisition systems and the IAE shared systems. Other IAE systems are not linked directly to EPAs acquisition systems, but benefit the Agencys contracting staff and vendor community as stand-alone resources. EPAs acquisition systems use data provided by the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) to replace internally maintained vendor data. Contracting officers can download vendor-provided representation and certification information electronically, via the Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) database, which allows vendors to submit this information once, rather than separately for every contract proposal. Contracting officers are able to access the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), via links in EPAs acquisition systems, to identify vendors that are debarred from receiving contract awards. Contracting officers also can link to the Wage Determination Online (WDOL) to obtain information required under the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. EPAs acquisition systems link to the Federal Procurement Data System Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for submission of contract actions at the time of award. FPDS-NG provides public access to government-wide contract information. The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) supports vendor submission of subcontracting data for contracts identified as requiring this information. EPA submits synopses of procurement opportunities over $25,000 to the
1102
Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, where the information is accessible to the public. Vendors use this website to identify business opportunities in federal contracting. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-04-0230-24 020-00-01-16-04-0230-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) $109.000 $133.000
Integrated Acquisition Environment Loans and Grants The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires the agencies to unambiguously identify contract, grant, and loan recipients and determine parent/child relationship, address information, etc. The FFATA taskforce determined that using both the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number (standard identifier for all business lines) and Central Contractor Registration (CCR), the single point of entry for data collection and dissemination, is the most appropriate way to accomplish this. This fee will pay for EPA's use of this service in the course of reporting grants and/or loans. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-02-4300-24 020-00-01-16-02-4300-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $90.000 $90.000
Enterprise Human Resource Integration The Enterprise Human Resource Integration's (EHRI) Electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF) is designed to provide a consolidated repository that digitally documents the employment actions and history of individuals employed by the federal government. EPA has completed migration to the federal eOPF system. This initiative will benefit the Agency by reducing file room maintenance costs and improve customer service for employees and productivity for HR specialists. Customer service will improve for employees since they will have 24/7 access to view and print their official personnel documents and HR specialists will no longer be required to manually file, retrieve or mail personnel actions to employees thus improving productivity. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-03-1219-24 020-00-01-16-03-1219-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) $388.000 $403.000
Recruitment One-Stop Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) simplifies the process of locating and applying for federal jobs. USAJOBS is a standard job announcement and resume builder website. It is the one-stop for federal job seekers to search for and apply to positions on-line. This integrated process benefits citizens by providing a more efficient process to locate and apply for jobs, and assists federal agencies in hiring top talent in a competitive marketplace. The Recruitment One-Stop initiative has increased job seeker satisfaction with the federal job application process and is helping the Agency to locate highly-qualified candidates and improve response times to applicants.
1103
By integrating with ROS, the Agency has eliminated the need for applicants to maintain multiple user IDs to apply for federal jobs through various systems. The vacancy announcement format has been improved for easier readability. The system can maintain up to five resumes per applicant, which allows them to create and store resumes tailored to specific skills -- this is an improvement from our previous system that only allowed one resume per applicant. In addition, ROS has a notification feature that keeps applicants updated on the current status of the application, and provides a link to the agency website for detailed information. This self-help ROS feature allows applicants to obtain up-to-date information on the status of their application upon request. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-04-1218-24 020-00-01-16-04-1218-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) $107.000 $111.000
eTraining This initiative encourages electronic learning to improve training, efficiency and financial performance. EPA recently exercised its option to renew the current Interagency Agreement with OPM-GoLearn that provides licenses to online training for employees. EPA purchased 5,000 licenses to prevent any interruption in service to current users. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-03-1217-24 020-00-01-16-03-1217-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) 80.000 80.000
Human Resources Management Line of Business The Human Resources Management Line of Business (HRM LoB) provides the federal government the infrastructure to support pay-for-performance systems, modernized HR systems, and the core functionality necessary for the strategic management of human capital. The HRM LoB offers common solutions that will enable federal departments and agencies to work more effectively, and it provides managers and executives across the federal government improved means to meet strategic objectives. EPA will benefit by supporting an effective program management activity which evaluates provider performance, customer satisfaction, and compliance with program goals, on an ongoing basis.
Fiscal Year 2011 2012
Account Code 020-00-01-16-04-1200-24 020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
EPA Contribution (in thousands) $66.000 $66.000
1104
Grants Management Line of Business EPA anticipates the key benefit of Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB) will be having a centralized location to download all applications, make awards, and track awards to closeout. Automated business processes, available through consortium service providers and other GM LoB solutions, will decrease agency reliance on manual and paper-based processing. Consortium lead agencies, or the COTS working group, will spread operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and development, modernization, and enhancement (DME) costs across agencies, decreasing the burden that any one agency or agency administrative system must bear. GM LoB will lead to a reduction in the number of systems of record for grants data across EPA and the government and the development of common reporting standards, improving EPAs ability to provide agency and government-wide reports on grant activities and results. Migrating to a modern, efficient web-based system will help EPA comply with the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Service to constituents will be improved through the standardization and streamlining of government-wide grants business processes. The public will save time as a result of quicker notification and faster payments due to an automated system for grants processing. Furthermore, GM LoB will minimize complex and varying agency-specific requirements and increase grantee ease of use on federal grants management systems. Constituents will benefit as they will have fewer unique agency systems and processes to learn; grantees ability to learn how to use the system will be improved and reliance on call center technical support will be reduced. Consortium lead agencies, or a COTS solution, will also provide grantees with online access to standard post-award reports, decreasing the number of unique agency-specific reporting requirements. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-04-00-04-1300-24 020-00-04-00-04-1300-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $60.000 $60.000
Business Gateway By creating a single entry-point for business information, such as the e-Forms catalog, Business Gateway directly benefits EPAs regulated communities, many of whom are subject to complex regulatory requirements across multiple agencies. This initiative also benefits EPA by centralizing OMB reporting requirements under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. EPA has over 100 initiatives, activities, and services directed at small business needs. Many of those initiatives are highlighted to small businesses through periodic features in Business.gov. This allows special focus to be brought to bear at critical times to the intended audiences for those initiatives. In addition, with the launch of the Business.gov Community, small business users are able to interact on-line where they can discuss, share and ask questions of other business owners as well as industry and government experts. Business.gov also continues to provide a one-stop compliance tool enabling small and emerging businesses access to compliance information, forms and tools across the federal government. Business Gateway supports EPA's small business activities function by providing the following benefits:
1105
a single point of access for electronic regulatory forms; plain English compliance guidance, fact sheets and links to checklists for small businesses; and an extensive Web site with numerous links to other internal and external assistance sources. Beginning in FY 2009, the Business Gateway program has been fully funded by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the managing partner. EPA plans to continue its partnership with Business Gateway program, however, there is no EPA contribution required. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-04-0100-24 020-00-01-16-04-0100-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $0 $0
Geospatial Line of Business The Geospatial Line of Business (Geo LoB) is an intergovernmental project to improve the ability of the public and government to use geospatial information to support the business of government and facilitate decision-making. This initiative will reduce EPA costs and improve our operations in several areas. The investment in FY 2011 and FY 2012 will provide the necessary planning and coordination to begin providing significant benefits to EPA. EPA's geospatial program has achieved a cost avoidance of approximately $2 million per year by internally consolidating procurements for data and tools into multi-year enterprise licenses. The Agency is currently applying these lessons learned for the benefit of our partners in the Geo LoB as well as colleagues in state, local and tribal government organizations. The Geo LoB will reduce costs by providing an opportunity for EPA and other agencies to share approaches on procurement consolidation that other agencies can follow. Throughout FY 2008-2010, EPA has played a key leadership role in a Geo LoB Workgroup to explore opportunities for federal-wide acquisition of key geospatial software and data. In early FY 2010, the first of these acquisitions became available to the federal community through the SmartBUY Program managed by our Geo LoB partners at GSA. EPA benefits from Geo LoB in FY 2012 are anticipated to be the same as in prior years. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-04-3100-24 020-00-01-16-04-3100-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $42.000 $42.000
eRulemaking The eRulemaking Program is designed to enhance public access and participation in the regulatory process through electronic systems; reduce burden for citizens and businesses in finding relevant regulations and commenting on proposed rulemaking actions; consolidate
1106
redundant docket systems; and improve agency regulatory processes and the timeliness of regulatory decisions. The eRulemaking programs Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) currently supports 167 federal entities including all Cabinet-level Departments and independent rulemaking agencies which collectively promulgate over 90 percent of all federal regulations each year. FDMS has simplified the publics participation in the rulemaking process and made EPAs rulemaking business processes more accessible as well as transparent. FDMS provides EPAs approximately 2,400 registered users with a secure, centralized electronic repository for managing the Agencys rulemaking development via distributed management of data and robust role-based user access. EPA posts regulatory and non-regulatory documents in Regulations.gov for public viewing, downloading, bookmarking, email notification, and commenting. For calendar year 2010, EPA has posted 847 rules and proposed rules, 1,168 Federal Register notices, and 97,215 public submissions in Regulations.gov. EPA also posted 21,268 documents that were supporting and related materials associated with other postings. Overall, EPA provides public access to nearly 556,000 documents in Regulations.gov. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-16-01-0060-24 020-00-01-16-01-0060-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) $613.000 $1,000.000
E-Travel E-Travel provides EPA with efficient and effective travel management services, with cost savings from cross-government purchasing agreements and improved functionality through streamlined travel policies and processes, strict security and privacy controls, and enhanced agency oversight and audit capabilities. EPA employees also will benefit from the integrated travel planning provided through E-Travel. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-01-03-0220-24 020-00-01-01-03-0220-24 EPA Service Fee (in thousands) $1,106.000 $1,106.000
Financial Management Line of Business The Financial Management Line of Business (FM LoB) is a multi-agency effort whose goals include: achieving process improvements and cost savings in the acquisition, development, implementation, and operation of financial management systems. By incorporating the same FM LoB-standard processes as those used by central agency systems, interfaces among financial systems will be streamlined and the quality of information available for decision-making will be improved. In addition, EPA expects to achieve operational savings in future years because of the use of the shared service provider for operations and maintenance of the new system. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 020-00-01-01-04-1100-24 020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
1107
EPA Contribution (in thousands) $45.000 $45.000
Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business The Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business (BFE LoB) allow EPA and other agencies to access budget-related benefits and services. The Agency has the option to implement LoB sponsored tools and services. EPA has benefited from the BFE LoB by sharing valuable information on what has or hasnt worked on the use of different budget systems and software. This effort has created a government only capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the Budget Community website allows EPA to share budget information with OMB (and other federal agencies). The LoB is working on giving EPA and other agencies the capability to have secure, virtual on-line meetings where participants can not only hear whats been said by conference calling into the meeting, but also view budget-related presentations directly from their workspace. The LoB has provided budget-related training to EPA budget employees on OMBs MAX budget system, and on Treasurys FACTS II statements explaining how it ties to the budget process. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 Account Code 010-00-01-01-04-3200-24 010-00-01-01-04-3200-24 EPA Contribution (in thousands) $105.000 $105.000
1108
SUPERFUND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS17 Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to retain and use funds received pursuant to an agreement with a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) to carry out the purpose of that agreement. EPA retains such funds in special accounts, which are sub-accounts in the Superfund Trust Fund. Pursuant to the specific agreements, which typically take the form of an Administrative Order on Consent or Consent Decree, EPA uses special account funds to finance site-specific CERCLA response actions at the site for which the account was established. Through the use of special accounts, EPA pursues its enforcement first policy ensuring responsible parties pay for cleanup so that appropriated resources from the Superfund Trust Fund are conserved for sites where no viable or liable PRPs can be identified. Both special account resources and appropriated resources are critical to the Superfund program. Special account funds are used to conduct many different site-specific CERCLA response actions, including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the extent of contamination and appropriate remedy needed, construction and implementation of the remedy, enforcement activities, and post-construction activities. EPA also may provide special account funds to a PRP who agrees to perform work under an agreement, as an incentive (in the form of a reimbursement) to perform additional work beyond the PRPs fair share at the site, which EPA might otherwise have to conduct using appropriated resources. Because response actions may take many years, the full use of special account funds also may take many years. Pursuant to the agreement, once site-specific work is complete and site risks are addressed, EPA may use special account funds to reimburse EPA for site-specific costs incurred using appropriated resources (e.g., reclassification), allowing the latter resources to be allocated to other sites. Any remaining special account funds are generally transferred to the Superfund Trust Fund, where they are available for future appropriation by Congress to further support cleanup at other sites. Since the inception of special accounts through the end of FY 2010, EPA has collected approximately $3.3 billion from PRPs and earned approximately $378.6 million in interest. In addition, EPA has transferred over $14.1 million to the Superfund Trust Fund. As of the end of FY 2010, over $1.6 billion has been disbursed to finance site response actions and over $246.5 million has been obligated but not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully managing approximately $1.8 billion that was available as of October 1, 2010 and has developed multi-year plans to use these funds as expeditiously as possible. The majority of accounts (68%) have an available balance of less than $500,000, while 3% of accounts have approximately 61% of the total resources available. The following table illustrates the cumulative status of open and closed accounts, FY 2010 program activity, and planned multi-year uses of the available balance.
17
House Report 111-180 of the FY 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill directs the Agency to include in its annual budget justification a plan for using special account funds expeditiously. This information is being provided in response to this request.
1109
Special Accounts: FY 2010 Program Actuals and Future Multi-Year Program Resource Plan
Account Status1 Cumulative Open Cumulative Closed FY 2010 Inputs and Outputs to 2009 End Of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance 2009 EOFY Available Balance FY 2010 Activities + Receipts - Transfers to Superfund Trust Fund (Receipt Adjustment) + Interest Earned - Net Change in Unliquidated Obligations - Disbursements - For EPA Incurred Costs - Disbursements - For Work Party Reimbursements under Final Settlements - Reclassifications 2010 EOFY Available Balance2 Multi-Year Plans for EOFY 2010 Available Balance 2010 EOFY Available Balance - Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities3 - Estimates for Potential Disbursement to Work Parties Identified in Final Settlements4 - Estimates for Reclassifications for FYs 2011-20135 - Estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund for FYs 2011-20135 - Available Balance To Be Assigned6
1 2 3
Number of Accounts 939 84 $ in Thousands $1,342,713.7 $723,261.9 ($2,510.0) $6,258.2 ($62,295.9) ($176,037.1) ($9,956.0) ($26,228.3) $1,795,206.4 $ in Thousands $1,795,206.4 $1,676,783.0 $42,169.1 $60,778.4 $12,628.7 $2,847.2
FY 2010 data is as of 10/01/2010. The 2009 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance is as of 10/01/2009.
Numbers may not add due to rounding. "Estimates for EPA Future Site Activities includes all response actions that EPA may conduct or oversee in the future, such as removal, remedial, enforcement, post-construction activities as well as allocation of funds to facilitate a settlement to encourage PRPs to perform the cleanup. Planning data are multi-year and cannot be used for annual comparisons.
4
"Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties Identified in Finalized Settlements includes those funds that have already been designated in a settlement document, such as a Consent Decree or Administrative Order on Consent, to be available to a PRP for reimbursements but that have not yet been obligated.
5 6
"Reclassifications" and "Transfers to the Trust Fund" are estimated for three FYs only. Planning data were recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of 10/19/2010 in reference to special account available balances as of 10/01/2010. Receipts incurred in the last quarter of the fiscal year may not have been fully planned for use in CERCLIS at the time of data entry and are reflected in Available Balance To Be Assigned.
1110
FY 2011 HIGH PRIORITY PERFORMANCE GOALS Responding to the President's challenge to deliver a government that works - one that is effective, efficient, fair, and transparent, EPA identified a limited number of near-term High Priority Performance Goals (Priority Goals) for its programs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate. Below are the Agencys FY 2011 Priority Goals. The six submitted Priority Goal statements are as follows:
EPA will improve the countrys ability to measure and control Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Building a foundation for action is essential.
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mandatory Reporting Rule

By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100 percent of facility-level GHG emissions data submitted to EPA in accordance with the GHG Reporting Rule, compliant with policies protecting Confidential Business Information (CBI).
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Light Duty Vehicles

In 2011, EPA, working with DOT, will begin implementation of regulations designed to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the US starting with model year 2012. Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality.
3. Improve Water Quality: Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010 and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPAs final Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
4. Improve Water Quality: Federal Clean Water Enforcement

Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that dont meet water quality standards, and post results and analysis on the web.
5. Improve Water Quality: Drinking Water Standards

Over the next two years, EPA will initiate review/revision of at least 4 drinking water standards to strengthen public health protection. EPA will ensure that environmental health and protection is delivered to our communities.
6. Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program By 2012 EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess and address a single large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale. EPA will provide technical assistance, coordinate its enforcement, water and air quality programs, and work with other Federal agencies, states, tribes and local
1111
governments to implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each communitys area-wide plan.
1112
EPA IG Comments on FY 2012 Budget
1113
1114
1115
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weekly Budget Status Update (whole dollars) As of February 10, 2011 (Dollars in Thousands)
Approp STAG STAG STAG
Program Project Description Clean Water SRF Drinking Water SRF Diesel Emissions Grants
2
Total Appropriation $4,003,158 $1,945,842 $294,000 $96,500 $6,339,500 $197,000 $81,500 $582,000 $20,000 $7,220,000
Rescissions $0 $0 $0 $33 $3 $9,2004 $10,0004 $6,7023,4 $0 $25,905
Total Obligations $4,003,148 $1,945,842 $293,924 $96,356 $6,339,270 $187,725 $44,932 $578,098 $10,141 $7,160,166
Outlays $2,995,928 $1,503,320 $184,085 $35,768 $4,719,101 $105,486 $35,291 $436,584 $10,127 $5,306,589
Percent Obligated1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 63% 100% 51% 99.5%
Percent Expended 75% 77% 62% 36% 74% 56% 49% 76% 51% 74%
STAG Brownfields Subtotal, STAG2 LUST EPM SF Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Management and Oversight
Superfund: Remedial2 Audits, Evaluations, & IG Investigations Agency Total
1. The percent obligated is calculated from the total appropriation minus rescissions. 2. Includes transfers into fiduciary reserves: STAG $70 thousand, including Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants $33.4 thousand; Superfund $150 thousand. 3. Rescissions made in accordance with the Pay-it-Back Act (P.L. 111-203). 4. Rescissions made in accordance with PL 111-226.
1116
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Table of Contents - Appendix B Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Performance Report Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1120 How the Report Is Organized ............................................................................................. 1133 Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change ................................................................... 1134 Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air ................................................................................. 1138 Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air .................................................................................... 1143 Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer .............................................................................. 1145 Objective 1.4: Radiation ..................................................................................................... 1148 Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................ 1151 Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research ................................................................... 1155 GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................ 1157 Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water ............................................................................................... 1174 Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health ................................................................................. 1177 Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality .................................................................................. 1180 Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research ................................................................... 1184 GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER ........................................................................... 1186 Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration ......................................................................... 1206 Objective 3.1: Preserve Land .............................................................................................. 1209 Objective 3.2: Restore Land ............................................................................................... 1212 Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research ................................................................... 1220 GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION ............................................ 1222 Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems ................................................................... 1237 Objective 4.1: Chemicals, Organisms, and Pesticide Risk ................................................. 1241 Objective 4.2: Communities ............................................................................................... 1251 Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystem ...................................................... 1254 Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research ................................................................... 1261 GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS........................................ 1265 Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship ........................................................ 1308 Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance ................................................................................... 1312 Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation ........................................................................................................................... 1321 Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity .................................................................................. 1326
1117
Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research ................................................................... 1328 GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ........................ 1330 EPAS ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS ..................................................................... 1343 FY 2010 EFFICIENCY MEASURES ................................................................................... 1348
1118
Environmental Protection Agencys Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Performance Report
1119
Introduction Each year, in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produces a Performance and Accountability Report to present its programmatic, financial, and management performance results to Congress, the President, and the public. For fiscal year (FY) 2010, EPA has adopted an alternative approach for fulfilling the Agencys GPRA annual reporting requirements to streamline the performance reporting process and better integrate performance results into the Agencys budget. Under the new approach, EPA is submitting two reports rather than a single consolidated report: The FY 2010 Agency Financial Report (AFR), issued in November 2010, summarizes EPAs financial results and presents its audited financial statements. It also includes EPAs FY 2010 Management Integrity Report and FY 2010 Audit Management Report. The AFR is available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/perf_report/FY_2010_EPA_AFR.pdf. The FY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR), issued as part of the FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Budget, presents detailed environmental and program performance results achieved by the Agency in FY 2010. All EPA planning and performance reports are available at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
1120
FY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) EPAs FY 2010 APR presents environmental and program performance results achieved in FY 2010 under the goals established in EPAs 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm) and against the performance measures and targets established in the FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget (http://www.epa.gov/budget/index.htm). The FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget was based on the performance framework established in EPAs 2009-2014 Strategic Plan Change Document, an internal working document which bridged EPAs 2006-2011 and FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plans and provides the basis for the four-year Performance Results Tables included in this report. The APR presents FY 2010 accomplishments and challenges, provides trend data, and explains significant variations between performance targets and actual results. In presenting FY 2010 performance results with the Presidents FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Budget, the Agency is striving to more closely connect the results the Agency has been achieving with the direction it is taking in the future. FY 2010 Advances in Performance Management During FY 2010, EPA developed and implemented a number of key initiatives to further strengthen the Agencys performance management system. New Strategic Plan. The Agency published its FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan, which provides a blueprint for accomplishing the Agency's priorities over the next five years. The streamlined, executive-level plan presents five strategic goals for advancing EPA's environmental and human health outcomes and the Administrator's priorities. The plan also presents five cross-cutting fundamental strategies designed to transform how EPA delivers environmental and human health protection. EPA will begin reporting performance results under the new Strategic Plan in FY 2011. The FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm. Priority Goals. In FY 2010, EPA established a limited number of performance goals (Priority Goals), a new component of the Administration's performance management framework. Priority Goals communicate the performance improvements EPA will accomplish relative to its priorities using existing legislative authority and resources. These specific, measureable, two-year priority goals align with the Agency's long-term strategic and annual measures and serve as key indicators of progress toward the Agencys five strategic goals. For additional information see, http://goals.performance.gov/.
1121
EPA Priority Goals

(as shown in the FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification)
http://goals.performance.gov/ EPA will improve the countrys ability to measure and control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Building a foundation for action is essential. By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publicly available 100 percent of facility-level GHG emissions data submitted to EPA in compliance with the GHG Reporting Rule. In 2011, EPA working with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will begin implementation of regulations designed to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the United States starting with model year 2012. Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality. Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and submit Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of calendar year (CY) 2010 and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPAs final Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which will result in pollution limits needed to restore Chesapeake Bay water quality. Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that do not meet water quality standards, and post results and analysis on the web. Over the next two years, EPA will initiate the review/revision of at least four drinking water standards to strengthen public health protection. EPA will ensure that environmental health and protection is delivered to our communities. By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess and address a single large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing areawide planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale. EPA will provide technical assistance; coordinate its enforcement, water, and air quality programs; and work with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local governments to implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each communitys area-wide plan.
1122
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Reporting. Since the end of FY 2009, EPA has tracked program performance for six key environmental programs funded through the ARRA that invest in clean water and drinking water projects, implement diesel emission reduction technologies, clean up leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), revitalize and reuse Brownfields, and clean up Superfund sites. To ensure accountability and demonstrate progress toward meeting ARRA goals, EPA provides quarterly performance updates consistent with the timing of quarterly recipient reporting and weekly financial and activity reports. The Agency also tracks performance for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) work funded by the ARRA. These performance reports are available at http://epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#plans. Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships. In FY 2010, EPA worked in partnership with states and tribes to develop and implement environmental programs and, where appropriate, used Agency expertise to bolster state and tribal efforts. Many state governments are running deficits and implementing budget cuts due to the ongoing effects of the economic downturn. In FY 2010, EPA increased its consultation with state officials on rulemaking and accelerated efforts to identify opportunities for enhanced work sharing and resource and workload flexibility. In testimony to Congress on the FY 2011 Budget, the Administrator emphasized the need to provide strong funding to support state governments. Within eight months of the Presidents memorandum on Tribal Consultation, EPA finalized a Tribal Consultation Plan, which will be implemented in calendar year (CY) 2011. The policy ensures consistent implementation of EPA's 1984 Indian Policy and Executive Order (EO) 13175. It will result in broad consultation and coordination with tribes and help to strengthen EPA-tribal partnerships. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/indian/consultation/index.htm.
1123
1124
1125
FY 2010 Overview of Performance Trends and Results In FY 2010, with resource obligations of $11.89 billion and 17,278 full-time-equivalent employees, 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 EPAs performance results. EPAs FY 2010 Long-Term Strategic Goals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Clean Air and Global Climate Change Clean and Safe Water Land Preservation and Restoration Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
EPA's FY 2010 Performance Results

(Total Measures = 211)
60 measures 28% 118 measures 56% 33 measures 16%
Met
Not Met
Data Available After February 7, 2011
Performance Measures Met In its FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget, the Agency committed to 211 annual performance measures. In FY 2010, the Agency met 118 of these performance measures, 78 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 2010 performance measures. In some cases, a new collaborative effort or a new approach to the performance measures allowed EPA to accomplish even more than it had planned.
1126
Performance Measures Not Met In FY 2010, however, EPA also faced a number of difficult challenges and obstacles to success. Despite the Agencys best efforts, 33 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 EPAs control, such as weather, technological challenges, or population growth and land use patterns. Delays in Agency processes, such as contracting and hiring. EPA will carefully consider its FY 2010 results and adjust program strategies and approaches accordingly. The next section 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 Not Available 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 211 performance measures. This delay in reporting can be largely attributed to the Agencys 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 cyclesincluding some that are legislatively mandateddo not correspond with the federal FY on which this report is based. Data reported biennially, for example, are not available for this report but will be provided in future 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 to report data from FY 2009 that became available in FY 2010. Final performance results became available for 44 of the 60 datalags (out of a total of 205 FY 2009 performance measures). Of these 44 performance measures, EPA met 32.
1127
FY 2010 Highlights of Program Performance by Goal This section highlights the Agencys major accomplishments under each of its strategic goals. Detailed performance information is presented in the next section of this report. 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 GHG intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors. Improving Air Quality. Despite the national trend of improving air quality over the last few decades, some American communities have not attained air quality standards and continue to face health and environmental challenges from air pollution. During FY 2010, EPA continued to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and other environmental laws to reduce and prevent harmful emissions from motor vehicles, fuels, power plants, and other large sources that contribute to outdoor air pollution. The Agency issued a final new health standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and strengthened the healthbased standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which when fully attained, will improve public health. EPA finalized revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program, which will expand development and use of renewable fuels and reduce imports of petroleum. When fully implemented in 2022, the program is expected to reduce GHG emissions by 138 million metric tons. EPA and the DOT also proposed revisions to fuel economy labels on new cars and light duty trucks available for sale. The new, more comprehensive labels will include fuel economy ratings and information on GHG emissions and smog-forming air pollutants. Taking Action on Climate Change. During FY 2010, EPA continued to make historic progress in addressing climate change. In December 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings under Section 202(a) of the CAA regarding GHGs: an Endangerment Finding that six key GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations, and a Cause or Contribute Finding that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. Reducing GHGs. In April 2010, in response to the Administrations commitment to move toward a clean energy, climate friendly economy, EPA and DOT jointly established new federal rules that set the first-ever national GHG emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil nationally, reduce nearly a billion metric tons of GHG emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered, and potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle. Goal 2 Clean and Safe Water: Ensure 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.
1128
Protecting Americas Waters. EPA and its partners continued to make progress in protecting America's waters. The Agency's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Programs received significant resources as part of the ARRA funds. CWSRF reported that 1,834 projects began construction; 235 were completed; and $1.13 billion (30 percent of the ARRA resources) funded green projects. The DWSRF reported that 1,338 projects began construction; 183 were completed; and $539 million (29 percent of the ARRA resources) funded green projects. For additional information, see: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/eparecovery/index.cfm Improving Drinking Water. In FY 2010, EPA proposed revisions to the Total Coliform Rule, which requires public water systems to investigate and correct sanitary defects found when monitoring results indicate the system may be vulnerable to contamination. The Agency initiated a national dialogue on a new Drinking Water Strategy to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups, improve drinking water technology, use multiple environmental statutes where appropriate, and foster a more collaborative dialogue with states on sharing information. 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. Cleaning Up Our Communities. In FY 2010, EPA launched the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), a three-year strategy to identify and implement improvements to the Agencys land cleanup programs, as well as accelerate cleanups, address a greater number of contaminated sites, and put these sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. The ICI is examining opportunities for improvements across all of EPAs land cleanup programs, including the Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Underground Storage Tanks Programs. Preventing Coal Ash Releases. The failure of an ash disposal cell at the Tennessee Valley Authoritys (TVAs) Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted the issue of coal combustion residuals (CCR) impoundment stability. In response, EPA has been assessing the stability of impoundments and similar management units that contain wethandled CCRs. EPA is continuing to conduct assessments and posting final reports on the structural integrity of impoundments, including recommendations to ensure continued stability. EPA is following up with facilities to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. In FY 2010, the Agency also co-proposed two alternative regulations governing the disposal of CCRs, and conducted extensive public outreach on these proposals. Goal 4 Healthy Communities and Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
1129
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals. During FY 2010, EPA substantially accelerated its pace in assessing the dangers posed by the most ubiquitous chemicals. The Agency completed hazard characterizations for 270 high production volume (HPV) chemicals (chemicals produced/imported in amounts greater than 1 million pound [lb] annually), a 65 percent increase from FY 2009; neared issuing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) test rule for 19 HPVs; and proposed significant expansions and improvements in the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting requirements to obtain the data needed to assess chemical safety. EPA implemented the Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule, effective April 2010, which requires renovation contractors to be trained and certified in the use of lead-safe work practices when renovating housing and child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978. EPA revised confidential business information (CBI) policies for reviewing chemical identity claims in health and safety studies, thereby allowing the public unprecedented access to important chemical safety information. Also in FY 2010, EPA for the first time provided free online public access to the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, for approximately 84,000 chemicals in commerce. Great Lakes. EPA continued its comprehensive watershed protection programs for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan, released in February 2010, is driving progress, with goals, objectives, and targets in five focus areas linked to planning and budget targets. At the close of FY 2010, more than $150 million was obligated in over 250 grants and more than $240 million in 13 principal interagency agreements. Funding was principally directed to on-the-ground Great Lakes restoration projects in the GLRI focus areas. Chesapeake Bay. In May 2010, EPA and its Chesapeake Bay partner agencies released the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and in September 2010, an action plan for implementation. The strategy includes using rigorous regulations to restore clean water, implementing new conservation practices on 4 million acres of farms, conserving 2 million acres of undeveloped land, and rebuilding oyster beds in 20 tributaries of the bay. To increase accountability, federal agencies will establish milestones every two years to measure actions taken to achieve longer-term environmental goals. To restore clean water, EPA will implement the Chesapeake TMDL (a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay and local waterways), expand regulation of urban and suburban stormwater and concentrated animal feeding operations, and increase enforcement activities and funding for state regulatory programs. Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice. EPA significantly advanced its outreach and protection efforts for communities historically underrepresented in the Agencys decision-making. In July 2010, EPA released for public comment its draft Plan EJ 2014, a -year roadmap to help the Agency develop stronger community relationships and improve environmental and health conditions in overburdened communities. EPA also issued interim guidance to give environmental justice communities a voice in shaping environmental rules and regulations. The guidance outlines steps the Agency can take to incorporate the needs of communities overburdened by pollution into its decision-making, scientific analysis, and
1130
rule development. EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality reconvened the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, comprising five cabinet agencies dedicated to ensuring that all Americans have strong federal protection from environmental and health hazards, and marking the Agencys recommitment to advancing EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship: Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship. In FY 2010, EPA has three key enforcement goals to guide its work and make a real difference in protection of human health and the environment in communities across the nation. Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities by using vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards and advances environmental justice by protecting vulnerable communities. o Clean water: through the Clean Water Action Plan, revamp enforcement and permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems including getting raw sewage out of the water, cutting pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted storm water runoff. This goal also includes assuring clean drinking water for all communities, including in Indian country, and cleaning up great waters that matter to communities such as the Chesapeake Bay. o Clean air: cut toxic air pollution in communities and reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal-fired power plants, cement, acid and glass sectors. o Climate and clean energy: assure compliance with GHG reporting rule, encourage GHG emission reductions through settlements, and target energy sector compliance with air, water, and waste rules. o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals: prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the environment, press for cleanup of hazardous sites in communities reinforcing the polluter pays principal, and reform chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to pesticides. Reset our relationship with states to make sure we are delivering on our joint commitment to a clean and healthy environment. EPA shares accountability for environmental and human health protection with states and tribes. EPA and states work together to target the most important pollution violations and ensure that companies that do the right thing, are responsible neighbors, and are not put at a competitive disadvantage.
1131
Improve transparency. Increased transparency is an effective tool for improving compliance. By making information on violations both available and understandable, EPA empowers citizens to demand better compliance. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico In FY 2010, the United States experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in its history, the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA immediately began monitoring the area to determine potential public health and environmental concernsprimarily air quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water quality for dispersant level monitoringand preparing for the immediate and long-term environmental fallout from the spill. As one of many agencies supporting the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-led federal response, EPA vicechaired the National Response Team, which provided round the clock coordination among the involved federal agencies. Among its efforts, EPA: Collected and evaluated samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil and dispersants in the air, water, sediment, and waste. EPA's monitoring and sampling activities provided the USCG, other federal agencies, states, and local governments with data to inform decisions about seafood safety, habitat impacts, and beach closure issues. Supported and advised USCG efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the shoreline. Worked with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to design a monitoring strategy for subsea dispersant use, evaluated the toxicity of dispersants, and provided oversight on the use of dispersants. EPA mobilized its Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Center and established a communications network to provide timely information to the public. The Agency's www.epa.gov/BPspill site includes air, water, and sediment quality monitoring updates, Q&As on pertinent issues, and links to additional response sites. EPA also used social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to provide a continuous flow of information from major announcements to notices of local developments and meetings. In September 2010, the Administration outlined an aggressive Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration plan, which led to the establishment of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to be chaired by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The task force, an intergovernmental advisory body, is charged with coordinating restoration programs and projects in the Gulf region. It will focus on efforts to create more resilient and healthy Gulf Coast ecosystems, while also encouraging support for economic recovery and long-term health issues. As part of the restoration, EPA will work with federal, state, and local partners and stakeholders to develop and implement science-based restoration efforts.
1132
How the Report Is Organized This report is organized by the five strategic goals established in the Agencys 20062011 Strategic Plan. Each goal section discusses progress toward achieving the Agencys strategic objectives and includes a table of detailed performance results for each of the Agencys FY 2010 performance measures. Explanations are included for missed or significantly exceeded targets or missing data. Measures that are also being used to assess the ARRA are identified by an asterisk. For a full set of ARRA measures, please visit: http://epa.gov/recovery/plans.html. This report addresses all of the elements of an APR specified under the GPRA and as specified in OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget.1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a11_current_year_a11_toc/
1133
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
1134
1135
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 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. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of certain air pollutants can damage the immune, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems and cause cancer and premature death. EPA implements the CAA Amendments of 1990 and other environmental laws and uses that take innovative approaches, such as emission 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 CAA Amendments authorize EPA to set limits on how much of a pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States, ensuring the same basic level of health and environmental protections for all Americans. 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 CAA because pollution control problems often require a specialized understanding of such factors as local industries, geography, and transportation patterns. Through EPA, the U.S. government 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 government looked back at 10 years of major rules and found that EPA air rules result in 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 radon; combustion products from oil, gas, kerosene, coal, and wood; tobacco products; household cleaning products; building materials and furnishings, such as asbestos-containing insulation; damp carpets; lead-based paints; and other chemical and biological contaminants. Often, the people 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 diseases such as asthma or cardiovascular disease. EPA provides web-based resources, publications, and outreach and partners with state and tribal organizations, county and local environmental and public health officials, housing and building organizations, school personnel who manage school environments, and health care providers, particularly in urban areas. These resources and partnerships serve to inform and educate the public about indoor air quality concerns and promote public action to improve the quality of air in homes, schools, and workplaces. EPA also works to address global climate change. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, emissions of several GHGs (including carbon dioxide [CO2], methane, and nitrous oxides) have increased substantially, contributing to climate change. While 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, EPA is taking action to reduce GHG emissions. In support of the Presidents climate change goals, EPA is working to further understanding of the science
1136
of climate change and develop new policies to reduce emissions. For example, EPA has collaborated with DOT to develop the first ever GHG standards for cars and light duty trucks for model years 2012-2016, as well as investigate regulatory options to reduce emissions from stationary sources. Also, EPA is developing a GHG Reporting System. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide the development of sound policies and programs to reduce emissions. In addition, under EPAs stratospheric ozone layer protection program, the Agency coordinates numerous regulatory programs designed to protect and restore the ozone layer. EPA also continues to participate actively in developing international stratospheric ozone protection policies. Finally, EPA works to protect the public and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure to radiation. EPA issues guidance and develops standards for radioactive emissions, prepares for and responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material, develops guidance for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites, and manages a national environmental radiation monitoring system. Contributing Programs Acid Rain Program, AirNow, Air Toxics, Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, Clean Air Research, Indoor Air Quality, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Development and Implementation, Mobile Sources, New Source Review, Regional Haze, Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection Program, Radiation Programs, and Voluntary Climate Programs. EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal 1, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htm, which summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
1137
Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 1.1 Met = 0 Not Met = 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 =15 (Total = 15)
The CAA directs EPA to identify and set NAAQS for commonly found air pollutants that adversely affect public health and the environment. EPA has set national air quality standards for six common air pollutantsground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, (NO2), SO2, and particulate matter (PM) (measured as PM 2.5 and PM 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 CAA 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. To reduce or eliminate the unacceptable health risks and cumulative exposures to air toxics from multiple sources in affected communities and to fulfill its statutory and court-ordered obligations, EPA will continue to pursue opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for stationary sources in more integrated ways. National Air Quality Standards for SO2 and NO2 In June 2010, EPA issued a new standard for SO2 and in January 2010 strengthened the healthbased standard of NO2, which will improve public health protection from power plants, industrial facilities, and vehicles. This is the first new standard for SO2 in almost 40 years, and it will protect millions of Americans from high short-term (five minutes to 24 hours) exposure to SO2. EPA estimates that meeting the SO2 standard may help avoid 2,300 to 5,900 premature deaths and 54,000 asthma attacks per year, due to lower PM emissions. This rule also sets new monitoring requirements to ensure that monitors will be placed where SO2 emissions affect populated areas. The first new NO2 standard in 35 years establishes new monitoring requirements in urban areas that will measure NO2 levels around major roads and across the community.
1138
Working with states, EPA will site at least 40 additional monitors in locations to help protect communities that are susceptible and vulnerable to elevated levels of NO2. Proposed Revisions to the National Ground-level Ozone Standards In January 2010, EPA proposed air quality standards for ground-level ozone that encompass the range recommended by the Agency's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. The Agency proposed to set the primary standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. EPA also proposed to set a separate seasonal cumulative standard to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from repeated ozone exposure. Depending on the level selected, fully attaining the proposed primary standards could lead to between 1,500 and 12,000 annual avoided premature deaths and between 23,000 and 58,000 annual avoided asthma attacks. Mercury Reductions From Cement Plants Cement manufacturing is the third largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States. For context, this sector emits about 8 percent of the anthropogenic emissions in the United States, while the United States. emits roughly 3 percent of the global total mercury emissions. Mercury in the air eventually deposits into water, where it changes into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Mercury is especially harmful to young children. The new limits for cement plants will achieve annual reductions of mercury by 8 tons, a 92 percent reduction from projected 2013 levels, along with reductions in other toxic air pollutants and PM. EPA expects the rules to yield $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every dollar spent. Reductions in particle pollution from this rule are estimated to avoid 960 to 2,500 premature deaths, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 1,500 heart attacks, and 1,000 visits to the emergency room for respiratory problems. Proposed Rule for Boilers and Solid Waste Incinerators to Reduce Air Toxics During FY 2010, EPA proposed two actions to reduce harmful air pollution from boilers, process heaters, and solid waste incinerators in communities across the United States. The Agency is committed to develop rules that are protective, cost-effective, and based on sound science. Combined, these actions propose cutting annual air toxics emissions from about 200,000 industrial boilers, process heaters, and solid waste incinerators, as well as slashing mercury emissions from these units by more than 50 percent. Industrial boilers and process heaters are the second largest source of mercury emissions in the United States. EPA estimates that the proposed rules would yield more than $5 in public health benefits for every dollar spent. These rules could result in avoiding between 2,000 and 5,200 premature deaths and about 36,000 asthma attacks a year. Proposal to Cut Pollution From Power Plants Signed on July 6, the proposed Transport Rule would help 31 states and the District of Columbia meet air quality standards for fine particles and ground-level ozone and reduce the harmful environmental effects of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) including acid rain, nitrogen
1139
deposition, and poor visibility in major national parks. EPA projects that in 2014, the rule will prevent 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, due to lower PM emissions. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA clean air actions would reduce power plant SO2 emissions by 71 percent and NOX emissions would drop by 52 percent. Great American Woods Stove Changeout As part of EPAs Wood Smoke Initiative, about 17 areas throughout the country have implemented wood stove changeouts and/or fireplace retrofit programs, resulting in replacement or retrofit of more than 4,500 wood stoves and fireplaces. These programs have reduced fine particle emissions by 54 tons and toxic air emissions by 10 tons, producing an estimated $19 million to $47 million in annual health benefits. Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill By April 28, 2010, EPA responders were on the ground monitoring the air quality in the Gulf region. Responders used portable, fixed, mobile, and aerial monitoring to collect thousands of air samples from along the Gulf Coast to test for pollutants associated with crude oil. EPA focused its monitoring on pollutants that are harmful if inhaled, specifically particle pollution, groundlevel ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and hydrogen sulfide. EPA is continuing to monitor the air along the Gulf Coast using established national monitoring networks and community scale programs. To date, all air monitoring and sampling results have been significantly below levels that would be expected to cause any longterm health effects. Marine Diesel Emissions In early FY 2010, EPA finalized a rule setting tough engine and fuel standards for large U.S.flagged ships, a major milestone in the Agencys coordinated strategy to slash harmful marine diesel emissions. The regulation aligns with international standards and will lead to significant air quality improvements throughout the country. By 2030, the domestic and international strategy, which includes designating an Emissions Control Area (ECA) and emissions limits for all U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels within 200 nautical miles of all U.S. shores, is expected to reduce annual NOX emissions from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons and PM emissions by about 143,000 tons. When fully implemented, this coordinated effort will reduce NOX emissions from ships by 80 percent, and PM emissions by 85 percent, compared with current emissions. The emission reductions from the coordinated strategy will yield significant health and welfare benefits that reach beyond U.S. ports and coasts to inland areas, according to EPAs air quality modeling. Full benefits will be realized when the U.S. ECA is in place and both U.S. and foreign vessels are required to use low sulfur fuel and operate their Tier 3 NOx controls while in the designated areas. EPA estimates that by 2030, the combined rule and international strategy will have prevented between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths and 1.4 million work days lost. The estimated annual health benefits in 2030 as a result of reduced air pollution are valued between
1140
$110 billion and $270 billion, which is up to nearly 90 times the projected cost of $3.1 billion to achieve those results. This rule, under the CAA, complements a key piece of EPAs strategy to designate an emission control area for thousands of miles of U.S. and Canadian coasts. Renewable Fuels Standard In February 2010, EPA finalized revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program (commonly known as the renewable fuel standard [RFS] program) as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The revised statutory requirements establish new specific annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel. This final action lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reductions of imported petroleum, and further development and expansion of the nation's renewable fuels sector. The expanded use of renewable fuels is expected to reduce GHG emissions by 138 million metric tons when the program is fully implemented in 2022. The reductions would be equivalent to the average annual emissions of 27 million vehicles. Fuel Economy Label In August 2010, EPA and DOT jointly proposed revisions to fuel economy labels for display on new cars and light duty trucks available for purchase. Revised labels facilitate straightforward environmental comparisons across vehicle lines and better inform consumer decisions. The new labels will enable evaluations of energy and environmental performance between electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and conventional gasoline-powered vehicles and will be more comprehensive than current labels, including fuel economy ratings, GHG emissions, and information on smog-forming air pollutants, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. A new web-based interactive tool is also incorporated into revised labels, which can also be accessed by smart phone. This tool would allow consumers to personalize information about a vehicles performance. Decreasing Diesel Emissions Authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAs Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is a multifaceted grant program aimed at lowering diesel emissions from the 11 million diesel engines currently existing in the United States. In FY 2010, Congress provided $60 million, in addition to the $60 million provided in FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act and $300 million provided in the ARRA, 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. These clean diesel projects reduce criteria pollutants, air toxics, and pollution by many thousands of tons. 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 (VMT),
1141
energy consumption, and population have been increasing, pollutant emissions have been steadily decreasing. Environmental protection and economic growth can simultaneously take place. Air Emissions Decrease While Economy Grows
1142
Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.2 (in thousands)
Objective 6
Objective 5
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 1.2 Met = 0 Not Met = 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 = 5 (Total = 5)
Objective 4 Objective 3 Objective 2 $46,006.60 4% Objective 1
Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,205,805.4
EPA employs two key strategies to improve the nations indoor air: 1) increasing public awareness of 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 the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning 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 buildingsincluding schools, homes, and workplacesand bring about healthier indoor environments. Indoor Air Quality Specifications and Buildings Initiatives (ISBI) EPA has collaborated with public- and private-sector organizations to integrate protocols and specifications that promote good indoor air quality across a range of building types. In FY 2010, more than 500 partners joined the Office of Radiation and Indoor Airs healthy homes program for builders, the Indoor airPLUS (IAP) program. As a result, more than 600 new homes earned the IAP label and many more were built based on the IAP specifications. Additionally, EPA has created highly anticipated residential specifications for weatherization and home retrofits with measures that not only sustain energy efficiency, but also ensure healthy indoor environments. Increasing Indoor Air Quality Plans in Schools EPAs 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. EPAs Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Awards Program recognizes school districts and others in the schools
1143
community that has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving children's health by promoting good indoor air quality. More than 3,000 additional schools are estimated to have put Indoor Air Quality Management Plans in place in the past year, bringing the total number of U.S. schools that have developed management plans to more than 60,000. According to national surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly two-thirds of those schools are carrying out critical indoor environmental risk reduction actions consistent with EPA Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools guidance. Growth in the Communities in Action Campaign Asthma is a respiratory disease affecting more than 22 million Americans, including 6.8 million children. It can be serious or even life-threatening. Over the past 30 years, rates of asthma rose sharply, particularly among children ages 5 to 14. Disparities in low-income and minority populations continue to grow.2 Although there is no cure, asthma can be controlled by managing environmental asthma triggers and providing medical treatment. EPA continues to promote community adoption of comprehensive asthma care programs. EPAs growing Communities in Action Campaign in FY 2010 engaged more than 1,200 community-based asthma programs across the nation. This community-level action, together with EPAs leadership to advance the control of indoor environmental triggers as part of comprehensive asthma care, results in an estimated 75,000 emergency room visits averted annually for people with asthma. EPAs goal is to reduce exposure to asthma triggers for 6.5 million people by 2012. To this end, EPA provides educational material about the indoor and outdoor environmental factors that trigger asthma and transfers best practices through the Communities in Action Campaign. Radon Leaders Saving Lives Campaign Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America and contributes to approximately 20,000 deaths from lung cancer each year.3 It is the number one cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers. 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; this level is at or above EPAs recommended levels.4 However, reducing exposure is simple and based on proven control techniques. Through its national radon program and Radon Leaders Saving Lives campaign, EPA works 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 by providing information on radon risk and mitigation. Radon-reducing actions have prevented an estimated 6,000 premature deaths from lung cancer in the last 20 years. The campaigns goal is to double that number over the next five years.
2 3
See the CDC and Prevention Asthma website at: www.cdc.gov/asthma/. See EPAs Radon Health Risks webpage at: www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html. Also see: EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, EPA-402-R-03-003 (June 2003). 4 EPA's Technical Support Document for the Citizen's Guide to Radon, EPA 400-R-92-01 (May 1992).
1144
Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from harmful UV 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 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 GHGs. New Ozone Layer Protection Rules EPA implemented two rules that control hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). The first phases down consumption, while the second restricts import of appliances, such as air conditioners, which are pre-charged with HCFCs. Together, the rules provide a comprehensive framework to maintain U.S. compliance with the Montreal Protocol while realizing dramatic gains for the ozone layer and climate system. By surpassing the 2010 caps required under the Montreal Protocol, the rules provide an additional 9,507 ozone depleting potential (ODP)-weighted tons of ozone layer benefit and an additional 314 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) of climate benefit from 2010 to 2014, equal to avoiding annual GHG emissions from 60 million cars. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/rulesoverview.html. SunWise Program Reaches 25,000 Schools The SunWise Program was created to help Americans adapt to the adverse health risks from ozone layer depletion, specifically overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. More than 30,000 teachers at 25,000 schools (about 24 percent of all U.S. K8 schools) and 5,000 informal
1145
educators at 3,700 partner institutions (childrens museums, camps, and communities) have joined the SunWise Program and rely on SunWise information. This brings the total estimated number of students familiar with the SunWise program to more than 3 million over the life of the program. SunWise launched new online sun safety training for outdoor educators, and more than 2,000 staff took the training. It has been so successful that some camps now require it as part of their safety training. In 2009 alone, the estimated benefits of the program were 5.75 times greater than the SunWise Programs cost, according to a peer-reviewed effectiveness model published in Pediatrics. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/sunwise. UV Index Application Launched for Smartphones EPA launched an application for smartphones that provides users a daily UV index forecast tailored to their location. The application gives Americans a new way to check the suns intensity and easier access to medically sound advice about how to plan for sun-safe activities. Scientists agree that the ozone layer will not heal until about 2065. In the meantime, Americans will be exposed to more UV radiation than in the past, at a time when more Americans were diagnosed with skin cancer in 2009 than with breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer combined. The new application provides directly relevant information to help Americans to stay safe in the sun. The UV index application can be downloaded at: www.epa.gov/enviro/mobile/. GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership Reaches 50 Partners GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA partnership with food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change. GreenChill helps food retailers transition to refrigerants with better overall environmental profiles; reduce refrigerant charge sizes and leaks; and adopt advanced refrigeration technologies, strategies, and practices. During the first year of membership, GreenChill partners on average reduce their corporate refrigerant emissions by almost 10 percent. The founding partners reported emission reductions in 2008 and 2009 combined were the equivalent of 5 metric tons of ozone-depleting potential and 400,000 million metric tons of MMTCO2E. GreenChill has signed 50 partners representing 5,500 stores in 48 states in less than three years, marking a substantial win for the environment. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill/. Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program List Expands In FY 2010, EPAs SNAP program expanded the menu of environmentally superior alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. SNAP issued a list of substitutes for chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), as well as two proposed rules for key end uses. EPA proposed as acceptable a new alternative for new motor vehicle air conditioners that can help carmakers meet requirements of the EPANational Highway Transportation and Safety Administration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Rule. Additionally, EPA proposed new acceptable uses for hydrocarbons in some consumer and industrial applications. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
1146
Proposed Montreal Protocol for Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Controls On April 29, 2010, the United States, Mexico, and Canada submitted a proposed amendment to phase down HFC consumption under the Montreal Protocol. HFCs are substitutes for ozonedepleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol and CAA. The amendment creates an HFC phase down schedule for developing and developed countries and addresses HFC-23 byproduct emissions from HCFC production. The amendments cumulative global benefits include a reduction of 3,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2) by 2020 and a reduction of 88,000 MMTCO2E by 2050, according to EPA estimates. An estimated additional reduction of 6,000 MMTCO2E will accrue through HFC-23 controls. West Virginia Joins Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) In 2010, West Virginia became EPAs first state affiliate partner in the RAD program. RAD partners include utilities, retailers, and now state affiliates; partners recover ozone-depleting substances from old refrigerators, freezers, window air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. In addition to saving energy and landfill space by recycling durable materials, RAD partners prevented emissions of 380,000 lb of ozone-depleting substances and 1.41 MMTCE by recovering foam and refrigerants from appliances, a reduction equivalent to avoiding annual emissions from more than 260,000 cars. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad/index.html.
1147
Objective 1.4: Radiation
Congress designated EPA as the primary federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure to radiation. EPAs Radiation Protection Program carries out this responsibility through its federal guidance and standards development activities. The program also manages a nationwide environmental radiation monitoring system, RadNet, and actively prepares for and responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material when they occur. It also oversees the safe disposal of radioactive waste and develops guidance and generally applicable radiation standards for all federal agencies for protecting human health and the environment from radioactive material. The Agencys radiation science is recognized nationally and internationally; it is the foundation that EPA, other federal agencies, and states use to develop radiation risk management policy, guidance, and rulemakings. 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). EPAs waste characterization program inspects DOE radioactive waste generator sites and supports the departments goals for disposal of defense-related transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP. Since WIPP opened in 1999, DOE has made approximately 7,800 waste shipments of transuranic waste. WIPP recertification is mandated by the Land Withdrawal Act, which requires DOE to submit documentation of continued compliance with EPA requirements every five years. DOE submitted its second Compliance Recertification Application in 2009, and during FY 2010, EPA completed its technical review of DOEs application and issued its completeness determination decision. The Agency expects to issue its WIPP recertification decision in the first quarter of FY 2011.
1148
EPAs Radiation Protection Program continues to coordinate with other federal agencies and states to develop mechanisms for controlling industrial materials with radioactive components. For example, EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission co-chair the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), made up of eight federal agencies, three federal observer agencies, and two state observer agencies. ISCORS facilitates consensus on acceptable levels of radiation risk to the public and workers and promotes consistent risk approaches in setting and implementing standards for protection from exposure to ionizing radiation. EPA also works closely with other national and international organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Commission on Radiation Protection, and the Organization of Economic and Cooperative Developments Nuclear Energy Agency, to advance scientific understanding of radiation risks. Radiological Emergency Response Training EPAs 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 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, EPAs 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, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 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. Improving State Radiological Lab Capacity 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 FY 2010, EPA continued to improve state radiological laboratory capacity by providing more reliable, interpretable, and timely data resulting in more efficient national and local response and recovery activities. The Agency provided additional laboratory instruments, laboratory incident response operations training, proficiency testing, and audits of the selected state laboratories via cooperative agreements. EPA has awarded grants to state laboratories in Connecticut, Texas, Washington, and Kansas. Each agreement will help decrease the national radiological laboratory capacity/capability gap by 5 percent as was described to
1149
Congress during testimony in FY 2008. Gap reductions improve data available to Agency decision-makers for appropriate health care actions and rapid response and recovery activities. Expanded RadNet Monitoring System EPA continues to enhance RadNet and strengthen the existing systems response capabilities, including its ability to provide near real-time data directly to EPA decision-makers, states, local officials, and DHS. Using 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 impacts to population and public health, RadNet supports EPAs 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 2010, EPAs RadNet system expanded to reach 100 percent of the most populous cities. With 124 monitors in place, the system is reaching 53 percent of the population and providing 67 percent geographical coverage. Once all 134 purchased monitors are in place, EPA will achieve geographical coverage of 70 percent of the continental United States.
1150
Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
EPA plays a key leadership role in moving the country toward the Presidents vision for a lowcarbon 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 EPAs climate protection programs was launched in 1991. Since then, these programs have worked to reduce emissions of CO2 and other potent GHGs, 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 EPAs 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. These programs continue to offer highly cost-effective approaches for delivering environmental benefits across the country. GHG Standards for Light Duty Vehicles Responding to one of the first major directives of the Obama Administration, EPA and DOT jointly established historic new federal rules that set the first-ever national GHG emission standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. Issued in April 2010, the rules could potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of GHG emissions over the lives
1151
of the vehicles covered. Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules together require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately 5 percent every year. Specifically, the new program reduces CO2 emissions by about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, equivalent to annual emissions of about 50 million cars and light trucks in 2030. GHG Reporting Program EPA published the GHG Reporting Rule (formerly referred to as the Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule) in the Federal Register on October 31, 2009. The rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 98) established the first of its kind, comprehensive national system for reporting annual GHG emissions from suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs as well as large direct emitters. This rule allows EPA to collect accurate and timely emission data under the CAA that can be used to guide development of policies and programs to reduce emissions. The GHG reporting program currently covers approximately 85 percent of the nations GHG emissions and includes an estimated 10,000 facilities. The first reports for 2010 data are due March 31, 2011. Actions in 2010 include finalizing four subparts and establishing the electronic GHG reporting tool (e-GGRT). ENERGY STAR Initiatives EPA manages several efforts, such as ENERGY STAR, 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 (R&D); split incentives; and high transaction costs. Enhanced ENERGY STAR Products Program EPA met several important milestones and remains on track to implement enhanced ENERGY STAR qualification requirements. EPA finalized requirements for accreditation bodies and laboratories to receive EPA recognition and distributed a final draft of proposed requirements for certification bodies and is currently refining the eligibility criteria and partner commitments across all 60 product categories to officially impose third-party certification for all products, effective December 30, 2010. EPA is on track to roll out its top tier effort in early 2011 and will complete 17 specification updates to address growing market share and new federal standards and complete specifications for five new products. For additional information, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product. Improved Industrial Energy Efficiency through the ENERGY STAR Program EPAs ENERGY STAR program has helped improve the energy efficiency of the auto manufacturing industry by developing and publicizing a standardized metric to score the efficiency of auto assembly plants. According to a June 2010 report by the Nicholas Institute for
1152
Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, the ENERGY STAR programs engagement with the auto manufacturing sector has cut fossil fuel use by 12 percent and reduced GHGs by more than 700,000 tons of CO2. EPA also recognized the first group of manufacturing sites that have met the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry and reduced their energy intensity by 10 percent within five years or less. For additional information, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=industry.bus_industry. Launched ENERGY STAR Initiatives to Improve the Performance of Buildings EPA announced Building Performance with ENERGY STAR, a new pilot program designed to help utilities and state energy efficiency programs achieve increased energy savings by strategically pursuing whole building energy improvements with their business customers. In April 2010, EPA also launched the National Building Competition, a coast-to-coast contest between commercial buildings to save energy and fight global climate change. Stand-alone data centers and buildings that house large data centers can now earn the ENERGY STAR. For additional information, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_index. Announced Enhanced Guidelines for ENERGY STAR Homes EPA announced new, more rigorous guidelines (Version 3) for new homes to earn the ENERGY STAR score. Compared with prior ENERGY STAR guidelines, the new requirements increase the energy efficiency of qualified homes by more than 10 percent, making them more than 20 percent efficient than homes built to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. EPA also launched a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program in Northern Virginia to test an innovative program design. For additional information on ENERGY STAR for new homes, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index. For more information on ENERGY STAR for existing homes, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home_improvement.hm_improvement_index. SmartWay Transport EPAs SmartWay Partnership Program works with goods movement shippers, freight providers, and transportation technology manufacturers to accelerate the deployment of fuel saving, lowemission technologies and operational strategies and to promote verifiable reductions in GHG emissions across the global supply chain. SmartWay is a voluntary program addressing GHG emissions and air pollution comprehensively across the freight transportation system. In a unique collaboration, SmartWay and the major Class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers developed specifications for a SmartWay branded tractor-trailer that achieves a 20-percent improvement in fuel efficiency. All major Class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers now offer at least one SmartWay certified model, and manufacturers estimate that this vehicle has already achieved a 5 percent market penetration. To date, more than 2,700 SmartWay partners have driven approximately 650,000 trucks and traveled nearly 60 billion miles per year. As a result of SmartWay partners three-year commitment to upgrade trucks with auxiliary power units, fuelefficient tires, enhanced trailer aerodynamics, and other improvements, SmartWay partners have conserved more than 1.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel, saved more than $3.5 billion, and eliminated 14.7 million tons of CO2 emissions.
1153
As EPA and DOT stated in the proposed GHG regulation for medium duty and heavy duty vehicles, SmartWay demonstrated a number of the vehicle technologies that the agencies expect manufacturers will employ to comply with the regulation, and SmartWay continues to demonstrate new and emerging technologies that go beyond the requirements of the proposed GHG emission standards. SmartWay helps reduce emissions from the existing 2.2 million heavy duty trucks currently in operation not covered by the proposed rule, which affects only new vehicles starting with Model Year 2014. To address existing engines not subject to the new rule, SmartWay promotes operational strategies for both shippers and carriers, such as more efficient routing and packaging, more efficient driver behavior, and optimized model choice which can substantially reduce freight emissions. CAA Permitting Programs Tailored to Address GHGs In May 2010, EPA completed a rule to address CAA permitting for GHG emissions from the largest stationary sources. Facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nations largest GHG emitters, which include power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities; the current rules will not impact facilities like small businesses and family farms. Climate Showcase Communities Grants Awarded EPA awarded $10 million to 22 local governments and three tribes to implement communitybased GHG mitigation projects. The goal of these projects is to serve as models to other communities across the United States for reducing GHG emissions cost effectively while also generating co-benefits such as improving air and water quality, generating green jobs, and saving consumer and government money. The projects have proposed to reduce about 180,000 metric tons of GHG emissions annually (equivalent to the annual emissions from 34,000 passenger vehicles or 15,000 homes) save more than $4.8 million per year in energy costs, and create more than 60 jobs. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/showcase/index.html.
1154
Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research
EPAs research is designed to provide a sound scientific foundation to inform state and federal regulators about improving air quality. EPA Research on the Effects of Roadway-Related Air Pollution EPA continues to investigate pollution from vehicles operating on roads and its impact on human health and the environment. Roadway emissions include pollutants from vehicle tailpipes, tires, brakes, and the road surface itself. EPAs work supports understanding how traffic emissions might lead to adverse health effects for people living, working, or going to school near large roads. Studies also are identifying the most effective strategies and tools for controlling the impact of traffic emissions and methods to reduce exposures. To better understand the amounts of roadway air pollutants and the extent to which they travel from the road, EPA collaborated with the Federal Highway Administration to perform a measurement study around a highway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Las Vegas study, along with a similar Detroit study, enhances the Agency's understanding of pollution associated with vehicles and will inform development of a model to estimate pollutant exposures near roads. Enhanced Understanding of EPAs Air Research In FY 2010, EPA improved communication with the public by developing an outreach effort to highlight current research activities and EPAs accomplishments since Congress passed the CAA 40 years ago. AIR SCIENCE 40 included a video featuring prominent EPA and non-EPA researchers describing significant air research accomplishments and their vision of what air research is needed in a changing climate. EPA also developed a series of public seminars that describe EPAs Clean Air research activities. The seminars were co-sponsored by the House Science Committee on Science and Technology, the American Heart Association, the American Thoracic Society, and the American Geophysical Union. Research supported by EPA grants was
1155
also highlighted in a series of webinars focused on advances in health and implementation science achieved by the five PM centers and the Health Effects Institute. AIR SCIENCE 40 presentations, videos, and other materials are available at: www.epa.gov/airscience/.
1156
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 GHG intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors. OBJECTIVE: 1.1: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR Through 2014, 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 February 7, 2011 15 Total PMs 15
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.1: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Strategic Target (1) By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties by 14 percent from the 2003 baseline, compared to the 8 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2008 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (M9) Cumulative percent 6 6 8 9 10 12.5 11 Data Percent reduction in population-weighted Avail ambient concentration of ozone in 12/2011 monitored counties from 2003 baseline 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.
1157
FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual (MM9) Cumulative percent 16 28 reduction in the average number of days during the ozone season that the ozone standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted by population Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is zero.
FY 2008 Target Actual 19 37
FY 2010 Target Actual 26 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Percent
Strategic Target (2) By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.5 in all monitored counties by 6 percent from the 2003 baseline, compared to the 4 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2008. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (M91) Cumulative percent 3 8 4 13 5 17 6 Data Percent reduction in population-weighted Avail ambient concentration of fine 12/2011 particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline. Baseline - The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter PM2.5 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 cubic meter" (million people ug/m3). The 2003 baseline is 2,581 people micrograms per cubic meter. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, reduce emissions of fine particles from mobile sources by 51,000 tons from a 2009 baseline level of 417,000 tons.
1158
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (P34) Tons of PM-2.5 reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
FY 2010 Target Actual Unit 122,434 Data Tons Avail 12/2011 Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions, and the 2000 baseline for PM2.5 from mobile sources is 510,552 tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.
FY 2007 Target Actual 85,704 85,704
FY 2009 Target Actual 110,190 110,190
Strategic Target (4) By 2014, reduce emissions of NOx from mobile sources by 2.1 million tons from a 2009 baseline level of 9.3 million tons. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (O34) Millions of tons of NOx 2.37 2.37 2.71 2.71 3.05 3.05 3.39 Data Tons reduced since 2000 from mobile Avail sources 12/2011 Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for NOx emissions from mobile sources is 11.8 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, reduce emissions of VOCs from mobile sources by 1.1 million tons from a 2009 baseline level of 5.9 million tons.
1159
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (O33) Millions of tons of VOCs 1.20 1.20 1.37 1.37 1.54 1.54 1.71 Data Tons reduced since 2000 from mobile Avail sources 12/2011 Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for VOC emissions from mobile sources is 7.7 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories. 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 5 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 2014, with EPA support, 47 additional tribal air quality emission inventories will be completed, for a cumulative total of 84. (FY 2007 baseline: 37 tribal emission inventories) Strategic Target (9) By 2014, with EPA support, 12 additional tribes will possess the expertise and capability to implement the CAA in Indian country (as demonstrated by successful completion of an eligibility determination under the Tribal Authority Rule), for a cumulative total of 22 tribes.
1160
No Strategic Target FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual (M92) Cumulative percent 21 42 reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value Baseline - The baseline in 2002 is 0 (zero). (M94) Percent of major NSR 75 83 permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 61 percent. (M95) Percent of significant Title 94 81 V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 85 percent. (M96) Percent of new Title V 87 51 operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 75 percent. (N35) Limit the increase of CO 1.18 1.18 emissions (in tons) from mobile sources compared to a 2000 baseline FY 2008 Target Actual 25 52 FY 2009 Target Actual 29 59 FY 2010 Target Actual 33 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Percent
78
79
78
76
78
Data Avail 12/2011
Percent
97
85
100
87
100
Data Avail 12/2011
Percent
91
72
95
70
99
Data Avail 12/2011
Percent
1.35
1.35
1.52
1.52
1.69
Data Avail 12/2011
Tons
1161
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for CO from mobile sources was 79.2 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories. (P33) Tons of PM-10 Reduced 87,026 87,026 99,458 99,458 111,890 111,890 124,322 Data Tons since 2000 from Mobile Sources Avail 12/2011 Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 from mobile source is 613,497 tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.2: Reduce Air Toxics Reduce Air Toxics Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 34 percent from the 1993 nonweighted baseline of 7.24 million tons, maintaining the 34 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2006.
1162
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (001) Cumulative percentage 35 39 35 Data 36 Data 36 Data Percent reduction in tons of toxicityAvail Avail Avail weighted (for cancer risk) 12/2011 12/2011 12/2011 emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes 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 on an annual basis. The 1993 baseline is 7.24 million tons (2007 actual is 39 percent). The 1993 baseline represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 59 percent from the 1993 non-weighted baseline of 7.24 million tons, compared to the 58 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2006. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (002) Cumulative percentage 58 53 59 Data 59 Data 59 Data Percent reduction in tons of toxicityAvail Avail Avail weighted (for non-cancer risk) 12/2011 12/2011 12/2011 emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the 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 on an annual basis. The 1993 baseline is 7.24 million tons (2007 actual is 53 percent). This 1993 baseline represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models.
1163
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.3: Reduce the Adverse Effects of Acid Deposition Reduce the Adverse Effects of Acid Deposition Strategic Target (1) By 2014, due to progress in reducing acid deposition, the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions of the northern and eastern United States should be maintained at or below the 2001 baseline of approximately 500 lakes and 5,000 kilometers of stream-length in the population covered by the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems/Long-Term Monitoring Survey. The long-term target is a 20 percent reduction in the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by 2030. Strategic Target (2) Through 2015, maintain the national annual emissions of SO2 from utility electric power generation sources at a level below 8.95 million annual tons, compared to the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons per year. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (A01) Maintain annual emissions 7,500,00 8,450,00 8,000,00 7,600,00 8,000,00 5,700,00 8,450,00 Data Tons of SO2 from utility electric power 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avail Reduced generation sources nationwide at 12/2011 or below 6 million tons 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 CAA Amendments. This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later are 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 CAA and additional allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, reduce total annual average sulfur deposition by 20 percent from 2001 monitored levels of up to 15 kilograms per hectare for total sulfur deposition.
1164
Strategic Target (4) By 2014, reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition by 30 percent from 2001 monitored levels of up to 9 kilograms per hectare for total nitrogen deposition. OBJECTIVE: 1.2: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR Through 2014, 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 February 7, 2011 5 Total PMs 5
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.1: Reduce Exposure to Radon Reduce Exposure to Radon Strategic Target (1) By 2014, the number of future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure to 1,270 from the 2006 baseline of 644 future premature lung cancer deaths prevented. FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual No Target (R50) Percent of existing homes 10.3 Established with an operating mitigation system compared to the estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 6.9 percent. No Target (R51) Percent of all new single28.6 Established family homes in high radon potential areas built with radonreducing features FY 2008 Target Actual No Target 11.0
Established
FY 2009 Target Actual 11.5 12.0
FY 2010 Target Actual 12.0 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Percent
31.0
31.5
36.1
33
Data Avail 12/2011
Percent
1165
FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 21 percent.
FY 2008 Target Actual
Unit
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.2: Reduce Exposure to Asthma Triggers Reduce Exposure to Asthma Triggers Strategic Target (1) By 2014, the number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers will increase to 7.2 million from the 2003 baseline of 3 million. EPA will place special emphasis on children and other disproportionately impacted populations. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (R16) Percent of public that is >20 Data Not >20 Data Not >20 33 >30 Data Percent aware of the asthma program's Avail Avail Avail media campaign 12/2011 Baseline - Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign. No new advertising was launched in 2007 or 2008. (R17) Additional health care 2,000 4,582 2,000 4,558 2,000 4,614 2,000 Data Professional professionals trained annually by Avail s EPA and its partners on the 12/2011 environmental management of asthma triggers Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 2,360 trained health care professionals. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.3: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Air Contaminants in Schools Reduce Exposure to Indoor Air Contaminants in Schools Strategic Target (1) By 2018, the number of schools implementing an effective indoor air quality management plan will increase to 43,000 from the 2006 baseline of 38,000.
1166
FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual (R22) Estimated annual number of 1,100 1,346 schools establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 3,200 schools.
FY 2010 Target Actual 1,000 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Schools
OBJECTIVE: 1.3: PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER Through 2014, continue efforts to restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the harmful effects of UV radiation. PMs Met 0 PMs Not Met 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 1 Total PMs 1
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.1: Heal the Ozone Layer Heal the Ozone Layer Strategic Target (1) By 2014, total effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine will have reached its peak of 3.185 ppb of air by volume and begun its gradual decline to a value less than 1.8 ppb (1980 level). SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.2: Reduce Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances Reduce Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances Strategic Target (1) By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances to less than 1,520 tons per year of ODP from the 2009 baseline of 9,900 tons per year.
1167
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (S01) Remaining US Consumption <9,900 6,296 <9,900 5,667 <9,900 3,414 <3,811 Data ODP tons of HCFCs, chemicals that deplete Avail the Earth's protective ozone layer, 12/2011 measured in tons of ODP Baseline - The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of Class II 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 ODP. Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODPweighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export. The HCFC baseline in 1985 for the United States is 15,240 ODP. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.3: Reduce Exposure to Excess UV Radiation Reduce Exposure to Excess UV Radiation Strategic Target (1) By 2165, reduce the incidence of melanoma skin cancer in the U.S. to 14 new skin cancer cases per 100,000 people from the 2005 baseline of 21.5 cases per 100,000 people. OBJECTIVE: 1.4: RADIATION Through 2014, 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 February 7, 2011 3 Total PMs 3
1168
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.4.1: Monitor the Environment for Radiation Monitor the Environment for Radiation Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 51 percent of the U.S. population will be within 15 miles of an ambient radiation monitoring system that provides scientifically sound data for assessing public exposure resulting from radiological emergencies. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual (R34) Percentage of most 80 87 85 92 90 98 populous US cities with a RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system, which will provide data to assist in protective action determinations Baseline - The baseline in 2005 is 55 percent for the 100 most populous cities in the United States. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.4.2: Prepare for and Respond to Radiological Emergencies Prepare for and Respond to Radiological Emergencies Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 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. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual (R35) Level of readiness of 80 83 85 87 90 90 radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations Baseline - The baseline in 2005 for the emergency response program readiness is 50 percent. FY 2010 Target Actual 90 Data Avail 12/2011 FY 2010 Target Actual 95 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Percent
Unit Percent
1169
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual (R39) Level of readiness of 20 21 35 37 50 50 national environmental radiological laboratory capacity (measured as percentage of laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for emergency response and recovery decisions) Baseline - The baseline in 2005 for the emergency response program readiness is 0 (zero) percent. OBJECTIVE: 1.5: REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS
Unit Percent
Through 2014, continue to reduce GHG emissions through voluntary climate protection programs that accelerate the adoption of costeffective GHG reducing technologies and practices. PMs Met 0 PMs Not Met 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 3 Total PMs 3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.1: Reduce GHG Emissions Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 53 MMTCE will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to 30 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs.
1170
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (G02) MMTCE of GHG reductions in the buildings sector
FY 2010 Target Actual Unit 39.0 Data MMTCE Avail 12/2011 Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG 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 US electric power sector. Baseline data for non- CO2 emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the US Climate Action Report 2002 (http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/).
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, 112 MMTCE will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to 69 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (G16) Million metric tons of 62.6 72.9 67.7 79.0 72.9 80.2 82.9 Data MMCTE carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of Avail GHG reductions in the industry 12/2011 sector Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG emissions in the absence of the US climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the US 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 EIA and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the US electric power sector. Baseline data for non- CO2 emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the US Climate Action Report 2002 (http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/). Strategic Target (3) By 2014, 20 MMTCE will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to 0.6 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs.
1171
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (G06) MMTCE of GHG 4.2 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.6 6 4.3 Data MMTCE reductions in the transportation Avail sector 12/2011 Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG 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 EIA and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non- CO2 emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the US Climate Action Report 2002 (http://www.gcrio.org/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 0 PMs Not Met 1 Data Available After February 7, 2011 0 Total PMs 1
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.6.1: Clean Air Research Strategic Target (1) By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for protecting the air and reducing risks to human health. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual No Target No Target (H05) Percentage of NAAQS 35.7 32.9 Biennial 33.9 34.1 Biennial Established Established publications rated as highly cited publications Baseline - As of FY 2007, 32.9 percent of NAAQS program publications were rated as highly cited papers.
1172
Unit Percent
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (H35) Percent planned actions 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 Percent accomplished toward the longterm goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard setting and air quality management decisions (research) 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 quality 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. Explanation 80 percent of the program's planned outputs were met. The incomplete output is a joint verification between U.S. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) and ETV Canada. The plan was to test the performance of an airborne methane/ethane (fugitive) emission detection technology. EPA developed a test plan titled, "Joint Test/QA Plan for Verification of Airborne Leak Detection Systems" (available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/vt-ams.html). To complete this verification, the vendor initially agreed to match private funds with EPA in-kind resources. However, the vendor did not provide the funds. The vendor must provide additional funds to complete this verification. Given recent nonpayment, the PI does not expect the vendor to fund the rest of the project, thus the verification will not be completed.
1173
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
1174
1175
Goal Purpose In coordination with its partners, EPA ensures that drinking water is safe and restores and maintains the quality of the nations 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 nations 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, with the assistance of state and tribal partners, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) 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 TMDLs 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 because of aging infrastructure and expanding populations. In this section, EPA reports on accomplishments and challenges in addressing water quality issuesstrengthening 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 Analytical Methods, Beach Program, Coastal and Ocean Programs, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Cooling Water Intakes Program, Drinking Water and Ground Water Protection Programs, DWSRF, 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, UIC Program, Wastewater Management, Water Efficiency, Water Quality Standards and Criteria, Watershed Management, Water Monitoring, and Water Quality Research. EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal 2, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htm, which summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
1176
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
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 are making 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 2010, 92 percent of Americans were served by community water systems that met applicable health-based drinking water standards. Small Drinking Water Systems Water systems must ensure reliable delivery of water to their customers, as well as meet existing national health-based standards for more than 90 chemical, radiological, and microbial contaminants and implement several more recent standards. In FY 2010, EPA continued to support state efforts to improve small systems technical, managerial, and financial capacity to consistently meet regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the Agency promoted the use of costeffective 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 Area wide 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. EPA also promoted best practices for operating and maintaining small systems to achieve long-term compliance with existing regulations.
1177
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program EPAs UIC Program continues to make progress in addressing significant violations for Class I, II, and III wells. In addition, the 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 2010, EPA worked to develop regulations for a new class of injection wellClass VI with specific requirements for regulating geologic sequestration. The final rule was released in early FY 2011. 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 CO2 to the atmosphere. EPA worked closely with federal, state, industry, and international organizations on all facets of developing and implementing geologic sequestration technology, including financial responsibility mechanisms. Future challenges include finalizing the regulations and cultivating UIC 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 EPA published the final Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in October 2009. The list consists of 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants. Of the contaminants on the list, EPA must determine whether or not to regulate these contaminants at least five every five years. To address multiple contaminants, EPA has developed a new Drinking Water Strategy to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups, improve drinking water technology, address potential risks using multiple statutes if warranted, and to work more closely with state partners. To inform the new strategy, EPA initiated a national dialogue to engage stakeholders and the public in developing innovative technical and procedural approaches by holding five Listening Sessions (one in Chicago, Illinois; two in Washington, D.C.; one in Cincinnati, Ohio; and one in Rancho Cucamonga, California) and conducting an online Web dialogue. For additional information, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm. EPA proposed revisions to its most comprehensive microbial drinking water rule, the Total Coliform Rule, based on extensive stakeholder input. As proposed, EPA expects the rule to improve public health protection by requiring all public water systems to investigate for and correct any sanitary defects found when monitoring results indicate that the system might be vulnerable to contamination.
1178
Public Access to Fish Advisory Information EPA works to reduce the release of contaminants into the nations waters and conducts activities to expand information access about safe fish consumption. In FY 2010, 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 enough to revise those advisories. In FY 2010, EPA completed its report of a study in which the Agency measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue at pre1996 mercury advisory sites revisited in 2007. The purpose of the study was to assess the need for changes to existing meal consumption advice as a result of changes in mercury concentration and application of a standardized risk assessment methodology. The study concluded that an estimated 58 percent of the historic mercury advisory sites studied warrant some change to their existing fish consumption advice. EPA also completed a report evaluating the effectiveness of outreach for the Mississippi Delta fish consumption advisory. 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. Under EPAs BEACH Program, 37 states, territories, and tribes monitored 3,819 beaches to ensure that they were safe for swimming. EPA met its FY 2010 goal with coastal and Great Lakes beaches open 95 percent of beach season days. Of the 764,377 beach season days during the year, 5 percent were restricted because of contaminationrelated closings or advisories. Most (88 percent) of beach notification actions reported during the 2009 swimming season lasted a week or less, and 60 percent lasted only one or two days.
1179
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
EPA works with federal, state, and tribal partners to ensure the quality of Americas waters. The Agency works to protect rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a watershed basis, and to protect urban, coastal, and ocean waters. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds In FY 2010, EPA continued to manage the DWSRF and CWSRF base programs while obligating additional funding provided under the ARRA. Since FY 2009, the CWSRF reported that 1,834 projects have begun construction, with 235 complete and $1.13 billion (30 percent) of funds invested in green projects. The DWSRF reported that 1,338 projects have begun construction, with 183 complete and $539 million (29 percent) of funds invested in green projects. Mountaintop Mining In 2009 and 2010, EPA completed several of the short-term actions under the July 11, 2009, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), including publishing an interim guide to the states on effective use of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 certification and conducting a permit quality review of issued Section 402 permits. Substantial progress was made in improving interagency coordination with DOI and the USACE. EPA also released interim guidance on reviewing surface coal mining applications under CWA Section 402 and 404, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act and EO 12898 on Environmental Justice. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/appalachian_mtntop_mining_detailed.pdf.
1180
Discharges of Pollution Into the Nations Water Data that became available in FY 2010 show that during FY 2009, under EPAs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permits that implemented standards for industrial sources, municipal treatment plants, and stormwater prevented the discharge of 187 billion lb 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 90.9 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 EPAs and states continuing efforts to work together more closely during states formulation of new and revised standards. Water Quality States assess about one-third of the nations 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 CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters than are cleaned up to meet state standards. Since the baseline was established in 2002, states added more than 4,000 waterbodies to the list of impaired waters, and 2,909 have been identified to now meet state standards. States also 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 2010, states remediated 65 waters that had been impaired by nonpoint source pollution, bringing the total number of remediated waters to 212. Detailed summaries of each of these successful remediation projects may be reviewed at: www.epa.gov/nps/success. By the end of FY 2010, EPA and states completed more than 42,000 EPA-approved waterbody pollutant reduction plans (TMDLs). A TMDL is a plan for ensuring that a waterbody meets the Agencys water quality standards for specific pollutants. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/. Assessment of Nations Waters EPA is working with its state and tribal partners on a series of statistically representative surveys of the aquatic resources of the United Statesits streams, rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands. The surveys are designed to yield unbiased estimates of the condition of each resource, based on a representative sample of waters. Working with its state and tribal partners, EPA released the first baseline study of the condition of the nations lakes. The landmark National Lakes Assessment is the first time a national monitoring study of the overall condition of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs has been conducted using a statistically valid approach. The results allow EPA to assert confidently that 56 percent of the nations lakes are in good ecological condition and that lakeshore degradation is a primary stressor to overall lake health. The assessment helps states and tribes implement their lake monitoring and assessment programs by establishing a baseline for lake condition that can be used for future trend assessments and providing ecoregional data important for resource management decisions. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html and www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvey/#report.
1181
Coastal Waters In FY 2010, EPA began implementing the 5th National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA). Working with states, the Agency sampled more than 1,000 sites around the nations coasts and the Great Lakes to examine the ecological condition of U.S. coastal waters. The sampling design uses a probability-based network that will provide statistically valid estimates of the condition of all coastal waters with known confidence. Coupled with this years survey, EPA expanded the NCCA to include sampling and analysis of additional indicators, notably oil- and dispersantrelated compounds from stations located in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA will continue to integrate the Gulf restoration effort into the NCCA program to meet the Agencys long-term monitoring and restoration needs. The results of the survey will serve both federal and state needs by providing current and trend data to inform coastal management decisions. For additional information, see: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm and http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/monitoring/nationalsurveys.cfm. Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Number of TMDL) 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.
WQ-8a # of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)
50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Annual Target End-of-Year Results
1182
What This Shows: A 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 CWA Section 303(d) listing and all consent decree TMDL commitments. TMDLs are one of the many tools used to help reduce 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 2010, the program measure was exceeded primarily because EPA Region 3 established an estimated 2,600 TMDLs for Pennsylvania because the state faced budget cuts and layoffs that impacted its ability to develop TMDLs. 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 in the Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS). More specifically, the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERS) system allows search for TMDL documents at: www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl_document_search.html. Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA continues to improve the ATTAINS database and oversee quality review of existing data. Data quality has improved and will continue to improve as existing data entry requirements and procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry practitioners. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir.
1183
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 2.3 Met = 3 Not Met = 2 Data Available After * February 7, 2011 = 2 (Total = 7)
* This total includes 2 performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.
EPAs research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect and improve the sources of our drinking water and surface water quality. In FY 2010, EPA made several advances in improving water quality models and advancing the knowledge essential for support of CWA regulatory and nonregulatory activities. Impacts of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems Mountaintop mining, used in some regions where coal is a resource, is a process by which a portion or all of the top of a mountain is removed to expose and remove coal. Valleys or hollows adjacent to the mining site are used as a repository for the excess fill material. Buildup of constructed fills in small valleys or hollows can alter stream ecosystems and has potentially significant implications for the Central Appalachian region of the United States. In FY 2010, EPA released The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (External Review Draft), a review of the most advanced and contemporary science regarding the water-related environmental impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills in Central Appalachia. The report concludes that mountaintop mining leads to alterations of stream ecosystems including the permanent loss of springs and small water sources that were buried under the fill, a long-term increase in pollutants in waters downstream from the area, significant degrading of the water quality in the region (based on lethality of assay test organisms), and toxic effects in fish and birds. Characterization of Exposure from Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) Research has shown that pharmaceuticals are present in the nation's waters. Understanding the potential risks from exposures to PPCPs and communicating these risks to decision-makers and the public is essential to ensuring the safety of our water. The potential risks of PPCP exposure in water sources are uncertain, and research findings suggest that certain drugs might cause detrimental ecological effects. Large quantities of PPCPs can enter the environment from
1184
individual human or domestic animal sources, and current sewage treatment systems are not equipped to remove PPCPs from the water supply. In FY 2010, EPA developed methods for measuring PPCPs in surface waters, wastewaters, and biosolids and prepared a literature review on the environmental impact of disposal of leftover unwanted pharmaceuticals in developing drug disposal policies. These two major developments will enhance methods to define the potential exposure to PPCPs, which will aid in informing policies in this area. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/. Permeable Parking Lots to Protect Water Resources Green infrastructure practices, such as the development and use of permeable surfaces that allow water to penetrate the surface, can significantly reduce stormwater runoff and protect local water resources in urban and suburban communities. As a relatively new solution to stormwater management, EPA recognized the need for credible data and information regarding the long-term performance and maintenance requirements of green infrastructure practices, as well as their impact and value on the water quality of the runoff and infiltrate. In FY 2010, EPA began a longterm assessment of multiple permeable parking lot surface types at its Edison Environmental Center. This parking lot functions as a state-of-the-art research and demonstration site for other federal facilities, and is a public outreach tool displaying green stormwater management. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/awi. Improved Identification of Fecal Contamination in Water Bodies In FY 2010, EPA completed an initial assessment of the molecular-based assays with potential for providing the indication of the sources (human, bovine, or avian) of fecal contamination in our waters. The findings demonstrated that some tools (assays/models) are more robust than others. Many factors affect the ability of these tools to fully identify the unique sources of fecal contamination, and efforts are ongoing to determine the information needed to provide clear recommendations for the use of specific assays.
1185
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER Ensure 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 8 PMs Not Met 3 Data Available After February 7, 2011 3 Total PMs 14
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink Water Safe to Drink Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 93 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water protection.
1186
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 (ARRA measure)*
FY 2007 Target Actual 94 91.5
Unit Percent Population
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. 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 by-products, interim enhanced surface water treatment rule, long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule, and arsenic. (apc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF (ARRA measure)* 85 88 86 90 89 92 86 91.3 Rate
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. Baseline - The baseline for this measure is a 79.2 percent fund utilization rate in 2003. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
1187
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (apd) Number of additional projects initiating operations (ARRA measure)*
Unit Projects
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. Baseline - In 2002, 1,538 projects were initiating operations. (aph) Percent of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance) 95 92 95 87 95 88 95 87 Percent CWSs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 80 percent of community water systems in 2004. Explanation - This measure was not met as a result of fewer state resources and budget constraints. Sanitary surveys are resource intensive efforts, as state staff or contractors must physically visit the system to perform a sanitary survey. (apj) Percent of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells and other high priority Class V wells closed or permitted Baseline - In FY 2005, 72 percent of Class V wells were closed or permitted (apm) Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection 89 89 89.5 89 90 89.1 90 89.6 Percent Systems 80 Data Avail 3/2011 Percent Wells
1188
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit 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 - This measure was not met due to the burden placed on smaller size systems, particularly those currently challenged by the revised arsenic standard, which has resulted in slightly reduced compliance at the system level. (apo) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject industrial, municipal, or hazardous wastes (Class I) that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water 92 96 Percent Wells
Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the process of being developed and will be available in FY 2011. (app) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to enhance oil/natural gas recovery or for the injection of other (Class II) fluids associated with oil and natural gas production that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water 89 89 Percent Wells
Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the process of being developed and will be available in FY 2011.
1189
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (apq) Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution mining (Class III) that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water
Unit Percent Wells
Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the process of being developed and will be available in FY 2011. Explanation - The universe is very small which makes it difficult to predict how many Class III wells will lose mechanical integrity in a given year. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards during 97 percent of person months (i.e., all persons served by community water systems times 12 months). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (dw2) Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable healthbased standards FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 95 97 FY 2009 Target Actual 95 97.2 FY 2010 Target Actual 95 97.3
Unit Percent Months
Baseline - In 2005, 95.2 percent of the goal was achieved. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, 88 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.
1190
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
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. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, 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). Strategic Target (6) 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. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce the percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern to 4.6 percent.
1191
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (fs1) Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern
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 (NHANES). SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming Water Safe for Swimming Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 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. 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 fiveyear average FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 2 0 FY 2009 Target Actual 2 0 FY 2010 Target Actual 2 Data Avail 3/2011
Unit Outbreaks
Baseline - 2005 baseline: an annual average of two recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the CDC 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). Strategic Target (2) By 2014, 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.
1192
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 2008 Target Actual 92.6 95
Unit Percent Days/Season
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 9 PMs Not Met 3 Data Available After February 7, 2011 6 Total PMs 18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Strategic Target (1) By 2014, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in more than 3,250 water bodies identified in 2002 as not attaining standards (cumulative).
1193
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) (ARRA measure)*
Unit Segments
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. 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 CWA. (bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF (ARRA measure)* 93.4 96.7 93.5 98 94.5 98 92 100 Percent Rate
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. Baseline - In 2005, fund utilization rate for the CWSRF was 94.7 percent. Explanation - When the target was originally set, EPA estimated that there was a possibility that ARRA could have had a negative impact on the total level of assistance the CWSRFs could provide. In reality, the ability of the CWSRFs to provide ARRA funding as additional subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness, grants and negative interest more than offset this. Demand for CWSRF funding was much greater than in previous years given the possibility for communities to receive a portion (or all) of their project funding in the form of additional subsidization. The increased demand included communities that have not previously come to the CWSRF for project funding. (bpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards (ARRA measure)* 86 85.8 86 86 86 Data Avail 3/2011 86 Data Avail 3/2011 Percent POTWs
1194
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. FY 2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals include ARRA funding. Baseline - In 2005, 3,670 (86.6 percent) publicly owned treatment works complied with their permitted wastewater discharge standards. (bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only) 4.5 7.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Data Avail 3/2011 Pounds (million)
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 19.1 8.5 11.3 8.5 9.1 8.5 Data Avail 3/2011 Pounds (million)
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. (bph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only) 700,000 3,900,00 0 700,000 2,100,00 0 700,000 2,300,00 0 700,000 Data Avail 3/2011 Tons (thousand)
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.
1195
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA (state TMDL) on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative). A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
Unit TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,677 TMDLs in 2000. Explanation - Due to state resource constraints and complicated Consent Decree TMDLs, EPA saw a significant decrease in the number of TMDLs established by states. EPA anticipates that the number of state-established TMDLs may continue to be low (compared to historical levels) for a few years. (bpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the FY 95 112 95 120 95 147 95 142 Percent Permits
Baseline - 95 percent (measure is annual, regions required to meet 95 percent of the universe). Explanation - States have continued their efforts in coordination with EPA regions to maintain strong performance in the issuance of their high priority permits. When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the FY as well as for two successive years. If a state is able to issue permits designated for a future FY ahead of schedule, it receive credit toward the current FY target, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted. (bpn) Percent of major dischargers in significant noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the FY 22.5 22.6 22.5 23.9 22.5 23.3 22.5 Data Avail 3/2011 Percent Dischargers
1196
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 22.5 percent of major dischargers in SNC in 2004. (bpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from states and territories that are approved by EPA (bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA (total TMDL) 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. (bpt) Percent of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys (bpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES permits (including tribal) that are issued in the FY 85 85.6 87 92.5 85 93.2
Unit Percent Submissions
Baseline - Not applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis. 25,274 26,844 33,801 35,979 38,978 41,866 44,560 46,817 TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,843 TMDLs in 2000. 54 54 65 65 65 65 82 82 Percent Waters Percent Permits
Baseline - 2000 baseline is 31percent. 95 104 95 119 95 144 95 138
Baseline - 95 percent (Measure is annual. Regions are required to meet 95 percent of the universe).
1197
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - States and EPA have continued their efforts in coordination with EPA regions to maintain strong performance in the issuance of their high priority permits. When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the FY as well as for two successive years. If a state is able to issue permits designated for a future FY ahead of schedule, they receive credit toward the current FY target, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted. (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 information from EPA or sources not considered in previous standards 67 66.1 68 62.5 68 62.5 66 67.9 Percent States and Territories
Baseline - Not applicable because number of submissions changes on an annual basis. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, remove at least 9,200 of the specific causes of water body impairments identified by states in 2002 (cumulative). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (wq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 4,607 6,723 FY 2009 Target Actual 6,891 7,530 FY 2010 Target Actual 8,512 8,446
Unit Causes
Baseline - In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states. Explanation - EPA missed its commitment because of a delay in reviewing Integrated Reports from states.
1198
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, improve water quality conditions in 300 impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (wq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 40 60 FY 2009 Target Actual 102 104 FY 2010 Target Actual 141 168
Unit Watersheds
Baseline - In 2002, there were 10 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watersheds of focus having one or more water bodies impaired. Strategic Target (4) Through 2014, ensure that 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 streams rated "good"). Strategic Target (5) By 2014, improve water quality in Indian Country at 75 or more baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters (cumulative) (i.e., show improvement in one or more of seven key parameters: dissolved oxygen, potential hydrogen (pH), water temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus (TP), pathogen indicators, and turbidity). Strategic Target (6) 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). SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Water Improve Coastal and Ocean Water Strategic Target (1) By 2014, prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to at least maintain national coastal aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
1199
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Northeast region. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Southeast region. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the West Coast region. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Puerto Rico region. Strategic Target (6) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Hawaii region. Strategic Target (7) By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the South Central Alaska region. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (Opb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal FY 2007 Target Actual 92 92 FY 2008 Target Actual 94 91 FY 2009 Target Actual 96 91 FY 2010 Target Actual 98 Data Avail 5/2011
Unit Percent Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
1200
Strategic Target (8) By 2014, 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). 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 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 95 99 FY 2009 Target Actual 98 99 FY 2010 Target Actual 98 90.1
Unit Percent Sites
Baseline - In 2005, 94 percent active dredged material ocean dumping sites had achieved environmentally acceptable conditions. Explanation - Due to potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the ocean dumping sites in the Gulf of Mexico, the national target was not met in FY 2010. Several regions reported that multiple ocean dumping sites in the Gulf of Mexico likely do not meet environmentally acceptable conditions due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. OBJECTIVE: 2.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH By 2014, 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. Data Available After February 7, 2011 3 2 2* * This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data. PMs Met PMs Not Met Total PMs 7
1201
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.3.1: Drinking Water Research Strategic Target (1) By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for reducing human exposure to contaminants in drinking water and protecting human health.
1202
No Strategic Target Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (I34) Percentage of planned risk management research products delivered to support EPA's Office of Water (OW), regions, water utilities, and other key stakeholders to manage public health risk FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 93 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 100
Unit Percent
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 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. (I35) Percentage of planned methodologies, data, and tools delivered in support of EPA's OW and other key stakeholders needs for developing health risk assessments under the SDWA 100 100 100 100 100 86 Percent
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 OW in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), regulating/not regulating contaminants on the CCL, the six-year review, and the 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. Explanation 86 percent of the program's planned outputs were met in FY 2010. A peer-reviewed report on chemical indicators of fecal contamination in water sources and correlated negative health impacts was delayed. The delay occurred due to a need for extra time for the sampling phase of the project.
1203
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.3.2: Water Quality Research Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for protecting aquatic ecosystems and reducing human exposure to contaminants in recreational waters. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H66) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal 1) delivered FY 2007 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2008 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 92
Unit Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal one and completed 100 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 92 percent of the program's annual outputs were completed in FY 2010. One report was not completed due to the personnel challenge. (H68) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal 2) delivered 100 100 100 100 100 86 100 100 Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal two and completed 100 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. (H70) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal 3) delivered 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal three and completed 100 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.
1204
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H92) Percentage of WQRP publications in high impact journals
FY 2007 Target Actual No Biennial Target Establish ed
FY 2009 Target Actual No Biennial Target Establish ed
FY 2010 Target Actual Unit 15.7 Data Not Percent Collected
Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule. (H96) Percentage of WQRP publications rated as highly cited publications No Target Establish ed Biennial 15.7 15.2 No Target Establish ed Biennial 16.7 Data Not Percent Collected
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews. Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
1205
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
1206
1207
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. Managing materials in nonsustainable ways or having uncontrolled wastes can threaten ecosystems and cause acute illness or chronic disease. 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 materials for their value, recovering energy from disposed waste, 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 USTs and wastes managed at industrial facilities. The Agency collaborates with partners in innovative, nonregulatory efforts to more effectively utilize resources to minimize the amount and toxicity of waste generated and promotes recycling to conserve resources and energy. Through its programs, which encourage Sustainable Materials Management, EPA promotes opportunities for source reduction and converting secondary materials to economically viable products, which conserve 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 materials and wastes, assessing risks, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Contributing Programs RCRA Waste Management, RCRA Corrective Action, RCRA Waste Minimization and Recycling, Superfund Emergency Preparedness, Superfund Remedial, Superfund Enforcement, Superfund Removal, Environmental Response Laboratory Network, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse, Oil Spills, Leaking USTs, UST Prevention and Compliance, Land Protection and Restoration Research, and Homeland Security. EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal 3, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htm, which summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
1208
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
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 Management of Hazardous Substances In FY 2010, the Agency released the Community Engagement Initiative (CEI) Implementation Plan, which lays out 16 actions and activities that EPA will undertake in the next few years. 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 support healthy and sustainable communities. This initiative provides an opportunity for EPA to refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on existing good practices, and apply them consistently in EPA processes. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/oswer/engagementinitiative/index.htm. Preventing Coal Ash Releases The failure of an ash disposal cell at the TVAs Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted the issue of CCR impoundment stability. In response, EPA has been assessing the stability of impoundments and similar management units that contain wet-handled CCRs. EPA is continuing to conduct assessments and posting final reports on the structural integrity of impoundments, including recommendations to ensure continued stability. EPA is following up with facilities to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. In FY 2010, the Agency also co-proposed two alternative regulations governing the disposal of CCRs, and conducted extensive public outreach on these proposals.
1209
Recycling and Waste Reduction Although FY 2010 data, and in some cases 2009 data, will not be available until 2011, 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. The Agency expects to meet its FY 2010 municipal solid waste reduction goal of diverting 20.5 billion lb per year from disposal. EPA initiated several activities to increase the volume of waste diverted, including reaching out to local governments, organizations, and businesses; creating new recycling and reuse toolkits; and demonstrating the potential energy savings and GHG reduction benefits of recycling municipal solid waste and industrial materials. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships. The Agencys 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 2010, the number of WasteWise members increased to 3,024 from 2,484 in FY 2009, an increase of 21.7 percent. EPAs 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 2009 (the latest data available), Plug-In partners collected 160 million lb of consumer electronics, including computers, televisions, and cell phones, for recycling. As a result of these electronics recycling efforts, partners helped to prevent the release of GHGs equal to the annual emissions from approximately 36,000 cars. Hazardous Waste Control While reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated is an Agency priority, EPA's hazardous waste program also works to ensure that any hazardous waste that is created is managed under protective controls. In FY 2010, EPA established and updated waste management controls at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regulated by the RCRA. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html. EPAs 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 2010, EPA and state partners issued 140 initial approved controls and updated controls, exceeding the FY 2010 annual target of 100. In total, 97.4 percent of the current 2,446 facilities are now under approved controls. Once a facility is permitted, permits must be regularly updated and maintained. The Agency expects a higher demand in the future for permit renewals because facilities that were permitted 10 or more years ago have outdated controls; these 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 component of EPAs 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.
1210
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 140 hazardous waste facilities that came under initial approved controls and updated controls in FY 2010 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 (USTs) Except in Indian country,5 the UST program is implemented by states. To prevent releases from USTs, EPA and its state and tribal partners ensure that UST systems are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with release detection and release prevention equipment requirements, and that the equipment is used, functioning, and properly maintained. EPA's FY 2010 target for operational compliance is 65.5 percent, and future targets will each represent a 0.5 percent increase over the previous years target. For FY 2010, EPA and its partners achieved a SOC rate of 68.3 percent. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/OUST. EPA and its partners made progress in meeting the Energy Policy Act (www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm) requirement to inspect all UST facilities at least once every three years, inspecting 108,953 facilities in FY 2010. The Agency 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 Agencys goal of limiting the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities. In FY 2010 EPA set a goal of reducing the number of confirmed releases from USTs to fewer than 9,000. EPA reported far fewer actual confirmed releases in FY 2010, down to 6,328 releases.
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.
1211
Objective 3.2: Restore Land
EPAs cleanup programs include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) program,6 commonly known as Superfund; the RCRA Corrective Action Program,7 the TSCA) Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Cleanup Program,8 and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program.9 In FY 2010, these programs made significant progress toward their goal of controlling risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties and making land available for reuse through cleanup, stabilization, or other actions. EPA Focuses on Managing Projects to Completion In FY 2010, EPA initiated a three-year strategy to identify and implement improvements to the Agencys land cleanup programs to accelerate cleanups, address a greater number of contaminated sites, and put these sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. The ICI has the following five objectives: Starting Cleanups focuses on site identification and assessment activities in the early stages of the cleanup continuum; Advancing Cleanups emphasizes coordination during cleanup activities, including enforcement strategies; Completing Cleanups focuses on pilot projects aimed at accelerating cleanup, reporting to the public, and leveraging revitalization efforts as cleanups are completed; Evaluating Performance Metrics and the Effectiveness of the ICI Activities focuses on performance measurement; and Communicating the Progress focuses on communicating the benefits of our cleanup programs.
6 7
www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cercla.html www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction 8 www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html 9 www.epa.gov/oust
1212
Strong project management and managing projects to completion are overarching principles for this initiative. With its enhanced focus on project management, the Agency will be able to further demonstrate progress and optimize the work within the various stages of the cleanup pipeline. Consistent with this approach, in FY 2011, EPA will report a new performance measure, Remedial Action Project Completions, which will track the progress of cleanup activity at the sites. In addition, under this initiative, the Agency has developed a framework to implement multipurpose grants in the Brownfields Program and, in partnership with 14 states, completed an in-depth analysis of the leaking UST backlog. EPA is exploring policy changes and/or efficiencies to speed the delivery of federal brownfields funds to communities and tribes; embarking on a Superfund site assessment initiative to improve the effectiveness of the site assessment process; considering several Superfund project management pilot projects to improve efficiencies; identifying best practices related to the leveraging of our Brownfields and Removal Programs to improve and increase site cleanups; and pursuing backlog reduction strategies to reduce the number of open cleanups at leaking UST sites. 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 hazardous substances. In July 2009, the Agency 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. In January 2010, the Agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) identifying additional classes of facilities to study for possible regulation: 1) chemical manufacturing; 2) petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and 3) electric power generation, transmission, and distribution. EPA is working to assess the effects of possible financial responsibility regulations for hard rock mines on those already in force in the states and in other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The Agency expects to first assess the applicability of the CERCLA provision to the hard rock mining industry classes and publish proposed rules, as appropriate, for the selected classes in 2012. Superfund Sites At the end of FY 2010, 1,627 sites were listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Of these, EPA has completed construction of the final remedy at 1,098 sites and has brought 475 of those sites into sitewide ready for anticipated use. 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, meeting the FY 2010 target of 65. This sitewide ready for anticipated use performance measure tracks construction-complete sites on the NPL10 at which: 1) human exposure is under control, 2) all cleanup goals to reduce unacceptable risk that could affect current and reasonably
10
www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl
1213
anticipated future land uses of the site have been achieved, and 3) all institutional controls have been implemented. Completed construction of remedies at 18 Superfund sites. Controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current land and/or ground water use conditions at a net total of 18 additional Superfund human exposure sites, exceeding the target of 10 sites. Controlled ground water migration at a net total of 18 sites, exceeding the target of 15 sites. Made 365 final site assessment decisions under Superfund, achieving the target of 330. EPA's Superfund Program also engages in a significant amount of work to screen potential sites that might require further CERCLA action. This pre-NPL work accounts for a significant amount of FY 2010 activity in addition to the achievements represented under the previously mentioned goals. The programs new measure for FY 2011total site assessments completedwill capture data to demonstrate these efforts more fully. Superfund Construction Completions The Superfund cleanup work EPA is doing today generally is more difficult, more technically demanding, and consumes considerable resources at fewer sites than in the past. In addition, the number of site candidates available for completion in any given year has dropped significantly as the number of sites completed has reached more than 67 percent of the sites listed on the NPL. Further, site managers are often required to adjust site construction schedules due to unexpected issues that are typical of construction at hazardous waste sites (e.g., inclement weather, equipment availability, and unanticipated increases in the volume of waste to be addressed). As a result of these challenges, the Superfund program did not meet its FY 2010 target for construction completion. There have been delays at achieving construction completion at some federal facility NPL sites because of the additional work related to munitions. EPA is coordinating with DOD to prioritize and sequence the cleanup of all munitions response sites to correspond with other Superfund cleanup activity at the site to ensure that sites that have completed the recommended remedy activities can simultaneously, or within short order, complete munitions cleanup activity so that site-wide construction complete can be achieved more efficiently. Enforcement First Program EPAs Superfund Enforcement Program 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.
1214
EPAs Superfund enforcement goals for FY 2010 are: 1) reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at 95 percent of nonfederal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties; and 2) address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs recovered. In FY 2010, cost recovery was addressed at 360 NPL and non-NPL sites, of which 185 had total costs greater than or equal to $200,000; of those, 83 had potential SOL concerns. In addition, EPA secured private party commitments for cleanup and cost recovery and billed private parties for oversight for amounts that exceeded $1.6 billion. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/index.html.
FY 2010 Enforcement & Compliance Annual Results Private Party Commitments for Superfund Site Study & Cleanup, Oversight & Cost Recovery FY 2006 -- FY 2010 -- ($ Millions)
$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 Millions $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 FY 2006
Site Study & Cleanup Oversight
FY 2007
Cost Recovery
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Data Source: Site Study & Cleanup and Cost Recovery: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Oversight; Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
RCRA Corrective Action In FY 2010, the Agencys work on the RCRA corrective action baseline of 3,747 facilities resulted in exceeding its annual goals, with actual achievements of 72 percent of facilities with current human exposures under control; 63 percent of facilities with migration of contaminated ground water under control; and 37 percent of facilities with final remedies constructed. The RCRA Corrective Action Program largely owes its FY 2010 success to the dedicated focus of EPA and state environmental agencies on priority facilities and moving all corrective action facilities toward protective final cleanups. In FY 2010 these efforts again ensured that at very difficult sites (i.e., sites that are highly contaminated with a range of toxic and complex contaminants, requiring innovative and
1215
changing technological solutions), human exposures were reduced or eliminated, contaminated ground water was controlled, and final long-term protective remedies were constructed and implemented. EPA, states, and the regulated community continue to face a staggering long-term workload to return all 3,747 RCRA sites to productive reuse and ensure operating facilities are clean and protective. This work also includes ensuring that existing and new remedies remain protective for the lifetime of the facility through long-term stewardship initiatives. In the near term, however, the Agency and its state partners are focusing their efforts on the ambitious FY 2020 goal of completing remedy construction at 95 percent of all 2020 baseline facilities. This goal, along with completing the environmental indicators to reduce and eliminate exposures, will require a significant infusion of resources to achieve these results by FY 2020 in light of the current economic situation most states are facing. Leaking USTs The LUST Program promotes timely and protective cleanups of releases from federally regulated USTs 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 UST cleanups nationwide. In FY 2010, EPAs state and tribal partners completed 11,591 cleanups of leaking USTs (including 62 cleanups in Indian Country).11 For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/oust/ltffacts.htm. Emergency Preparedness and Response EPAs Emergency Response and Removal Program is founded on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly called the National Contingency Plan. EPAs 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 2010, the Emergency Response and Removal Program exceeded both of its targets by completing 199 Superfund-lead removals and 192 voluntary emergency removals. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico In FY 2010, the United States experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in its history, the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA immediately began monitoring the area to determine potential public health and environmental concernsprimarily air quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water quality for dispersant level monitoringand preparing for the immediate and long-term environmental fallout from the spill.
11
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.
1216
As one of many agencies supporting the USCG-led federal response, EPA vice-chaired the National Response Team for the response, which provided round the clock coordination among the involved federal agencies. Among its efforts, EPA: Collected and evaluated samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil and dispersants in the air, water, sediment, and waste. EPA's monitoring and sampling activities provided the USCG, other federal agencies, states, and local governments with data to inform decisions about seafood safety, habitat impacts, and beach closure issues. Supported and advised USCG efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the shoreline. Worked with the NOAA to design a monitoring strategy for subsea dispersant use, evaluated the toxicity of dispersants, and provided oversight on the use of dispersants. BP, at the request of the USCG and in coordination with EPA, developed waste management plans to support proper waste classification, handling, staging, storage, manifesting, transportation and disposal/recycling of the waste generated from spill cleanup activities. The USCG, in consultation with EPA and the states, extensively reviewed and commented on these draft waste management plans prior to formal approval by the USCG, to ensure the proper management of the wastes generated from the oil spill. The waste management plans and implementing directives were revised several times during the course of the spill response to address comments from EPA and the states and to reflect changing conditions (e.g., addition of new staging areas and landfills, quantity and types of waste being generated, etc). This resulted in the generation of numerous submissions and reports that required EPA review and follow-up to ensure BP's compliance with the waste management plans and directives. EPA mobilized its Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Center and established a communications network to provide timely information to the public. The Agency's site (www.epa.gov/BPspill) includes air, water, and sediment quality monitoring updates, questions and answers on pertinent issues, and links to additional response sites. EPA also used social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to provide a continuous flow of information from major announcements to notices of local developments and meetings. In September 2010, the Administration outlined an aggressive Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration plan which established a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Task Force to be led by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The task force, an intergovernmental advisory body, is charged with coordinating restoration programs and projects in the Gulf region. It will focus on efforts to create more resilient and healthy Gulf Coast ecosystems, while also encouraging support for economic recovery and long-term health issues. As part of the restoration, EPA will work with federal, state, and local partners and stakeholders to develop and implement science-based restoration efforts.
1217
Enbridge Oil Spill in Marshall, Michigan EPA also served as the lead federal agency on the response to the Enbridge oil spill in FY 2010. This pipeline break in Marshall, Michigan released more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. EPA established 25 containment locations, deploying, at the height of the response, over 2,500 personnel and over 170,000 linear feet of boom, collecting more than 11.5 million gallons of oil/water. Through this spill response the Agency greatly reduced the potential for significant harm to human health and the environment including preventing crude oil from reaching Lake Michigan. In addition to the Enbridge Marshall oil spill, the Agency also responded to the Hammond BP (Indiana) and Enbridge Romeoville Spill (Illinois) in the Midwest, all within two months while continuing to support the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort. Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: LUST Cleanups in Indian Country
Cleanups Yet To Be Completed In Indian Country

500
44 4
42 9
37 8
400
39 0
34 4
35 5
33 1
2009 2010
300
200
100
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Background-Discussion: 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
1218
29 5
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. 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;
1219
1
This total includes 2 performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.
EPAs research program supports a sound scientific foundation for decisions to preserve and restore the land. Testing the Toxicity of Dispersants from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill While the USCG led the federal response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,12 EPA provided support through its scientific and technical expertise. In FY 2010, EPA scientists responded to the spill by: 1) testing the toxicity of the dispersants used by BP; 2) quantifying the biodegradability of South Louisiana Crude oil, dispersants, and dispersed oil; 3) measuring chlorinated dioxins and furans in air emissions from in-situ controlled burning; 4) evaluating alternative response technologies submitted by the public to determine suitability for deployment; and 5) providing technical support and expertise on monitoring of sampling approaches. In June and August 2010, EPA released data that showed that all eight dispersant products tested have approximately the same toxicity, and all fall into the practically nontoxic or slightly toxic category. Agency scientists also found that none of the eight dispersants displayed endocrine disrupting activity of biological significance. Most importantly, ORD scientists showed that the combination of oil and the dispersant used by BP was no more toxic to aquatic life than the oil alone. The externally peer reviewed results are publicly available on EPAs website at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html. The challenges faced during the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted the need for better mechanisms for preventing and responding to oil spills. To improve future responses, EPA will be issuing grants to universities in FY 2011 to develop a better understanding of the impacts of oil spills and dispersant application on the environment, assess the toxicity of oil spill response products, and develop innovative technologies to mitigate the impact of oil spills. EPA
12
www.restorethegulf.gov
1220
is also developing a long term oil spill research strategy that takes a more holistic approach to studying the effects and effectiveness of oil spill response options. Support for Coal Combustion Residue Regulations Residuals from coal combustion are a byproduct of electricity generation and are a high-volume waste stream (136 million tons in 2008). Some of the waste stream is diverted for beneficial uses, but more than half is disposed of in surface impoundments and landfills. EPA researchers have been studying the environmental leaching potential of these coal residuals in disposal settings. Waste properties depend on several factors, including the coal source, boiler operations, air pollution control devices, as well as the environmental conditions around use or disposal. Waste composition and leaching also change as air pollution regulations become stricter and trap more constituents in the residual streams. EPA research has informed the Agencys proposed rulemaking on CCR13 and contributes toward safely managing and using coal residues. An interlaboratory comparison for a new leaching test method for the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework is currently underway. EPA will continue research the effects of leaching from the CCRs found in wallboard and used in soil amendments. EPA Research Assists States in Monitoring USTs Although Congress banned lead in gasoline in the 1990s, lead levels and their associated additives still persist in the environment. Two such additives, ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1, 2-dichloroethane (1, 2-DCA) are probable human carcinogens. While there are established maximum contamination levels for EDB and 1, 2-DCA, many of the state agencies that implement EPAs UST program do not routinely sample for EDB and DCA at legacy UST sites. Concerned that EDB and 1, 2-DCA from these legacy USTs might continue to contaminate ground water, EPA scientists surveyed the concentrations of these carcinogens at UST sites. The results indicated that hazards from EDB and 1, 2-DCA remain at an unknown number of legacy spills of leaded gasoline. Based on this assessment, EPA is recommending that state agencies monitor for EDB and 1, 2-DCA at UST sites where leaded motor fuels were stored.
13
Docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640 at http://www.regulations.gov.
1221
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION Preserve and restore 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 2014, 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 February 7, 2011 2 Total PMs 7
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.1: Waste Generation and Recycling Waste Generation and Recycling Strategic Target (1) By 2014, increase the amount of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled by 130 billion lb. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (MW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual 19.5 23.7 FY 2010 Target Actual 20.5 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Billion Pounds
Baseline - The municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, increase the use of coal combustion ash to 56 percent from 40 percent in 2007.
1222
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion ash that is used instead of disposed
FY 2009 Target Actual 1.8 -6
Unit Percentage Increase
Baseline - In 2007, 42.7 percent of coal combustion ash was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results. Explanation: The decrease in FY 2009 was not unexpected and is largely attributed to the decline in U.S. concrete demand during the economic downturn of 2009. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, increase by 118 the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan compared to FY 2008. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (MW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan FY 2007 Target Actual 27 28 FY 2008 Target Actual 26 35 FY 2009 Target Actual 16 31 FY 2010 Target Actual 23 23
Unit Tribes
Baseline - The baseline is established as zero since 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. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands compared to FY 2008. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (MW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands FY 2007 Target Actual 30 107 FY 2008 Target Actual 30 166 FY 2009 Target Actual 27 129 FY 2010 Target Actual 22 141
Unit Open Dumps
Baseline - The baseline is established as zero, as this measure concerns open dumps which are addressed starting in FY 2007.
1223
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - Leveraged available EPA resources and tribal funds to greatly accelerate the expected pace of open dumps cleanups. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.2: Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Strategic Target (1) By 2014, prevent releases at 525 hazardous waste management facilities with initial approved controls or updated controls; this results in the protection of an estimated 3 million people living within a mile of all facilities with controls. (Baseline: An estimated 820 facilities will require these controls out of the universe of 2,450 with about 10,000 process units. The goal of 600 represents 60 percent of the facilities needing controls). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (HW0) Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual 100 115 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 140
Unit Facilities
Baseline - There are an estimated 820 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,467 facilities. Explanation - Regional offices and their state counterparts were able to maintain a high permit renewal rate, which accounts for over half of the reported results. Strategic Target (2) Each year through 2014, increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in SOC with both release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5 percent over the previous year's target. This means an increase of facilities in SOC from 65 percent in 2009 to 67.5 percent in 2014.
1224
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (ST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in SOC with both release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5 percent over the previous year's target
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2008, the strategic target was modified. The target for 2009 was established at 65 percent with a 0.5 percent increase each year thereafter. Strategic Target (3) Each year through 2014, minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (ST1) Minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual <10,000 7,364 FY 2009 Target Actual <9,000 7,168 FY 2010 Target Actual <9,000 6,328
Unit UST Releases
Baseline - Between FY 1999 and FY 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2009 was 7,168. Explanation - Between FY 2001 and FY2 009, confirmed UST releases averaged 8,580, and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2010 was 6,328. There are no regional targets. OBJECTIVE: 3.2: RESTORE LAND By 2014, 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.
1225
PMs Met 16
PMs Not Met 3
Data Available After February 7, 2011 0
Total PMs 19
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.1: Chemical Release Preparedness and Response Chemical Release Preparedness and Response Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve and maintain at least 75 percent of the maximum score on the Core National Approach to Response (NAR) evaluation criteria. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (C1) Score on annual Core NAR FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 55 87.9
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009, the average Core NAR Score was 84.3 percent for EPA headquarters, regions, and special teams prepared for responding to emergencies. Explanation - The FY 2010 target is based on a national evaluation that now includes headquarters and special teams as well as the regions. The FY 2009 measure only included the regions and the FY 2010 target represented EPA's best estimate for the broader first year score. EPA headquarters score for the first year exceeded expectations and accounted for much of the difference between the target and the actual results. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, complete an additional 850 Superfund-lead hazardous substance removal actions. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually FY 2007 Target Actual 195 200 FY 2008 Target Actual 195 215 FY 2009 Target Actual 195 214 FY 2010 Target Actual 170 199
Unit Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 157 Superfund-lead removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 5,300 completions since 1980.
1226
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, oversee an additional 850 potential responsible party (PRP) removal completions, including voluntary, administrative orders on consent (AOC), and unilateral administrative order (UAO) actions. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (135) PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 170 192
Unit Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 97 voluntary removal actions completed. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, reduce by 15 percent the number of gallons spilled at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities based on the average of 1.73 million gallons spilled from 2004 to 2008. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be noncompliant which are brought into compliance FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 15 48
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009, 16 percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant were brought into compliance. Explanation - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change of focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance. Due to this shift, regions are inspecting facilities that are high-risk. (338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance 15 36 Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009, 59 percent of all SPPC facilities found to be non-compliant were brought into compliance.
1227
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change of focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance. Due to this shift, regions are inspecting facilities that are high-risk. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.2: Contaminated Land Contaminated Land Strategic Target (1) By 2014, make final assessment decisions at 42,187 of 45,300 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 remediated by a responsible party through a state or federal cleanup program and cleared for possible redevelopment. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (121) Superfund final site assessment decisions completed FY 2007 Target Actual 350 395 FY 2008 Target Actual 400 415 FY 2009 Target Actual 400 400 FY 2010 Target Actual 330 365
Unit Assessments
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, a cumulative total of 39,288 final site assessment decisions had been completed since the program's inception. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current land and/or groundwater use conditions at 1,369 Superfund NPL sites.
1228
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (151) Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control (ARRA measure)*
Unit Sites
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 82 percent (1,269) of 1554 final and deleted NPL sites in the environmental indicator reporting universe in that year. Explanation - The human exposure measure, unlike most others, report "net" accomplishments and are very difficult to target. In FY 2010, several sites in the Insufficient Data category completed five-year reviews that showed the sites were under control, which affected the FY 2010 accomplishment positively. As of the end of FY 2010, 1,338 sites out of a universe of 1,583 sites (85 percent) were under control. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, increase to 78 percent the number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (CA1) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 69 72
Unit Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, potential human exposures to toxins were controlled at 58 percent of 3,746 facilities. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies, natural processes, or other appropriate actions at 1,061 Superfund NPL sites.
1229
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (152) Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control.
Unit Sites
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 69 percent (958) of 1,392 groundwater sites in that year. Explanation - The groundwater measure, unlike most others, report "net" accomplishments and are very difficult to target. In FY 2010, several sites in the Insufficient Data category completed five-year reviews that showed the sites were under control, which affected the FY 2010 accomplishment positively. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, increase to 68 percent the number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (CA2) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 61 63
Unit Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, migration of contaminated groundwater was controlled at 50 percent of 3,746 facilities. Strategic Target (6) By 2014, complete construction of remedies at 1,202 Superfund NPL sites.
1230
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (141) Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed.(ARRA measure)*
Unit Sites
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. The total result for this measure also includes all Federal Facility Superfund sites with remedy construction completed (see measure #162 below). 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. Explanation - Serious weather impacts in September, unanticipated increases in waste volumes, and the need to construct an additional electrical supply line impacted four sites that caused the program to miss the target. (162) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all remedies have completed construction 56 59 60 61 64 65 68 69 Sites
Baseline - Through FY 2008, EPA had completed construction at 61 Federal facility Superfund sites. The four Federal Facility Superfund sites completed in FY 2010 are included in the result for measure 141 above: annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed. (163) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the final remedial decision for contaminants at the site has been determined 76 71 81 73 77 77 92 82 Sites
Baseline - Through FY 2008, final remedies had been determined at 73 Federal Facility Superfund sites. Explanation - The target for FY 2010 was 15 sites for a total of 92 sites. This target needed to be submitted prior to EPAs FY 2010 work planning meetings where regional EPA targets are negotiated. The negotiations resulted in a possible universe of seven final remedy sites for FY 2010 of which five were achieved. The Agency has recently completed an effort to analyze regional performance and planning data, in an attempt to more fully understand impedances. Additionally, EPA has begun asking for regional estimates three years in advance instead of two years in advance.
1231
Strategic Target (7) By 2014, increase to 50 percent the number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (CA5) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 35 37
Unit Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, cleanup remedies had been constructed at 24 percent of 3,746 facilities. Strategic Target (8) Each year through 2014, 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 groundwater migration by 1 percent. This means a decrease from 23 percent in 2007 to 16 percent in 2014. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration (ARRA measure)* FY 2007 Target Actual 13,000 13,862 FY 2008 Target Actual 13,000 12,768 FY 2009 Target Actual 12,250 12,944 FY 2010 Target Actual 12,250 11,591
Unit Cleanups
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results see: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 14,493 leaking UST cleanups, for a cumulative total of 350,813 cleanups completed since the inception of the program. Leaking USTs completed in Indian Country are included in this number.
1232
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - EPA, states and Tribes met 95 percent of the national LUST cleanup target of 12,250 sites. The LUST program has experienced over the past few years increasing challenges associated with completing cleanups that relate to more complex groundwater sites remaining in the backlog, increasing costs, and the availability of state resources (fewer dollars and an increasing workload on state staff). The ARRA funds have helped decelerate these trends with extra funds and attention, but have not reversed the overall direction. (113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country 30 54 30 40 30 49 30 62 Cleanups
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 43 leaking UST cleanups in Indian Country, for a cumulative total of 738 leaking UST cleanups completed in Indian Country since the inception of this program. Explanation - EPA exceeded the goal for the number of cleanups in Indian Country by 106 percent due to an unexpected increase in the number of cleanups led by the state of Wyoming in Indian Country. Strategic Target (9) By 2014, ensure that 733 Superfund NPL sites are "sitewide ready for anticipated use." Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (S10) Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use site-wide FY 2007 Target Actual 30 64 FY 2008 Target Actual 30 85 FY 2009 Target Actual 65 66 FY 2010 Target Actual 65 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 site-wide. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.3: Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites
1233
Strategic Target (1) Each year through 2014, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 95 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (285) Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action taken before the start of RA FY 2007 Target Actual 95 98 FY 2008 Target Actual 95 95 FY 2009 Target Actual 95 100 FY 2010 Target Actual 95 98
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 PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites. Strategic Target (2) Each year through 2014, address all unaddressed costs in SOL cases for sites with unaddressed total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (078) Refer to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), settle, or write off 100 percent of SOL cases for SF sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs recovered FY 2007 Target Actual 100 98 FY 2008 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 100
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009 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.
1234
OBJECTIVE: 3.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes. Data Available After February 7, 2011 2 0 2* * This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.3.1: Land Protection Research Land Protection Research Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for protecting and restoring land. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H87) Percentage of land publications in high impact journals FY 2007 Target Actual No Target Biennial FY 2008 Target Actual 25.7 26.2 FY 2009 Target Actual No Target Biennial FY 2010 Target Actual Unit 26.7 Data Not Percent Collected PMs Met PMs Not Met Total PMs 4
Established
Established
Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule. (H88) Percentage of land publications rated as highly cited publications.
Biennial
26.8
18
Biennial
27.8
Data Not Percent Collected
1235
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews. Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule. (H89) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
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 longterm stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 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.
1236
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
1237
1238
Goal Purpose To protect, sustain, and restore the nations communities and ecosystems, EPA uses a mix of regulatory programs, partnership efforts, and incentive-based approaches. EPA programs ensure that pesticides entering or re-entering the market meet established health and safety standards, and that other new and existing industrial/commercial chemicals do not pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Many EPA programs that promote 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 because of 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 Americas 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. EPAs 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, Childrens Health Protection, Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE), Computational Toxicology Research, Endocrine Disruptor Research and Screening Programs, Environmental Justice, Global Change Research, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Homeland Security Research, Human Health and Ecosystem Protection Research, Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), International Sources of Pollution, Lead and Lead Categorical Grant Programs, Long Island Sound, Mercury Research, National Environmental Monitoring Initiative, National Estuary Program (NEP), 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
1239
Fellowships, State and Local Prevention and Preparedness, Trade and Governance, U.S.Mexico Border, and Wetlands. EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal 4, see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htm which summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
1240
Objective 4.1: Chemicals, Organisms, and Pesticide Risk
In January 2010, Administrator Jackson wrote, One of my highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies.14 EPA, under the TSCA, is charged with identifying and managing unreasonable risks to human health and the environment for new chemicals entering the marketplace as well as chemicals already being used in U.S. commerce. The Agency also works to mitigate exposure to and high-risk legacy chemicals such as lead, mercury, PCBs, and asbestos, where production and/or use have been reduced or discontinued but the potential for human and environmental exposure related to past uses remains high. Reducing Risks of Chemicals Currently Used in Commerce EPA assesses the safety of thousands of chemicals already in commerce before TSCA took effect in 1978, and acts to reduce identified risks. In September 2009, the Administrator released a set of essential principles15 to help inform Congressional efforts to strengthen TSCA and at the same time outlined efforts EPA would commence to ensure chemical safety under existing laws.16 EPA made significant progress in FY 2010 in implementing those enhanced efforts with an emphasis on reducing risks posed by existing chemicals.
Risk Management
14 15
Seven Priorities for EPAs Future: http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/ Essential Principles for Reform of Chemical Management Legislation: www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/principles.html 16 Enhancing EPAs Chemical Management Program: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf
1241
In FY 2010, EPA began developing and implementing a number of risk management actions to reduce or eliminate chemical risks. The Agency issued a final Significant New Use Rule17 (SNUR) addressing use of elemental mercury in measuring devices such as flow meters and natural gas manometers and pyrometers, and published final SNURs for two carbon nanotubes (CNTs) requiring companies to provide EPA with 90 days notice before they manufacture or import the two CNTs and to comply with restrictions EPA has already imposed on the nanotubes original manufacturer. In April 2010, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Agency's potential reassessment of its current authorizations for PCB use and distribution in commerce. EPA also continued non-regulatory risk management actions including the global Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Stewardship Program to reduce PFOA and related chemicals emissions and product content. The stewardship programs October 2009 report showed substantial progress, with six of eight participating companies reporting reductions in PFOA emissions, more than the 95 percent program goal for 2010. The stewardship program will continue as companies work toward eliminating emissions and product content of these chemicals by 2015. Data Collection and Management To meet critical HPV chemical data needs, EPA published the Final HPV-2 Test Rule, covering 19 chemicals, in September 2010; proposed the HPV-3 Test Rule, covering 29 chemicals; and made progress towards proposing the HPV-4 Test Rule 4, covering an anticipated 45 chemicals. EPA proposed revisions to the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule to facilitate electronic reporting, develop more robust exposure data sets on approximately 7,000 chemicals, and rapidly make those data publicly available. As part of EPAs ongoing efforts to increase transparency and public access to chemical information, in January 2010 EPA issued a CBI policy clarification for review of CBI chemical identity claims for TSCA Section 8(e) notices of substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. The result of this is 134 prospective submissions reviewed as well as 60 retrospective case files reviewed. In May 2010, EPA announced that it will begin a general practice of reviewing confidentiality claims for chemical identities in health and safety studies, giving the public access to important information that would have otherwise remained secret. The Agency committed in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan to review all new CBI claims as they are submitted and, as appropriate, challenge and declassify studies that should be made public. The Agency also committed to review and, as appropriate, challenge and declassify by FY 2015 all CBI claims submitted prior to FY 2010, which amount to approximately 22,000 cases. In addition, 1,100 cases will be reviewed in FY 2011 and 3,300 in FY 2012. Also, for the first time ever, EPA provided free online access to the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory,18 allowing
17
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/07/21/2010-17718/elemental-mercury-used-in-flow-meters-natural-gas-manometersand-pyrometers-significant-new-use-rule 18 www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm
1242
the public easy access to the listing of approximately 84,000 chemicals in commerce. EPA also integrated information on 3,800 TSCA facilities and 6,300 chemicals into Envirofacts,19 EPAs single point of access on for information about environmental data. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/envirofw/ Chemical Assessment In FY 2010, the Agency completed 270 Hazard Characterizations for HPV chemicals (produced/imported in amounts greater than 1 million lb annually), which is a 40 percent increase from FY 2009. In FY 2010, EPA completed and posted eight action plans, which summarize available information on chemical hazards and exposure pathways and identify potential risk management actions that EPA is considering20 for the following chemicals: Hundreds of long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs). Penta, octa, and decabromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Eight phthalates. Short-chain chlorinated paraffins. Benzidine dyes. Bisphenol A (BPA). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP/NPEs). The Agency also achieved a major homeland security milestone by developing proposed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for the final 27 chemicals among the 273 priority chemicals for which AEGLs are needed. Emergency planners and first responders use AEGLs to prepare for and deal with chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. The focus is now shifting to finalizing proposed guideline levels. In FY 2011, EPA expects to advance 203 proposed values to interim status and 70 to final status. New Chemicals Program Through its New Chemicals Program, EPA ensures that new industrial chemicals introduced into U.S. commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. In FY 2010, the Agency reviewed 558 Premanufacture Notices (PMNs), 376 Low Volume Exemption (LVE) Notices, 17 Low Release/Low Exposure (LoREx) Exemption Notices, and 10 Test Market Exemption Notices. Of these, 23 PMNs, 11 LoREx notices, and one LVE notice were submitted for nanomaterials; review is currently in progress on 19 of these notices. EPA also issued 5(e)
19 20
Envirofacts: www.epa.gov/envirofw/ www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/ecactionpln.html
1243
consent orders requiring certain controls and testing on 33 chemicals, and promulgated four SNURs covering 59 chemicals. These consent orders included 10 nanomaterials and one of the SNURs covered two CNTs. In addition, 3 Microbial Commercial Activity Notices (MCANs) for genetically modified microorganisms were reviewed and allowed for use in ethanol production; a SNUR for one of these microorganisms is under development. In January 2010, EPA published a final rule that allows and then, by April 6, 2012, requires manufacturers and importers to submit PMNs and other TSCA Section 521 documents to EPA electronically. After April 6, 2011, paper submissions will no longer be accepted but forms can continue to be provided via CD/DVD in addition to electronically through EPAs Central Data Exchange (CDX). Starting April 6, 2012, submissions can only be submitted via CDX. The Agency developed software and training to help companies comply with these new requirements (see http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems//epmn/epmn-index.htm). Training has also been provided at various conferences such as Global Chemical Regulations Conference. The shift from paper to electronic submission is expected to yield time and cost savings for EPA and submitters. Following promulgation of the rule, EPA achieved a 50 percent reduction in the cost per submission of managing PMNs through the Focus meeting, with further efficiency gains expected in future years as paper and the CD/DVD submissions are eliminated, ultimately leading to a 65 percent reduction from pre-rule per-submission costs. EPA had originally targeted greater cost reductions (62 percent in FY 2010) based on versions of the electronic reporting under consideration at earlier stages in its development, but those reductions became unachievable under the final rule that retained some internal manual processing steps such as attaching identifying/classifying information to the electronic PMN records. Nonetheless, with the new electronic system in place, EPA staff involved in the PMN review process now has electronic access to the information provided by submitters, streamlining their development of recommendations for EPAs decisions regarding the entry of new chemicals into commerce. Lead and Other Legacy Chemicals In FY 2010, EPA made significant progress reducing risk associated with lead, mercury, and PCBs. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning Lead poisoning in children can cause lasting neurological damage. Lead-based paint is the primary source of lead exposure for children in the United States.22 Data released in 2010 by the CDC demonstrated that EPA and its federal, state, and tribal partners are on target for achieving the government-wide goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. The percentage of children with elevated blood (10 micrograms per deciliter [g/dL] or higher) lead levels levels at which lead poisoning is defined to have occurred declined from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 0.9
21 22
www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/index.htm Lanphear, B.P., et al. Environ Res., American Academy of Pediatrics, 79(1):5168 October 1998: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;116/4/1036.
1244
percent in 2006.23 Further declines in this percentage were unable to be reported by CDC for 2008 due to the very small number of observations meeting the 10 g/dL threshold, and a similar result is expected in 2010 and future years,24 leading to the conclusion that the federal government has essentially achieved its goal to eliminate occurrence of childhood blood lead levels of 10 g/dL or higher by 2010. However, recent findings show that adverse health effects in children can occur at blood lead levels well below 10 g/dL. Accordingly, in FY 2010 EPA began targeting reductions in the percent of children with blood lead levels of 5 g/dL or higher, which has dropped from more than 25 percent in the early 1990s to 3 percent in the 2005 to 2008 sampling period.25 EPA committed in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan issued in FY 2010 to reduce this percentage to 1 percent or less by 2014.26 EPA is also making greater than expected progress toward its goal to reduce disparities in blood lead levels between low-income and non-low-income children. That disparity has declined from a striking 38 percent difference in 200427 to a 23 percent difference in 2008, exceeding EPAs FY 2010 performance target of a 28 percent difference.28 In response, EPA committed in FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan to further reduce this disparity to a 10 percent difference or less by 2014.29 In early 2010, EPA began implementing the Lead RRP Rule,30 which requires 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. As of December 16, 2010, EPA has accredited 449 training providers. These training providers conducted almost 26,000 courses, training more than 440,000 people and certifying more than 73,000 renovation firms. As of December 2010, ten states self-certified as authorized states and are authorized to administer the RRP program. In FY 2010 EPA, also began work under a settlement agreement with environmental and childrens health advocacy groups to undertake rulemakings to revise provisions of the RRP rule. These actions along with additional rulemakings initiated in FY 2010 will result in an RRP rule that will cover an estimated 50 percent more renovations, greatly increasing the number of children and adults protected against exposures to lead-based paint hazards. The settlement agreement also stipulated that by September 30, 2011, the Agency must
23
National Center for Environmental Health, Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf. 24 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf. 25 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf. 26 FY 2011 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2010: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm 27 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf. 28 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf. 29 FY 2011 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm. 30 www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm
1245
consult with the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) on a risk assessment methodology to evaluate the hazards posed by renovations in the interior of public and commercial buildings not covered by the final RRP rule. Reducing Mercury Use EPA continues to focus on approaches to reducing risks from mercury exposure, which can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. In FY 2010, EPA worked to mitigate mercury releases from artisanal and small-scale gold mining, one of the most significant global sources of mercury emissions,31 with heavy health impacts on women and children.32 In Peru this year, EPA successfully developed and piloted a low-cost technology that reduces mercury emissions from gold refining shops by 80 percent. 33 Also, in another pilot project, EPA facilitated the reduction of mercury use and emissions from the National Childrens Hospital in Costa Rica,34 leading to the reduction of 3,858 grams of mercury.35 EPA was a major contributor to the first United Nations negotiating session to develop a comprehensive, legally binding instrument to control mercury pollution at a global level. Studies show that more than 70 percent of the mercury deposition in the United States is from global sources. Mercury contaminated fish have been found in streams and coastal waters across the country. Reducing PCB Risks In FY 2010, EPA increased its outreach on caulk containing PCBs that was used in some buildings, including schools, during the1950s through 1970s. Outreach efforts have involved disseminating information about managing PCBs in caulk to school administrators and building managers and providing them with tools to help minimize potential exposures.36 The Agency will continue to assist communities in identifying potential problems and, if necessary, assist in developing plans for PCB testing and removal. The Agency has also begun conducting additional research to determine the sources and levels of PCBs in schools and to evaluate different strategies to reduce exposures. The results of this research will be used to provide further guidance to schools and building owners as they develop and implement long-term solutions.
31
EPA Moves to Slash Mercury from Gold Production / Harmful Emissions Would Be Cut by More than 70 Percent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 16, 2010: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/0adc34b66affb71f8525770700652833!OpenDo cument. 32 Counter, S.A., Buchanan, L.H., and F. Ortega, Neurocognitive Screening of Mercury-Exposed Children of Andean Gold Miners, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 12:209-214, 2006. 33 www.epa.gov/international/toxics/asgm.html 34 Mercury Elimination at Hospital Nacional de Nios and General Hospital Dr. Carlos Luis Valverde Vega, Costa Rica: Final Report, BLH Technologies, Inc., EPA Contract EP-W-04-22, March 2009. 35 http://www.caftadr-environment.org/conferences/Conference_Docs/2_201_Opening_Rubey_Lawrence.ppt (USAID El Salvador presentation to a CAFTA-DR workshop). 36 www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/
1246
Exposure and Risks from Pesticides EPAs National Pesticide Program promotes human health, safe and abundant food, worker safety, and environmental protection from pesticide contamination, primarily through the pesticide Registration Review Process. EPAs FY 2010 efforts included: Reducing the concentration of certain 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 percentage of agricultural watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides. The Agency has made continued progress in advancing pesticide safety and transparency. In the pesticide re-evaluation process (registration review), more than 75 pesticide active ingredients entered the review process in 2010. In addition, more than 1,700 pesticide products were reregistered as part of the reevaluation process. A total of 22 active ingredients were registered in 2010, of which many were for chemistries generally safer than the alternative active ingredients currently on the market. In 2010, the Agency initiated a new voluntary public process to enhance transparency of its pesticide registration decisions. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), Congress directed EPA to develop and implement an EDSP for endocrine effects. EPAs two-tiered program screens substances for their potential to interact with certain hormonal systems in Tier 1, while Tier 2 will test for adverse effects. Components of the program include developing and validating the screening assays, prioritizing chemicals for screening, and developing and implementing the policies and procedures for screening. In FY 2010, EPA made strides to ensure the safety of chemicals with respect to potential endocrine disruption by: Publishing guidelines for assays designed to detect a substance's potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid systems. Issuing orders for 67 pesticide chemicals to be screened by manufacturers or importers. Conducting work to prioritize additional chemicals anticipated to undergo screening and developing supplementary policies and procedures applicable to these chemicals.
1247
EPA continued validation efforts for the more complex tests that will be used in the second tier of testing and of potential Tier 1 replacement assays. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/endo. Long Term Data Trend: Percent of Children (Aged 1 to 5) with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Percent of Children (Aged 1 to 5 Years) With Elevated Blood Lead Levels
30.00% 26.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 6.00% 5.00% 1.60% 0.90% 0.00% >10ug/dL >5ug/dL * 2003 - 2006 and 2005 - 2008 estimates for >10ug/dl are unstable (relative standard error is greater than 30% but less than 40%) See Data Limitations 0.00% 4.10% 3.00% 8.70%
1988-1994 1999-2002 2003-2006 2005-2008
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. EPA has phased out leaded gasoline and the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1978 banned the sale of leaded paint, but 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.37 The evidence for these effects is comprehensively described in EPAs Air Quality Criteria Lead document.38 The blood lead level at which health effects begin to occur is not certain.
37
Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 21, 2009: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-28/t25986.pdf. 38 Air Quality Criteria for Lead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29, 2006: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823.
1248
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.39 Hence, children aged 1 to 5 years have the greatest health risk from lead exposure because their bodies are still developing. For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the Criteria Document,40 provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with mean blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 g/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 g/dL.41 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.42 EPA is coordinating its efforts with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), CDC, 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 RRP program, and through conducting targeted outreach and education.43 What This Shows In the 1970s, 88 percent of children had elevated blood lead levels above 10 g/dL.44 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 2006.45 With approximately 20 million children in the United States, this represents approximately 190,000 children with blood lead levels above10 g/dL. FY 2008 NHANES results were un-reportable under CDC Statistical Guidelines as the number of observations was too small to support a reliable statistical estimate. This suggests continued progress towards the goal to eliminate childhood lead poisoning (blood lead levels higher than10 g/dL) by FY 2010. Given the trend in achieving the government wide goal to reducing blood lead levels to below 10 g/dL46 and the inability to generate statistically reliable results beyond this point, EPA has discontinued this measure. Adverse effects may occur at blood lead levels at or below 5 g/dL, and the latest NHANES data for 2005 to 2008 indicate that 3 percent of children in the United States currently have blood lead
39
Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 21, 2009: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-28/t25986.pdf. 40 Air Quality Criteria for Lead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29, 2006: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823. 41 Gilbert, S.G. and Weiss, B. A rationale for lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to 2 g/dL. NeuroToxicology, 27, 693701, 2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2212280/. 42 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 21, 2009: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-28/t25986.pdf 43 FY 2011 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2010. 44 Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children United States, 1991 2001, Centers for Disease Control. 45 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2825. 46 FY 2011 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2010.
1249
concentration above this level. EPA began targeting reductions in children with elevated blood lead levels above 5 g/dL in 2010, and is targeting in its FY 2015 Strategic Plan to reduce this to 1 percent or less by FY 2014. Data Quality Source: NHANES 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. NHANES47 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 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. 48 Data from the CDCs 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.49 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)50 or provided by ChildStats.gov (2005 to 2006 data).51 This data source measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., g/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.52 In reference to the 2004 to 2006 data provided above, it should be noted that while the estimate of children with levels greater than 10 g/dL is a low percentage, the estimate is considered unstable (relative standard error is greater than 30 percent but less than 40 percent).53
47 48
NHANES: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, 2005. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf. 49 Analytic and Reporting Guidelines, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, 2006. 50 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, 2005. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf. 51 Children: Key National Indicators of Well -Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp. 52 Analytic and Reporting Guidelines, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, 2006. 53 Children: Key National Indicators of Well -Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp.
1250
Objective 4.2: Communities
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 4.2 Met =9 Not Met = 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 =1 (Total = 10)
Brownfields and Land Revitalization EPAs Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program54 is dedicated to revitalizing real properties where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse might 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. In FY 2010, EPA began piloting an area-wide planning approach to community Brownfields challenges. The approach recognizes that revitalization of the area surrounding the Brownfield site(s) is just as critical to the successful reuse of the property as assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of an individual site. As one of EPA's Priority Goals, EPA will provide grants and/or direct technical assistance to 23 communities that applied through the Brownfields AreaWide Planning Pilot Program. This assistance will enable recipients to initiate development of an area-wide plan within their community and to identify next steps and resources needed to implement the plan. EPA surpassed all of its Brownfields performance goals by assessing 1,326 properties, cleaning up 109 properties, and leveraging 5,177 jobs and $1.4 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds. In addition, the Agency made 3,627 acres ready for reuse through site assessment or property cleanup. Additional FY 2010 accomplishments include: EPA co-sponsored the National Brownfields Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana in April 2010. The National Brownfields Conference is the largest, most
54
www.epa.gov/brownfields.
1251
comprehensive conference in the nation focused on environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment. The conference had an estimated attendance of 5,000 people and an estimated economic impact of more than $10 million on the Gulf Coast region and is designed to bring developers, community environmental justice groups, federal, state, and local governments together for educational sessions, town-hall discussions, exchange of ideas, and networking. This free event is designed to expand the conversation on environmental protection with programmatic highlights that include educational sessions, a transaction forum, and an environmental justice caucus. Under the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA, HUD, and DOT continue working together to ensure that federal investments, policies, and actions support development in more efficient and sustainable locations. In February 2010, EPA, HUD, and DOT selected five pilot Brownfields communities across the country where public transit and affordable housing needs converge. EPA is providing access to expert environmental and economic analysis to assist communities in planning for the eventual assessment, cleanup, and sustainable redevelopment of Brownfield sites, ensuring equitable redevelopment and long-term quality of life improvements. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/index.html. EPA worked with the White House Council on Auto Communities and Workers in conducting significant outreach activities to engage community leaders and stakeholders in the development of solutions for the revitalization of contaminated properties resulting from the downturn in the auto manufacturing sector. EPA will assist communities in understanding the type and extent of contamination at former auto manufacturing plants and is working with the DOT and the DOJ in the establishment of a nearly $800 million Environmental Response Trust that will be used to clean up 90 sites owned by Old General Motors (GM) and undertake targeted cleanup at certain additional sites where Old GM bears unique responsibilities for environmental contamination.55 EPA awarded 186 assessment, revolving loan fund, cleanup, and job training grants through the ARRA. U.S.Mexico Border Through the U.S.Mexico Environmental Program (Border 2012), the United States and Mexico collaborate to improve the environment and protect the health of the 14.6 million people living along the border, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The program continues to be a successful joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the 10 Border States (four U.S. and six Mexican), and local communities to improve the regions environmental health. The results achieved to date include the following:
55
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/council-auto-communities-and-workers-announces-landmark-framework-speedredevelopme
1252
Constructed adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for more than 7 million border residents. Completed the first hazardous waste cleanup at Metales y Derivados, a lead smelting facility, under Mexicos new cleanup law. Continuing cleanup at the Ciudad Juarez scrap tire site where cleanups to date have eliminated more than 4.5 million tires along the border. Updated the sister city plan for the municipality of Juarez (Chihuahua) and Sunland Park (New Mexico) to incorporate Isleta del Sur Pueblo, making this the first sister city plan to include a Native American Tribe. Environmental Justice Grants EPA awarded $1.9 million in environmental justice grants to 78 non-profit organizations and local governments working on environmental justice issues nationwide supporting Administrator Jacksons priority to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental justice. The grants are designed to help communities understand and address environmental challenges and create self-sustaining, community-based partnerships focused on improving human health and the environment at the local level. EPA has committed $1 million to address environmental justice challenges in 10 communities, over the next two years. These 10 communities will serve as models for EPAs committed environmental justice efforts, and help highlight the disproportionate environmental burdens placed on low-income and minority communities all across the nation. EPA also provides technical assistance to a range of community-based organizations across the country to enhance and support their environmental justice efforts.
1253
Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystem
People and the ecological integrity of aquatic systems rely on healthy watersheds. EPA uses a suite of programs to protect and improve water quality in the nations watershedsrivers, lakes, wetlands, and streams. EPA protects, sustains, and restores the health of natural habitats and ecosystems by identifying and evaluating problem areas, developing tools, and improving community capacity to address problems. While EPA continues to make progress, in January 2010, Administrator Jackson wrote, Americas waterbodies are imperiled as never before. Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff, to invasive species56 National Estuary Program (NEP) The NEP 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 2010 show that the 28 national estuary programs and their partners protected or restored 89,985 acres of habitat. Analysis of the leveraging data shows that the programs played a primary role in leveraging $20 million from EPA Section 320 of the CWA and other funds to obtain an additional $274 million, which is a ratio of $14 raised for every $1 of the funds provided by EPA.
56
http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/
1254
Coastal Wetlands The most recent National Wetlands Status and Trends Report showed that from 1998 to 2004, overall wetland gains exceeded wetland losses in the United States at a rate of 32,000 acres per year, aggregated across all wetland categories. The Agency expects that the Status and Trends Report, expected to be published in spring 2011, will show that EPA met or exceeded its goals of a net increase of wetlands between 2005 and 2009. Although the increase in wetlands acres is positive, a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA reported that coastal wetlands continue to decline at a rate of about 59,000 acres per year. 57 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. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) In 2010, President Obama announced $475 million in new funding for the GLRI, the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The Great Lakes provide over 30 million Americans with drinking water and underpin a multi-billion dollar economy. Activities funded through this initiative will ensure that the Great Lakes meet CWA standards of safely consuming fish and swimming at our beaches, ensuring safe drinking water, and providing a healthy ecosystem for fish and wildlife. The GLRI Action Plan, released in February 2010 by the Great Lakes area governors, is driving progress, with goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets in five focus areas. These include: Cleaning up the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes, including toxic hot spot areas of concern. Combating invasive species. Promoting nearshore health by protecting watersheds from polluted run-off. Restoring wetlands and other habitats. Working with strategic partners on accountability, monitoring and evaluation, and outreach. The GLRI Action Plan, which covers FY 2010 through FY 2014, was developed by a task force of 16 federal departments and agencies to implement the Presidents historic initiative. The Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) has been developed to ensure accountability and provide public access to information about GLRI projects.58 Almost $1 billion in requests from 1,060 proposals followed EPAs announcement of the first GLRI Request for Proposals. By the end of FY 2010, EPA had obligated more than $152 million in 276 grant awards to states, tribes, communities, and other non-federal organizations and more than $244 million in 15
57
Coastal Wetland Trends 1998-2004: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrendsWetlandsCoastalWatershedsEasternUS1998to2 004.pdf. 58 A GLAS demonstration video, showing key information and capabilities, is available at: http://greatlakesrestoration.us/?p=851.
1255
interagency agreements with other federal agencies. Most of the grant awards resulted from the Request for Proposals. From an additional $9 million, the USACE obligated $5.6 million for emergency Asian carp construction work. Funding is directed to on-the-ground Great Lakes restoration projects in the GLRI focus areas. EPA is taking steps to direct a greater proportion of GLRI funding to on-the-ground action in future years. GLRI funding has also been directed toward projects to keep Asian carp and other invasive species out of the Great Lakes. Progress implementing actions in the focus areas will be reported in FY 2011 with environmental improvement demonstrated in the future as projects begun in fall 2010 get well underway. The GLRI Action Plan includes 28 performance measures to track progress toward meeting the goals and objectives for each of the GLRI focus areas. Eleven of these measures were included in the Presidents FY 2011 Budget published in February 2010. Results for these measures are expected to be reported through GLAS in FY 2011. (Annual budget measures are provided in box below).
1256
New Great Lakes Measures for FY 2011 Reporting Established in the GLRI Action Plan and FY 2011 Congressional Justification Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative): (1 area of concern). Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem: (1.1 species). Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level (cumulative): (1,000 acres). Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative): (4 responses/plans). Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries draining targeted watersheds: (0 percent reduced loadings of phosphorus). Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95 percent or more of beach days: (86 percent beaches). Acres in Great Lakes watershed with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loading: (2 percent increased acres). Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild (cumulative): (33 percent of populations). Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored, and enhanced (cumulative): (5,000 acres). Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored, and enhanced (cumulative): (15,000 acres): Number of species delisted due to recovery: (0 species). Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Bay Program partners have achieved 51 percent, 67 percent, and 69 percent of the goals to implement nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction practices, respectively (based on Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model 2009 Progress Run released in March 2010 and used to track goals established in 2003; beginning in FY 2011, new goals will be tracked based on TMDLs finalized in December 2010, using the Phase 5.3 Watershed Model 2010 Progress Run, to be released in March 2011). 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
1257
meet agricultural load reduction targets. The program is employing additional resources from Farm Bill59 funding to address this challenge. To address concerns about increasing urban/suburban runoff, EPA developed a stormwater best practices guide. 60 To address both challenges, EPA provided additional resources through a series of grants. Specifically, the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program grants to the states; Implementation grants to states; and Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants and Small Watershed grants to states, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. Long Island Sound Restoration and protection of Long Island Sound continues to exceed expectations, as measured by point source nitrogen reduction, habitat restoration/protection, and diadromous fish passage. The states continue to make progress in upgrading wastewater treatment plants to control nitrogen discharges, improving water quality, and reducing the threat of hypoxia from excess nitrogen under a TMDL. As of 2009, the last reporting period, the states have reduced nitrogen from point sources by nearly 53,000 lb per day from baseline loads. New York City and Westchester County are upgrading wastewater treatment plants for nitrogen removal in support of the TMDL. The Long Island Sound Study program is ahead of its plans for habitat restoration/protection and fish passage in 2010, restoring or protecting a total of 2,975 acres of habitat and reopening 160 miles of river corridor to fish passage. The program continues to make progress by working with local communities, businesses, and organizations to match or exceed limited federal funding for critical habitat restoration, protection, enhancement, and fish passage projects.
59 60
http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3348. http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/chesbay502/.
1258
As the Long Island Sound Study program continues to reduce point and nonpoint source pollution, the total cost of necessary water quality infrastructure improvements remains a challenge. A planned revision to the TMDL to include Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont will require close cooperation and significant financial commitment by those states. 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. Columbia River On September 23, 2010, EPA issued the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan. This plan, developed over two years with the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group, a collaborative group consisting of tribal, state, local, regional, and federal government, nonprofit groups, industry, and citizens, provides a five-year framework for a holistic basin-wide approach to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin to protect human health and the ecosystem. The Action Plan provides a list of 61 actions, in five initiatives: Increase public understanding and political commitment to toxics reduction. Increase toxics reduction actions. Increase monitoring for source identification and then focus attention to reduce toxics. Develop regional, multi-agency research and monitoring. Develop a data management system to share toxics information around the basin. At the end of FY 2010, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnershipmade up of states, EPA, and other partnersimproved more than 16,000 acres of habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed and state and federal partners remediated 20 acres of highly contaminated sediments. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/region10/columbia. 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, 2010, about 34,288 (or 46 percent) of the households and business owners in the Florida 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 (FKNMS) Water Quality Protection Program, EPA will continue to work closely with states, local governments, and federal agencies to identify funds. These
1259
improvements helped EPA achieve its FY 2010 goal to maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS. Puget Sound The Puget Sound NEP made considerable progress in FY 2010 by awarding prior-year (FY 2009) and present-year (FY 2010) funding to local governments and tribes for watershed projects identified as priorities for Puget Sound restoration and protection, outreach and education efforts, and targeted scientific and technical studies. For FY 2010 and beyond, EPA solicited applications for lead organization entities to implement comprehensive basin-wide programs to address the major threats and challenges facing the Puget Sound ecosystem. This structure will allow for greater efficiency and faster delivery of funds for Puget Sound work in 2011 and the years to come. The results from recent increases in Puget Sound funding and work are already beginning to show results. In 2010, EPA reported 4,311 acres of Puget Sound habitat restored or protected. This is more than three times greater than prior years annual results and shows the program is achieving a cumulative total of 10,062 habitat acres restored or protected since 2007. Significant gains are also being made in restoring shellfish beds to a harvest-safe condition. For 2010 EPA reported 2,723 acres of shellfish beds where harvest restrictions were lifted, bringing the cumulative total since 2007 to 4,453 acres. Gulf of Mexico The Gulf Alliance governance structure is uniquely poised to support assessing, monitoring, and remediating impacts and implementing ecosystem and economic long-term recovery. The Gulf of Mexico Program continues to underpin the Gulf States Governors Alliance with specific challenges in the Governors Action Plan II, a five-year plan designed to enhance the environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico. With the leverage of the Federal Workgroup partnership, 87 percent of the near-term actions in the plan are on track, and 6 percent have been completed. Overall, 93 percent of actions are on track for FY 2010. The Gulf Program funded 12 cooperative agreements that support collaborative regional partnership projects. As part of the interagency Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force, EPA strives to reduce or make significant progress toward reducing the hypoxic zone to a size of 5,000 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) or less by 2015, based on a 5-year running average, by implementing specific, practical, and cost-effective voluntary actions by all states and tribes. The size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone as measured in 2010 was 20,000 square kilometers (7,722 square miles), which is one of the largest measured dead zones. The Gulf Alliance is addressing hypoxia by developing consistent estuarine nutrient criteria, 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.
1260

FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 4.4 (in thousands)
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 4.4

Objective 4 $431,813.40 22%
Objective 1
Met = 12 Not Met = 3 Data Available After * February 7, 2011 = 3 (Total = 18)
* This total includes 2 performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.
Objective 2 Objective 3
Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,952,626.3
EPAs research programs provide a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect, sustain, and restore human and ecosystem health. Examples of FY 2010 research accomplishments are below. EPA Tool for Water Utilities Wins Research and Development 100 Award Abnormal data from monitoring water quality in a drinking water system can indicate the onset of a contamination incident. For this reason, water utilities must be able to rapidly and accurately identify such results. Software that can interpret water quality data in real time can greatly enhance detection. EPA partnered with the DOEs Sandia National Laboratories to develop the CANARY data analysis software to assist water utilities in detecting contamination. CANARY evaluates standard water quality data (e.g., pH, free chlorine, total organic carbon) over time and uses mathematical and statistical techniques to identify the onset of atypical water quality incidents. CANARY was piloted in five U.S. cites (Cincinnati, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco) and Singapore, using data sets that are unique to each system. In FY 2010, EPAs CANARY event detection software was released as a free download to water utilities. The software, in conjunction with a network of sensors, can rapidly detect contamination and provide information for making effective decisions and managing consequences. EPA and DOE researchers responsible for this software were awarded an R&D 100 Award for 2010, which recognizes the top 100 high-technology products of the year. International Workshop of Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) EPA held an international workshop that brought together over 250 scientists to share the results of their research on PFCs. These persistent environmental pollutants are of considerable interest
1261
to the public and EPA is working to characterize their toxicity, to explore their modes of actions, to develop analytical methods for their detection in various media, to investigate the fate and transport of these chemicals in the environment, and to construct computational models to predict their behaviors. Collectively, scientists have made significant strides in these research areas. Among areas presented by EPA scientists were the development and evaluation of methods and their application in experimentation for evaluating the degradation of fluorotelomer-based polymer products in soil materials and from wastewater treatment plants, as well as the release of PFCs from articles of commerce and their potential toxicity. These findings are being used by EPA program and regional offices and other communities to help characterize the potential exposures and risks to PFCs. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/pfaa_days_3/. Tool Allows Pacific Northwest to Understand Changes in Stream Flow In FY 2010, EPA developed a tool to help decision-makers assess the vulnerabilities of climate change on natural ecosystems, including endangered species, agriculture, drinking water, water quality, and water supply. Using national climate scenarios developed by EPA scientists, this project provides a methodology for assessing the vulnerability of regional stream flow to future climate change. This tool was applied to the state of Oregons waterways; and, EPA scientists are currently developing a stream flow vulnerability assessment for the entire Pacific Northwest. Future work will include similar vulnerability assessments for all EPA regions across the nation. Science Assessments Completed for CO and PM EPAs HHRA program produces peer-reviewed products that the Agency and others use to support regulatory standards and manage environmental cleanups and risk management efforts. In FY 2010, EPA published evaluations of the scientific literature on the potential human health effects associated with ambient exposures to CO and PM. These final integrated science assessments for CO and PM support the Agency's periodic review of the NAAQS)and will provide the scientific basis to inform EPA decisions related to the review of the current CO and PM standards. Progress Developing Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessments for Dioxin and Formaldehyde The IRIS Program is one of the main components of the HHRA Program. In FY 2010, EPA completed 14 draft health assessments of chemicals for interagency science consultation and external peer review, including external peer reviews of dioxin and formaldehyde. In addition, 10 health assessments were completed and posted on the IRIS webpage for public dissemination, an increased number of postings compared to the last five years.
1262
Tool Models Connections between Climate and Land Use Climate and land use change are major components that are related to and affected by global environmental change. Specifically, land use, such as residential housing, roads, and impervious surfaces, affect climate change. Population growth and demographic changes also impact the climate. In FY 2010, EPA scientists updated the existing Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) tool, which incorporates Global Information System (GIS) data. This tool enables users to incorporate land use, impervious surface changes, and population growth into climate impact studies and inform decisions. ICLUS data are currently being used in the Chesapeake Bay to spatially allocate emissions, estimate future health impacts, model stormwater runoff, examine and monitor the vulnerability to wildlife and the ecosystem, and project nonpoint source pollution impacts on the Bay. EPA Provides Searchable Database on Chemical Hazard, Exposure, and Toxicity Data EPA released an online database that makes it easier to find chemical information online. In 2010, the Toxicity Reference Database (ToxRefDB) was released to the public and electronically captures 30 years and $2 billion of animal testing data previously available only in paper documents. It includes more than 3,000 studies on more than 500 chemicals. ToxRefDB consolidates chemical testing data that are costly and time consuming, and that have historically been scattered throughout different sources. ToxRefDB provides the public with access to all available hazard, exposure, and risk-assessment data associated with chemical, as well as previously unpublished studies related to cancer, reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxrefdb/. Silver Nanoparticles: Setting Research Priorities In 2010, EPA released the external draft of the Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray.61 This study is one of a series of nanomaterial case studies used to identify and prioritize the future direction of nanotechnology research. This work refines previous approaches to illustrate known and potential risks associated with applications of nanosilver. Like the similar nanotitanium dioxide study, this nanosilver study will help EPA address the risks of using nanomaterials. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/nano1005summ.pdf. Tea Helps Clean the Environment Research has shown powerful health benefits of antioxidant chemicals found in tea, wine, and red grape pomace (a major byproduct of wine making). EPA scientists are discovering how to also tap antioxidants for a cleaner environment. EPA scientists are using innovative ways to produce nanoparticles using green chemistry rather than toxic chemicals. In FY 2010, EPA scientists used brewed tea and ferric nitrate to develop nano-scale zero-valet iron, which is useful for cleaning contaminated groundwater. The tea replaced sodium borohydride, a hazardous chemical with toxic properties, and the process showed no significant signs of toxicity when
61
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=226723
1263
applied to human skin cells in a petri dish. This research was identified as one of Green Chemistrys hot articles because it is frequently viewed by and cited among the scientific community.62 By demonstrating green alternatives to hazardous chemicals, solvents, and high temperature processes, EPA hopes to encourage scientists, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers to find inherently safer and more sustainable ways to produce and use chemicals. For additional information, see: http://epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scinews_tea-nano.htm
62
www.rsc.org/greenchem
1264
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 2014, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems. PMs Met 11 PMs Not Met 7 Data Available After February 7, 2011 8 Total PMs 26
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.1: Reduce Chemical Risks Reduce Chemical Risks Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve a 50 percent cumulative reduction from 1998 in risks posed by TSCA Inventory Update Rule-reported chemicals, as measured by the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model's production-adjusted risk based score. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (239) Annual number of chemicals with final values for AEGL FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual 6 4 FY 2010 Target Actual 14 15
Unit Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline is 37 chemicals from 1996 through 2008 according to Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT's) AEGL Chemical Status database. (241) Annual number of chemicals with proposed values for AEGL 24 33 24 28 18 27 4 N/A Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline is 37 chemicals from 1996 through 2008 according to OPPT's AEGL Chemical Status database.
1265
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
Unit Risk Screening Environmen tal Indicators (RSEI) Rel Risk HPV Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline is zero percent in 2001 according to RSEI Model. RSEI results have historically experienced a two-year data lag. (270) Annual number of HPV chemicals with Risk Based Prioritizations completed through the Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) 150 151 180 69 230 0
Baseline - Baseline is zero chemicals in 2007 according to OPPT internal risk-based prioritization (RBP) tracking files. Explanation - Production of RBPs and hazard-based prioritizations (HBPs) suspended to focus on development of more rapid chemical risk reduction actions. Change in program strategy occurred too late to discontinue the FY 2010 measure. (282) Annual reduction in the production adjusted risk based score of releases and transfers of IUR chemicals from manufacturing facilities (296) Annual number of Moderate Production Volume (MPV) chemicals with Hazard Based Prioritizations completed through the ChAMP 2.6 5.09 2.5 Data Avail 10/2011 2.4 Data Avail 10/2011 2.2 Data Avail 10/2012 % RSEI Rel Risk
Baseline - Baseline is zero percent in 1998 according to RSEI Model. RSEI results have historically experienced a two-year data lag. 55 14 100 69 325 0 MPV Chemicals
1266
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Baseline - Baseline is zero chemicals in FY07 according to OPPT internal HBP Tracking files.
Unit
Explanation - Production of RBPs and HBPs suspended to focus on development of more rapid chemical risk reduction actions. Change in program strategy occurred too late to cancel FY 2010 measure. (HC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals 230 270 Hazardous Units
Baseline - Baseline is 1,095 chemicals in FY 2009 according to OPPT HPV Hazard Characterizations Tracking files. Strategic Target (2) Through 2014, ensure that 10 percent of 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 2007 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2008 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 97 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 Data Avail 10/2011
Unit Percent
Baseline - Baseline is zero percent from 2004-2008 according to Annual OPPT report, "Study Comparing PMNs/LVEs to Related 8(e) Chemicals." Strategic Target (3) By 2014, remove 330,000 grams of mercury from use in international hospitals by eliminating or substituting mercury containing products and equipment compared to a 2006 baseline of 0 grams.
1267
Strategic Target (4) Through 2014, maintain elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by ensuring that that the percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl) remains at zero, compared to a 1999-2004 of 1.4 percent. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (009) Cumulative number of certified RRP firms FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 100,000 59,143
Unit Firms
Baseline - Baseline is zero firms in 2009 according to Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) information system. Explanation - EPA was unable to meet its FY 2010 annual target due to the lower than expected firm certifications as of the April 2010 effective date of the RRP rule (despite EPAs and industry's extensive efforts on outreach and compliance assistance), as well as a subsequent stay on enforcement of certification paperwork requirements for renovation firms from June to October. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, reduce to 26 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, compared to a 1999-2002 baseline of 32 percent. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>5 g/dl) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 3.5 Data Avail 11/2012
Unit Percent
Baseline - Baseline is 4.1 percent from 2003/4 sampling data according to CDC National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES). Results reported biennially. (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
Biennial
29
23.5
Biennial
28
Data Avail 10/2012
Percent
1268
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Baseline - Baseline is 32 percent from 1999-2002 according to CDC National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES). Results reported biennially. Strategic Target (6) By 2014, reduce the percentage of children with blood lead levels above 5ug/dl to 4 percent or less, compared with a 1999 through 2004 baseline of 7.4 percent. FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual No Target (196) Percent of children (aged 1-5 Biennial Established years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10 g/dl) FY 2008 Target Actual 0.5 N/A FY 2009 Target Actual No Target Biennial
Established
Unit Percent
Baseline - Baseline is 310,000 children in FY 2002 according to CDC NHANES. Results reported biennially. Strategic Target (7) By 2014, through work with international partners, eliminate the use of lead in gasoline in the remaining 16 countries that still use lead as an additive, affecting more than 700 million people. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (Ar5) Number of countries completing phase out of leaded gasoline (incremental) FY 2007 Target Actual 20 13 FY 2008 Target Actual 7 7 FY 2009 Target Actual 4 2 FY 2010 Target Actual 3 3
Unit Countries
Baseline - As of July 2008, 16 countries had not phased lead out of gasoline. Strategic Target (8) By 2014, through work with international partners, more than 4.4 billion people will have access to low-sulfur fuel in 75 countries.
1269
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (Ar8) Number of countries introducing low sulfur in fuels (incremental)
Unit Countries
Baseline - As of July 8, 2008, 43 countries had introduced low-sulfur fuel. Explanation: Of the targeted nine countries, only Chile, Georgia, Armenia, United Arab Emirates, and Kazakhstan increased access to low-sulfur fuels. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities Strategic Target (1) Between 2009 to 2014, the annual number of accidents will not exceed 188, which is equal to the average annual number of accidents that occurred between 2004 to 2008. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (CH2) Number of risk management plan audits and inspections conducted FY 2007 Target Actual 400 628 FY 2008 Target Actual 400 628 FY 2009 Target Actual 400 654 FY 2010 Target Actual 400 618
Unit Audits
Baseline - 2,820 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2002 and FY 2006. Explanation - EPA headquarters has been working with the regions to increase the number of inspections. In FY 2010, the regions were asked to focus on identifying non-filers, inspecting those facilities, and getting them in compliance with the Risk Management Plan requirements. The regions were able to complete more inspections and recognizing this, EPA has increased the performance target for FY 2011.
1270
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.3: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk Strategic Target (1) Through 2014, reduce and maintain the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent. Based on the most recent urinary metabolites reported in the 1999 to 2002 CDCs NHANES data. Measure is based on NHANES 50th percentile concentrations for all seven organophosphate analytes reported: Dimethylphosphate < 0.58 g/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 g/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate < 0.10 g/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 g/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 g/L; Diethyldithiophosphate < 0.10 g/L; and 3, 5, 6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 g/L). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (266) Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected in general population FY 2007 Target Actual 10 5 FY 2008 Target Actual 30 Data Avail 10/2011 FY 2009 Target Actual No Target Biennial
Established
Unit Percent
Baseline - According to biennially reported NHANES data for FY 1999 to 2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population are: Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 g/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 g/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 g/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 g/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 g/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 g/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 g/L. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce children's exposure to rodenticides by 40 percent. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due date) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 99 99.7
Unit Percent
Baseline - In 2008, 99.9 percent of decisions were completed on time according to EPA internal data.
1271
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reducing the number of moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest number of incidents by 50 percent. (Based on 326 moderate and severe incidents reported to the Poison Control Center (PCC) National Poison Data System (NPDS) 1999 to 2003, the six pesticides of concern are: chlorpyrifos; diazinon, malathion; pyrethrins; 2,4-D and carbofuron). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides FY 2007 Target Actual 18 20 FY 2008 Target Actual 18.5 21 FY 2009 Target Actual 20 Data Avail 10/2011 FY 2010 Target Actual 21 Data Avail 10/2012
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 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 each acre receives each year. (267) Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate
Biennial
30
N/A
N/A
Percent
Baseline - The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on FY 1999 to FY 2003 biennially reported data are: chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29 incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents, based on data from PCCs Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healths (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR). Strategic Target (4) By 2014, complete 100 percent of Tier 1 screening to determine whether any of the first group of pesticide chemicals have the potential to interact with estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems; complete validation of Tier 2 tests, which are designed to assess whether substances cause endocrine effects and provide data to support hazard identification and risk assessment; and based on review of Tier 1 screening results, initiate Tier 2 testing for pesticide chemicals, as appropriate.
1272
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (257) Cumulative number of assays that have been validated
FY 2007 Target Actual 8/20 3/20
Unit Assays
Baseline - Zero assays validated in FY 2005. Explanation - Contractor delays, international coordination, and technical problems associated with this new area of science contributed to delays in completing additional assays. Remaining assays and future assay validation efforts will be tracked under a new measure (starting in FY 2011). No Strategic Target 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 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual No Target Biennial
Established
FY 2009 Target Actual <= 3.5/ N/A 100,000
FY 2010 Target Actual No Target N/A

Established
Unit Incidents
Baseline - There were 1,388 incidents out of 39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides in FY 2003 according to PCC data. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.4: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk Strategic Target (1) By 2014, no urban watersheds will exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for four key pesticides of concern.
1273
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (011) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions (164) Number of pesticide registration review dockets opened
Unit Decisions
Baseline - The FY 2005 actual is 501 product re-registrations according to internal tracking as part of the product reregistration process. 70 75 Dockets
Baseline - In 2008, 71 registration review work dockets were opened according to EPA internal data. (230) Number of pesticide registration review final work plans completed (268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion) 25, 25, 30 40, 0, 30
70
70
Work Plans
Baseline - In 2008, 47 final work plans for registered pesticides were reviewed according to EPA internal data. Biennial 5, 0, 20 6.7, 0, 33 Percent
Baseline - Based on FY 1992 to 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 73 percent; chlorpyrifos, 37 percent; and malathion, 30 percent. Explanation - Mixed results reported from samples. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, no agricultural watersheds will exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern.
1274
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos)
FY 2010 Target Actual 0, 10 0, 8
Unit Percent
Baseline - Based on FY 1992 to 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS NAWQA program, agricultural watersheds that exceeded aquatic life benchmarks are 18 percent for azinphos-methyl and 18 percent for chlorpyrifos. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.5: Realize the Benefits from Pesticide Use Realize the Benefits from Pesticide Use Strategic Target (1) Through 2014, continue to maintain a healthy and affordable food supply, and continue to ensure the availability of safe pesticides that annually provide an estimated $26 billion in value to agricultural production. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (240) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions FY 2007 Target Actual 45 36.60 FY 2008 Target Actual 45 34 FY 2009 Target Actual 45 40 FY 2010 Target Actual 45 50
Unit Days
Baseline - Baseline for S18 decisions is 45 days in 2005 according to EPA internal data. Explanation - Target not met due to more complicated S18s. (272) Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address pest infestations 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B 1.5 B Loss Avoided
1275
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit 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. Strategic Target (2) Through 2014, annually continue to avoid $900 million in termite structural damage from termite infestations by ensuring that safe and effective pesticides are available for termite control. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (271) Millions of dollars in termite structural damage avoided annually by ensuring safe and effective pesticides are registered/re-registered and available for termite treatment FY 2007 Target Actual 900 M 900 M FY 2008 Target Actual 900 M 900 M FY 2009 Target Actual 900 M 900 M FY 2010 Target Actual 900 M 900 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. Explanation - Methodology is the same; however, the data available for the results calculation was better and far exceeded expectations. OBJECTIVE: 4.2: COMMUNITIES Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them. PMs Met 9 PMs Not Met 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 1 Total PMs 10
1276
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.1: Sustain Community Health Sustain Community Health Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce the air, water, and land impacts of new growth and development through the use of smart growth strategies in 40 communities, which includes state and local governments and standard setting organizations that will achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health improvements. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.2: Restore Community Health through Collaborative Problem-Solving Restore Community Health through Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 30 communities with potential environmental justice concerns will achieve significant measurable environmental or public health improvement triennially through the Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program or through other EPA community assistance programs utilizing collaborative problem-solving strategies. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields Assess and Clean Up Brownfields Strategic Target (1) By 2014, conduct environmental assessments at 18,800 (cumulative) Brownfield properties. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (B29) Brownfield properties assessed (ARRA measure)* FY 2007 Target Actual 1,000 1,371 FY 2008 Target Actual 1,000 1,453 FY 2009 Target Actual 1,000 1,295 FY 2010 Target Actual 1,000 1,326 322*
Unit Properties
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 322 additional properties assessed. More information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2007, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1,371 properties. Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012.
1277
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, make an additional 11,700 acres of Brownfield properties ready for reuse from the 2007 baseline. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (B32) Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding (ARRA measure)* FY 2007 Target Actual 60 FY 2008 Target Actual 60 78 FY 2009 Target Actual 60 93 FY 2010 Target Actual 60 109 13*
Unit Properties
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 13 additional properties cleaned up. More information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program cleaned up 77 properties. Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012. (B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse (ARRA measure)* UD 2,399 225 4,404 1,000 2,660 1,000 3,627 30* Acres
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA, which resulted in 30 additional properties made ready for reuse. More information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program made 2,399 acres ready for reuse. Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, leverage $17.7 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at Brownfields properties.
1278
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (B34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities (ARRA measure)*
FY 2010 Target Actual 5,000 5,177 161*
Unit Jobs
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 161 additional jobs leveraged. More information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program leveraged 5,209 jobs. (B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites. (ARRA measure)* 0.9 1.693 0.9 1.546 0.9 1.06 0.9 1.4 .042* Billion Dollars
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in an additional 0.042 billion dollars leveraged. More information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program leveraged $1.7 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border Environmental Health Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border Environmental Health Strategic Target (1) By 2012, remove 152.8 million pounds of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loadings from the U.S-Mexico Border area since 2003. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, provide safe drinking water to 50 percent of homes in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
1279
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (xb2) Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003 (cumulative)
Unit Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, provide adequate wastewater sanitation to 50 percent of homes in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (xb3) Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003 (cumulative) FY 2007 Target Actual 70,750 73,475 FY 2008 Target Actual 15,000 31,686 FY 2009 Target Actual 105,500 43,594 FY 2010 Target Actual 246,175 254,125
Unit Homes
Baseline - In 2003, 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, clean up abandoned tire and hazardous waste sites in the U.S.-Mexico border region. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.5: Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
1280
Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 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 is available 24 hours per day and meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the year. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (pi1) Percent of population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (served by community water systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling average basis FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 72 79 FY 2009 Target Actual 73 80 FY 2010 Target Actual 73 82
Baseline - In 2005, 95 percent of American Samoa; 10 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 2014, the sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90 percent of the time with permit limits for BOD and TSS. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (pi2) Percent of sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit limits for BOD and TSS FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 67 67 FY 2009 Target Actual 62 65 FY 2010 Target Actual 62 52
Unit Percent Time
Baseline - In 2005, sewage treatment plants complied with permit limits 59 percent of the time. Explanation: Wastewater treatment plants on Guam were in compliance only 23 percent of the time in FY10, which dragged down the average of the Pacific Island Territories.
1281
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, 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. 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 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 70 80 FY 2009 Target Actual 80 81 FY 2010 Target Actual 80 80
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 Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce mean maternal blood levels of PCBs (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous populations in the Arctic to 3.0 g/l. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured as the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in indigenous populations in the Arctic to 3.0 g/l. OBJECTIVE: 4.3: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems. PMs Met 21 PMs Not Met 6 Data Available After February 7, 2011 1 Total PMs 28
1282
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands Increase Wetlands Strategic Target (1) By 2014, working with partners, achieve a net annual increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands nationwide with additional focus on biological and functional measures and assessment of wetland condition. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star, National Estauary Program (NEP), 319, and Great Waterbody programs (cumulative) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 75,000 82,875 FY 2009 Target Actual 88,000 103,507 FY 2010 Target Actual 110,000 130,000
Unit Acres
Baseline - Annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and Tends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1986-1997. 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, T.E, 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.: 2006). Strategic Target (2) By 2014, in partnership with the USACE, states, and tribes will have achieved "no net loss" of wetlands each year under the CWA, Section 404 regulatory program, beginning in 2007.
1283
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (4E) In partnership with the USACE, states, and tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands each year under the CWA Section 404 regulatory program
FY 2007 Target Actual No Net Data Not Loss Available
FY 2008 Target Actual No Net Data Not Loss Available
FY 2009 Target Actual No Net No Net Loss Loss
FY 2010 Target Actual No Net No net Loss loss
Unit Acres
Baseline - No Net Loss: FY 2003: 1:1. (ELI 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the U.S., p. 24. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ELIMitigation2005.pdf) SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.2: Increase Habitat Protected or Restored in Estuaries of National Significance Increase Habitat Protected or Restored in Estuaries of National Significance Strategic Target (1) By 2014, working with partners, protect or restore an additional (i.e., measuring from 2009 forward) 500,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the NEP. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (202) Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas FY 2007 Target Actual 50,000 102,463 FY 2008 Target Actual 50,000 83,490 FY 2009 Target Actual 100,000 125,437 FY 2010 Target Actual 100,000 89,985
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2002, 0 (zero) acres were protected or restored in NEP study areas. Explanation - This is an impressive accomplishment since several NEPs and their partners were impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which resulted in their attention, and those of their implementation partners, being taken away from projects in order to respond to the oil spill. As such, some Gulf NEPs were not able to report at all, or had to significantly scale back the habitat protection and restoration efforts they did report for this year.
1284
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.3: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes Improve the Health of the Great Lakes Strategic Target (1) By 2014, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is at least 23.5 points on a 40-point scale. Strategic Target (2) Through 2014, maintain or improve an average annual 5 percent decline for the short-term trend (year 2000 and on) in average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (620) Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples FY 2007 Target Actual 5 6 FY 2008 Target Actual 5 6 FY 2009 Target Actual 5 6 FY 2010 Target Actual 10 43
Unit Percent Decline
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: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; and L Ontario- 1.2ug/g. 9iv) Explanation - The methodology for this measure changed in FY 2010 to be consistent with the Great Lakes Action Plan. Historical trend data shows the annual results; starting in FY 2010, results are reported cumulatively. Strategic Target (3) Through 2014, maintain or improve an average 7 percent annual decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of PCBs in the air in the Great Lakes basin.
1285
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (621) Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of PCBs in the air in the Great Lakes Basin
Unit Percent Decline
Baseline - Average concentrations of PCBs in the air from 2002 were: L Superior- 60 pg/m2; L Michigan- 87 pg/m2; L Huron-19 pg/m2; L Erie- 183 pg/m2; and L Ontario- 36 pg/m2. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, restore and delist a cumulative total of at least seven areas of concern within the Great Lakes basin. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, remediate a cumulative total of 8 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes FY 2007 Target Actual 4.5 4.5 FY 2008 Target Actual 5.0 5.5 FY 2009 Target Actual 5.9 6.0 FY 2010 Target Actual 6.3 7.3
Unit Cubic Yards (million)
Baseline - 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation. Strategic Target (6) By 2014, remove 46 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) within areas of concern within the Great Lakes.
1286
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (625) Number of BUIs removed within Areas of Concern
Unit BUIs Removed
Baseline - In 2006, six BUIs were removed within Areas of Concern. Explanation - Delayed because of funding delays, and the lag time between cleanup (such as Legacy Act sediment remediation) and monitored environmental response; however, missing this target will not adversely impact the long term goal of delisting BUIs. Three BUI delistings are expected by the end of CY 2010. To accelerate progress in removing BUIs, EPA is making increased FY 2010 and FY 2011 GLRI funding available to state agencies and local AOCs, specifically targeting certain AOCs for delisting, and systematically identifying the specific projects necessary for delistings. Through these actions, Great Lakes National Program Office expects that by the end of FY 2011, the target for removing a cumulative total of 20 BUIs will have been met. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.4: Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (232) Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved FY 2007 Target Actual 53 53 FY 2008 Target Actual 60 57 FY 2009 Target Actual 62 62 FY 2010 Target Actual 65 69
Unit Percent Goal Achieved
Baseline - 38 percent of goal achieved in 2005. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, achieve 40 percent (29.92 cubic 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.
1287
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, achieve 60 percent (97.43 million lb) of the implementation goal for nitrogen reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as nitrogen reduction in relation to achieving a 162.5 million lb reduction from 1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (230) Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million lb achieved (cb3) Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million lb) FY 2007 Target Actual 70 69 FY 2008 Target Actual 74 69 FY 2009 Target Actual 74 70 FY 2010 Target Actual 74 78
Unit Percent Goal Achieved Percent Goal Achieved
Baseline - 61percent of point source nitrogen goal achieved in 2005. 47 50 47 50 49 52 51
Baseline - The 2002 baseline is 33 percent goal achievement (52.82 million lb reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 46 percent goal achievement (74.63 million lb reduced since 1986). Explanation - EPA expects enhanced implementation of nitrogen reduction practices as a result of the TMDL to be established December 31, 2010. This is the last year results can be reported for this measure as it was established using an obsolete model. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, achieve 74 percent (10.62 million lb) of the implementation goal for phosphorus reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as phosphorus reduction in relation to achieving a 14.36 million lb reduction from 1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
1288
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (231) Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16 million lb achieved (cb4) Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million lb)
Unit Percent Goal Achieved Percent Goal Achieved
Baseline - 80 percent of point source phosphorus goal achieved in 2005. 64 62 66 62 64 65 66 67
Baseline - 58 percent of phosphorus goal achieved in 2005. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, achieve 83 percent (1.4 million tons) of the implementation goal for sediment reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as sediment reduction in relation to achieving a 1.69 million ton reduction from 1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). 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 lb) FY 2007 Target Actual 61 65 FY 2008 Target Actual 64 64 FY 2009 Target Actual 67 64 FY 2010 Target Actual 71 69
Baseline - 54 percent of sediment goal achieved in 2005. Explanation - EPA expects enhanced implementation of sediment reduction practices as a result of the TMDL to be established December 31, 2010.
1289
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.5: Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico Strategic Target (1) By 2014, 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. 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 2007 Target Actual 2.4 2.4 FY 2008 Target Actual 2.5 2.2 FY 2009 Target Actual 2.5 2.2 FY 2010 Target Actual 2.5 Data Avail 12/2011
Unit Scale
Baseline - In 2004, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.4 where the rating is based on a five-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. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 160 impaired segments (cumulative) in 13 priority coastal areas. 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 FY 2007) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 64 131 FY 2009 Target Actual 96 131 FY 2010 Target Actual 96 170
Unit Impaired Segments
Baseline - In 2005, 28 segments restored
1290
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative 32,600 acres of important coastal and marine habitats. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of important coastal and marine habitats FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 18,200 25,215 FY 2009 Target Actual 26,000 29,344 FY 2010 Target Actual 27,500 29,552
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres. Strategic Target (4) 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 km2, as measured by the five-year running average of the size of the zone. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.6: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound Restore and Protect Long Island Sound Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound by 54.5 percent from the baseline to 26,854 trade equalized (TE) lb/day. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (li5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing TE point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE lb/day FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 52 Data Avail 3/2011
Baseline - In 2000, 59,146 TE lb/day achieved.
1291
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce in maximum area and duration of hypoxia in Long Island Sound (i.e., defined as the area in which the maximum July through September dissolved oxygen level is <3mg/l in bottom waters <1m). Strategic Target (3) By 2014, restore, protect, or enhance 240 acres of important coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, and riparian buffers in Long Island Sound watershed. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (li6) Percent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting or enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 33 740
Baseline - In 2008, 1,199 acres coastal habitat restored, protected or enhanced. Explanation - Achieved 740 percent of the 2014 habitat acres goal (415 acres in FY 2009 and 1,361 acres in FY 2010). The original 2010 target was annualized based on past progress. In the interim, EPA received appropriations that enabled the leveraging of funding by the states for acquisitions of several properties that helped exceed expectations for this measure. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, reopen 50 miles of river and stream corridor to diadromous fish passage in Long Island Sound watershed through removal of dams and barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as fishways. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (li7) Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river and stream miles to diadromous fish passage from the 2008 baseline of 124 miles FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 33 72
Baseline - In 2008, 124 miles river and stream reopened to diadromous fish passage.
1292
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.7: Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem Strategic Target (1) Through 2014, maintain "no net loss" of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral cover) in the FNKMS and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with all stakeholders (federal, state, and local). Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (sf1) Achieve "no net loss" of stony coral cover in FKNMS and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida working with all stakeholders FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual No Net Small Loss Loss FY 2009 Target Actual No Net Loss Loss FY 2010 Target Actual No Net No Net Loss Loss
Unit Mean Percent Area
Baseline - 6.8 percent in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7 percent was revised to 6.8 percent. The Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project for the FKNMS 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 0.1 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. Strategic Target (2) Through 2014, annually maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS as measured by the long-term sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability.
1293
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (sf2) Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS as measured by the long-term sea grass monitoring project
FY 2008 Target Actual Not Maintain

Maintained

Maintained
FY 2010 Target Actual Unit Maintain Maintained Acres
Baseline - In 2005, Florida Keys sea grasses elemental indicator (EI) is 8.28 for Nitrogen; Phosphorus of Thalassia and a Species Composition Index (SCI) of 0.48 for relative abundance of Thalassia. Strategic Target (3) Through 2014, annually maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters for the FKNMS. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (sf0) Annually maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual Unit Maintain Maintained Parts per billion
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 TP = 0.2 uM = 296 sites. Strategic Target (4) Through 2014, improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus (TP), including meeting the 10 ppb TP criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent limits in permits or discharges from storm water treatment areas.
1294
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (sf5) Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by TP, including meeting the 10 ppb TP criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh

Maintained

Maintained

Maintained
Unit Parts/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 TP discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) ranged from 13 ppb for area and 98 ppb for area 1W in 2005. Explanation - Source controls and STA s (treatment wetlands) are not adequate for treating all water to the discharge limits. Inflow phosphorus concentrations to the Everglades continue to exceed the 10 ppb criterion, in spite of significant progress. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin Strategic Target (1) By 2014, improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in 2,300 acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality in the 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 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 450 1,566 FY 2009 Target Actual 600 1,730 FY 2010 Target Actual 1,800 4,453
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 1,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions.
1295
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - There was only one downgrade during that period (only 33 acres). Due to El Nino conditions, which resulted in lower precipitation and fewer storm events, the ability to adversely affect water quality and shellfish growing bed status was affected. Also, there were many significant upgrades, including 1,600 acres in one area alone after 25 years at a lower classification status. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, remediate 325 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments in the Puget Sound. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (ps2) Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 100 123 FY 2009 Target Actual 125 123.1 FY 2010 Target Actual 123 123.1
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 123 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, protect and restore 9,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands in the Puget Sound. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (ps3) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 2,310 4,413 FY 2009 Target Actual 3,000 5,751 FY 2010 Target Actual 6,500 10,062
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands were restored. Strategic Target (4) By 2014, reduce total diesel emissions in the Puget Sound air shed by 12 percent through coordinated diesel emission mitigation efforts.
1296
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.9: Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin Strategic Target (1) By 2014, protect, enhance, or restore 19,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed. 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 FY 2006) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual 8,000 12,986 FY 2009 Target Actual 10,000 15,700 FY 2010 Target Actual 16,000 16,000
Unit Acres
Baseline - In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement, or restoration. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the Columbia River basin. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (cr2) Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments (cumulative starting FY 2006) FY 2007 Target Actual FY 2008 Target Actual FY 2009 Target Actual 5 10 FY 2010 Target Actual 20 20
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 2014, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of certain contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue in the Columbia River basin.
1297
OBJECTIVE: 4.4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 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. Data Available After February 7, 2011 12 3 3* * This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.1: Human Health Research Human Health Research Strategic Target (1) By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for assessing human health risk and protecting human health. FY 2007 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual (H07) Percentage of human health No Target Biennial Established program publications rated as highly cited papers FY 2008 Target Actual 25.5 25.60 FY 2009 Target Actual No Target Biennial
Established
PMs Met
PMs Not Met
Total PMs 18
Unit Percent
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
1298
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health outcomes long-term goal
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2002, 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 EPAs 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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, 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 EPAs 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 EPAs 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 longterm goal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 64 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 EPAs goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
1299
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation 64 percent of the program's planned outputs for FY 2010 were achieved. Several outputs were not met in FY 2010 due to two-year, no-cost extensions that were granted under EPAs Science to Achieve Results (STAR) extramural research program. Grants are awarded with a 3-5 year time period for completing research. Grantees are allowed a no-cost extension of one year, if requested in writing, beyond the original project period to complete proposed research. No-cost extensions are granted for academically based scientific research grants that pursue specific avenues of research. Regular progress reports for these outputs not met in FY 2010 have been delivered and final reports are expected to be complete by March 2011. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.2: Ecosystem Research Ecosystem Research Strategic Target (1) By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for protecting and restoring ecosystems. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (I18) Number of states use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs and policies FY 2007 Target Actual 30 30 FY 2008 Target Actual 35 35 FY 2009 Target Actual 40 50 FY 2010 Target Actual 45 50
Unit States
Baseline - Data reflect the number of states with which the program has worked collaboratively to assist in using a common monitoring design and developing appropriate indicators. Explanation - This measure is complete and should not longer be reported, since all 50 states are using the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) tool. (I19) Percentage of ecological research publications rated as highly-cited publications 20.4 21.10
Biennial
21.4
Data Avail 11/2011
Biennial
Percent
1300
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Baseline - In FY 2007, 21.1 percent of Ecological Research publications were rated as highly-cited publications. (I20) Percentage of ecological research publications in "highimpact" journals (I21) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of state, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for causal diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological degradation 20.3 20.80
Unit Percent
Biennial
21.3
Data Avail 11/2012 100
Biennial
Baseline - In FY 2007, 20.8 percent of Ecological research publications were in "high-impact" journals. 100 67 100 100 100 100 88 Percent
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. Explanation 88 percent of the program's planned outputs were completed in FY 2010. Due to unanticipated staffing changes, the report was not completed. (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 83 100 93 100 100 Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 100 percentage 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.
1301
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (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
Unit 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. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.3: HHRA Research HHRA Research Strategic Target (1) By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA health hazard information. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support documents FY 2007 Target Actual 90 100 FY 2008 Target Actual 90 89 FY 2009 Target Actual 90 100 FY 2010 Target Actual 90 100
Unit 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.
1302
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.4: Global Climate Change Research Global Climate Change Research Strategic Target (1) By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for assessing the consequences of global change on air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and human health. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H76) Percentage of global publications rated as highly cited publications FY 2007 Target Actual 22 25.0 FY 2008 Target Actual No Target 25
Established
FY 2009 Target Actual 23 Data Not Collected
Established
FY 2010 Target Actual No Target Biennial
Unit Percent
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews. (H77) Percentage of global publications in high impact journals 23.6 24.1
24.1
24.6
Data Not No Target Collected Established
Biennial
Percent
Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. (H79) Percentage of planned outputs delivered Baseline 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 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.
1303
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.5: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research Strategic Target (1) By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for decision-making related to effects, exposure, assessment, and management of endocrine disruptors. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.6: Safe Pesticides and Products Research Safe Pesticides and Products Research Strategic Target (1) By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for decision-making related to pesticides and toxics. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (I06) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Safe Pesticides/Safe Products (SP2) program's long-term goal one FY 2007 Target Actual 100 86 FY 2008 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 88
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007 86 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one. Explanation 88 percent of this long-term goal's planned outputs were completed in FY 2010. Loss of staff in addition to equipment issues earlier this year and higher priority work on PCB and caulk protocol pushed this work past due. It will likely be completed by the end of January. (I08) 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 FY 2007 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
1304
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (I10) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three (I11) Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly cited publications
Unit Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007 80 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three.
Biannual
23.2
Biennial
24.2
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews. Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule. (I12) Percent of SP2 publications in "high impact" journals
Biennial
36.2
Biennial
37.2
Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR. Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
1305
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.7: Homeland Security Research Homeland Security Research Strategic Target (1) By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for protecting the public and the environment from terrorist threats and attacks. Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (H72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe disposal of contamination wastes FY 2007 Target Actual 100 100 FY 2008 Target Actual 100 92 FY 2009 Target Actual 100 85 FY 2010 Target Actual 100 100
Unit 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 annual performance goal 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. (H73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security initiatives 100 100 100 83 100 100 100 100 Percent
1306
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit 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 annual performance goal 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.
1307
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
1308
1309
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 nations environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the source, encourage other forms of environmental stewardship, and promote 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 costeffective 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 encourage pollution prevention as the first choice for environmental protection, promoting sustainable practices and helping businesses and communities move beyond compliance and become partners in protecting natural resources, managing materials more efficiently, reducing systemic environmental impacts and GHG emissions, and improving the environment and public health. EPA promotes sustainable materials management while working with businesses to increase energy efficiency, find environmentally preferable substitutes for hazardous existing chemicals, and change processes to reduce overall environmental impacts. The Agency also works to improve 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. In conducting this work, the Agency takes into consideration the priorities of its media programs in determining the chemicals, processes, technologies and practices on which to focus the attention of its pollution prevention and other environmental stewardship efforts. Ensuring compliance and promoting environmental stewardship are important components of the Agencys 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 Americas environment, provide an invaluable perspective on environmental protection that benefits and strengthens the Agencys stewardship programs. Contributing Programs Compliance Assistance Program, Compliance Incentives Program, ETV Program, Monitoring and Enforcement Program, National Center for Environmental Innovation ,National Partnership
1310
for Environmental Priorities, Economic Decision Sciences Research, Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program, Pollution Prevention Program, Sector Grant Program, State and Tribal Pollution Prevention Grants, Sustainable Materials Management, Toxic Substances Compliance Grant Program, Sustainability Research, Tribal Capacity-Building, and Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP). EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal 5, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htmwhich summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
1311
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance

Objective 2 Objective 1 $552,492.40 68%
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 5.1 Met =7 Not Met = 2 Data Available After February 7, 2011 = 0 (Total = 9)
Goal 5 Total Obligations = $814,298.8
EPAs Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) supports EPAs goal of protecting human health and the environment by aggressively targeting the most serious water, air and chemical pollution problems. The program works to ensure that communities have clean air, clean water, and are free from chemical contamination by promoting compliance with our nations environmental laws. The program also coordinates and collaborates with its federal partners, and with state, local, and tribal governments to ensure consistent enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations. By addressing noncompliance swiftly and effectively, EPAs civil and criminal enforcement efforts directly reduce pollution and risk, and deter others from violating the law. Enforcement Goals In FY 2010, EPA developed three enforcement goals that frame the compliance and enforcement program. Goal One: Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities by using vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards and advances environmental justice by protecting vulnerable communities. Work under this goal includes issuing the CWA Action Plan; cleaning up great waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay; cutting toxic air pollution in communities; assuring compliance with the GHG reporting rule; and protecting people from exposure to hazardous chemicals by preventing releases that threaten public health or the environment. EPA developed the following six National Enforcement Initiatives to address some of the more complex pollution problems: Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater runoff out of waters. Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters.
1312
Reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal-fired utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors. Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities health. Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws. Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations. CWA Action Plan There is widespread consensus that despite significant progress reducing water pollution from the largest sources, the country faces serious regulatory and compliance challenges in attaining the water quality goals of the CWA. These challenges include pollution caused by numerous, dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations; sewer overflows; contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities and construction sites; and runoff from urban streets. Released in October 2009, the CWA Action Plan(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html) addresses these challenges through recommendations to 1) focus the water enforcement program 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 st transparency by using 21 century technology tools to provide more accurate and useful information to the public and increase pressure for better compliance performance. Protecting the Chesapeake Bay EPA developed a Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy to target sources of pollution impairing the Bay, starting in FY 2010. The multiyear, 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 CWA, the CAA, and other applicable environmental laws. Oil Spill Response/Protecting the Nations Waters The explosions and fires aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, resulted in 11 deaths, millions of gallons of spilled oil, and still-unknown environmental damage. Millions of gallons of oily waste and thousands of tons of oilcontaminated materials and solid wastes have been recovered and disposed of in disposal facilities in Gulf-area states. As part of the governments response, EPA, working with the U.S. USCG, drafted the enforceable directives issued to BP regarding the limited and appropriate use of oil dispersants and proper management of oil and contaminated wastes. In addition, EPA worked with DOJ on the investigation into the cause of the disaster and enforcement follow-up to hold accountable those responsible for the spill under the terms of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the CWA.
1313
Addressing Air Toxics EPA stepped up enforcement activities to control air toxics that pose significant risks to communities located near large sources of toxic air emissions and announced new efforts to combat emissions from flares at those facilities. The Agency increased use of state-of-thescience remote monitoring tools to evaluate previously unmeasured toxic emissions from refineries and coal coke ovens that threaten nearby communities. EPA deployed new forward looking infrared cameras to protect communities from uncontrolled emissions posed by the burgeoning oil and gas development across the nation. Finally, EPA continued new source review initiatives in the coal-fired power plant, cement kiln, glass and acid manufacturing sectors, securing major reductions in emissions that adversely affect community health. Addressing Hazardous Waste, Pesticides, and Toxic Materials EPA continued to address environmental risks posed by mineral processing facilities to ensure that hazardous waste is managed properly and does not contaminate drinking water or damage wildlife. The Agency continued to focus on waste managed in surface impoundments, which often threaten drinking water and contribute to poor air quality in surrounding communities. To help prevent exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides, EPA coordinated with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prevent imports of non-compliant pesticides; increased its focus on nanoscale chemicals to ensure that Agency has the opportunity to review the risks posed before these chemicals are manufactured and used; continued to enforce existing and new requirements for lead-based paint, including ensuring that lead-safe practices are used; and increased use of real-time U.S. Customs data to identify companies which are not complying with TSCA certification requirements. Reducing, Treating, and Eliminating Pollutants As part of FY 2010 enforcement actions, EPA secured commitments for pollution controls which will reduce, treat, or eliminate illegal release of pollutants in the first year after pollution controls are installed. During FY 2010, the Agency reduced, treated, or eliminated an estimated: 410 million pounds of air pollutants. This includes 390 million pounds of SO2, NOX, and PM, and 3.9 million pounds of hazardous air pollutants. The reductions from the largest stationary source air enforcement cases result in estimated health benefits of over $6.2 to $15billion, including: o Reducing approximately 680 to 1,700 premature deaths in people with heart or lung disease. o 87,000fewer days of missed work or school. o 650 fewer emergency room visits due to respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. 1,000 million pounds of water pollutants. The top categories of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated from illegal discharges that affect water quality are suspended solids, oil, dissolved solids, oxygen demanding pollutants, and nutrients. Of the facilities where enforcement actions require reductions or eliminations of illegal discharges, 49 percent discharged into waters that do not achieve water quality standards.
1314
8.3 million pounds of toxic pollutants and pesticides. The top categories of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated are PCBs, pesticides, and metals. 11,800 million pounds of hazardous waste. As in years past, most of the pollutant reductions result from a few cases. When fully implemented, the 10 most significant FY 2010 enforcement settlements will cumulatively reduce an estimated 1.2 billion pounds of pollutants over one year. Pollution reduction totals normally show large variations from year to year, because reductions tend to be driven by the results from a few very large cases. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html. EPAs enforcement and compliance program identifies and focuses on priority environmental risks and noncompliance problems through the National Enforcement Initiatives. For example, one enforcement case under the mineral processing enforcement initiative will achieve an estimated 9.9 billion pound pollutant reduction of hazardous waste in the first year after the facility returns to compliance. Goal Two: Reset our relationship with states to make sure we are delivering on our joint commitment to a clean and healthy environment. EPA issued interim guidance on short-term actions to strengthen state performance and oversight. The Agency also began to integrate regional and state permitting and enforcement in annual planning and to integrate permitting and enforcement review results to ensure that resources are used strategically to address program performance issues in states. Integration of EPA and state enforcement was also incorporated into the Agencys Performance Partnership Agreements/Performance Partnership Grants guidance. As an example of this integration, EPA reviewed state administrative penalty authorities for water permits. Goal Three: Improve transparency EPAs work in this area is designed to make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using 21st century technologies. This will hold the government accountable through public information on state and federal performance. EPA has improved public access to compliance and enforcement program results by using global positioning system (GPS) mapping and other computer-based programs. EPAs Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) Internet site now includes a mapping tool which allows the public to view the locations of facilities that were the subject of enforcement actions. Searches on specific facilities allow the user to find historical information about specific enforcement actions, such as violations and monetary penalties. In addition, viewers can find out which facilities are located near water bodies listed as "impaired because they do not meet federal water quality standards. EPA has also provided on its website an interactive map (http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/) showing state comparative performance data for CWA minor facilities, detailed information on the current state of clean water compliance and
1315
enforcement in each state, and the latest clean water enforcement performance reports for each state. Enhancing Criminal Enforcement EPAs criminal enforcement program is focusing its resources on the most pressing environmental crimes by investigating a higher percentage of cases which have the most significant consequences based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury, human exposure, and remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic pollutants and continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation and repeat violator). This strategic shift in case selection and investigation will enhance the Agencys deterrent impact and ability to pursue aggressively pollution problems that matter to communities; increase transparency; and strengthen EPAs relationships with states, tribes, and law enforcement partnerships. In FY 2010, the Agency charged the highest number of defendants with environmental crimes since FY 2005. The criminal enforcement program also completed its three-year hiring strategy to increase to no less than 200 the number of special agents assigned to investigating environmental crimes, a minimum that the Agency will maintain in future years (there were a total of 206 agents as of September 30, 2010). Environmental Justice EPAs environmental justice goals are to protect health in low income and minority communities that suffer disproportionate environmental impacts from pollution; empower communities to take action to improve their health and environment; and establish partnerships with local, state, tribal and federal organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities. The Environmental Justice Program and Office of Childrens Health continued their collaboration to develop and implement a cross-cutting strategy that will use a variety of approachesincluding regulation, enforcement, research, outreach, community-based programs, and partnershipsto protect children and disproportionately impacted populations from environmental and human health hazards. Several of the National Enforcement Initiatives address some of the most complex and widespread problems that communities experience, such as sewer overflows, animal waste discharges into waters, and excessive air pollution from large industrial sectors. EPA continued to fund environmental justice small grants, cooperative agreements to support communities affected by major environmental disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and Environmental Justice Showcase Communities projects in all ten of its regions. Development of Performance Measures EPAs enforcement and compliance assurance program is moving from a tool-based (e.g., assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement) to an environmental problem-based (e.g., air and water) approach to addressing noncompliance and environmental harms. As part of this new approach, EPAs enforcement program is developing a suite of measures that expand its ability to communicate to the public. The suite of measures addresses:
1316
Enforcement Presence/Level-of-Effort Measures: the extent of the general enforcement and compliance assurance presence in communities. Case-Linked Outcome Indicators: the annual and long-term trends in environmental benefits resulting from EPA enforcement actions. Strategic Enforcement Measures: the results of EPAs focused efforts to address specific, high-priority problems that make a difference to communities. When viewed together, this suite of measures provides a more comprehensive understanding of the program than has been available previously. The FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan includes five-year measures for EPAs enforcement presence and outcome indicators for which EPA will develop annual performance measures for inclusion in the Annual Plan and Budget.EPA has historically relied on enforcement presence or level-of-effort measures to illustrate that EPA is actively and consistently performing the activities necessary to find polluters, take appropriate action, and monitor defendants compliance with settled enforcement cases.EPA also uses case-linked outcome indicators to communicate the environmental benefits gained from completed enforcement and compliance activities such as compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement cases. Unlike level-of-effort results, which tend to be relatively consistent on a yearly basis, these outcome measures are dominated by very large enforcement cases and will typically vary widely over time depending on the pollution problems being addressed. In FY 2011, EPA will begin phasing in a new category of measurementstrategic enforcement measuresdesigned to demonstrate progress toward achieving its national enforcement goal of aggressively going after specific pollution problems that matter to communities. To launch this effort, EPAs enforcement program will focus initially on developing measures that demonstrate progress toward its six national enforcement initiative goals. EPA will develop strategic measures that chart our progress in addressing these significant compliance problems, recognizing that the measures, like the solutions, will vary with the problem. The enforcement program will make these initial strategic enforcement measures publicly available during FY 2011 and will use the information gained from the implementation of these measures to guide the development of future measures. Explanation of the Missed Measures EPA prosecuted and successfully settled a number of major enforcement cases in 2010, reducing air pollution by approximately 410 million lbs. The target of 480 million lbs was not ultimately reached because of several factors. First, as a result of our limited statutory administrative authorities, EPA must refer the vast majority of its cases to DOJ for prosecution. EPA currently has a robust pipeline of, and continues to develop, cases for referral to DOJ. However, EPA has only a modest ability to influence the speed at which a case moves through the courts. Although most cases settle, it is the proximity to trial or resolution of critical issues that often spurs a settlement. Second, in FY 2010, the pace of settlements slowed as companies faced greater challenges in securing financing for expensive pollution controls due to the state of the economy, leading to more lengthy negotiations. Finally, in the air national enforcement initiative areas, EPA typically targets the largest facilities first, resulting in larger pounds of pollutants reduced in
1317
the earlier stages of the initiative, and smaller facilities second, resulting in smaller pounds of pollution reduced in the later stages of the initiative. The FY 2010 pollution reduction numbers are still large and important to air quality but in a well targeted program the expectation is pounds of pollution reduced from targeted facilities should either stay level or decrease in future years. The criminal enforcement program measure on the percent of recidivism was missed. Three cases out of 198 cases exhibited recidivism for a result of 1.5 percent. That result was rounded up to 2 percent. This measure will not be continued in FY 2011. Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Estimated Millions of Pounds of Pollution Reduced Through Enforcement Action
4500 4000 3500
million pounds
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2006 2007 2008* 2009 2010 target results
*2008 results anomalous due to small number of large cases. Normalized level represents more typical trend. Background: EPA secures commitments for future pollution controls to reduce, treat, or eliminate millions of pounds of pollution through enforcement actions. Pollution reduction totals can vary significantly from year to year because total reductions are driven by the results from a few very large cases. This measure was originally selected to track performance toward the longterm goal of the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan because a 5 percent increase in pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities was the target of the objective goal. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.
1318
Trend: The average estimated number of pounds of pollution reduced through enforcement has 63 been approximately 851 million pounds for each of the past four years, exceeding target values for this measure most years. The results for FY 2010 are higher than three of the past four years and are higher than the average for the past four years. The FY 2010 pollutant reduction levels are consistent with the long-term trends for this measure. Assessing the trend for this performance measure requires consideration of the following factors: Results are driven by a small number of large cases. For example, in FY 2010 the top five water cases accounted for approximately 74 percent of the water pollutant reductions and the top five air cases accounted for approximately 85 percent of the air pollutant reductions. FY 2008 was an anomaly 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 CAA and four under the CWA. These five cases accounted for 2,900 million of the 3,900 million pounds. Otherwise, the total would have been in the range of what was accomplished in the previous four years as well as in FY 2009.As explained in the FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report, the FY 2008 actual value was normalized to account for the extraordinary pollutant reductions by just a few cases. Average pollutant reductions from similar facilities were substituted for the results for those five cases. The FY 2009 result was lower than expected due to the downturn in the construction industry and fewer new source review/prevention of significant deterioration cases brought to conclusion by DOJ. Using the normalized results for FY 2008 and despite the variability in case results, the case totals for four of the five years fell within a 15 percent range. Much of the progress in pollutant reductions is a result of the focus on National Enforcement Initiatives.64Those initiatives are selected for their environmental significance and high noncompliance. The FY 2010 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. While pollutant reduction from cases brought under the enforcement initiatives generally leads the progress for this measure that is not always the case. For example, air toxics cases tend to produce smaller amounts of pollution reduced; however, those pollutants pose significant health and environmental risk. That risk was a key factor in air toxics being selected as a national enforcement initiative.
63
FY 2008 pollutant reduction results were normalized to account for abnormally high reductions from a few unprecedented cases.
64
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/data/planning/initiatives/index.html.
1319
As EPA addresses the largest pollutant problems within the National Initiative areas, it is likely that the air and water pollutant reduction totals will decrease over time. New reporting categories for FY 2010 allow the calculation of the pollutant reductions of hazardous waste cases in pounds. However, to maintain the long-term trend analysis, the values for hazardous waste pollutant reductions have not been added to FY 2010 total shown in the table above. The long term trend value for FY 2010 includes air, water, toxics, and pesticide case pollutant reductions. Performance Quality Data: To satisfy GPRA, the Agencys information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, the OECA instituted a semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, the Office of Compliance, within OECA, has an established quarterly data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPAs enforcement and compliance information. Most of the essential data on environmental results in the ICIS Federal Enforcement & Compliance (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 Sheets 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.
1320
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Objective 4
Objective 3
Objective 2 $112,087.60 14%
Objective 1
The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act established a national environmental policy of preventing pollution before it is generated. EPA is enhancing cross-Agency efforts to advance sustainable practices, safer chemicals and products, cleaner, more environmentally sustainable processes and practices. The objective of the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program is to promote elimination or reduction of pollution at the source and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals. Partial results available for FY 2010 are reviewed in detail below. Complete FY 2009 performance results, which became available in FY 2010, document that 605.61 million pounds of hazardous materials were reduced, 1.618MMTCO2E were conserved, and 4,671.2 billion gallons of water were conserved, saving a total of $176.53 million. P2 Program Achievements The P2 Program achieves results by advancing a variety of proven strategies and making them available to participants. Strategies include establishing voluntary consensus standards to identify green products for consumers; providing P2 technical assistance to businesses and other entities; developing greener and safer chemical substitutes; developing leaner and greener technologies and processes; leveraging federal and 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 programs include P2 Technical Assistance, the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP), Green Suppliers Network, Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering, and Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare.
1321
P2 Technical Assistance The P2 Program provides technical assistance to businesses and other entities through grants (awarded and managed by EPAs 10 regional offices) to states, tribes, and other organizations.65According to latest available data in FY 2009, regional pollution prevention programs awarded 49 state and tribal Assistance Grants and 25 Source Reduction Assistance Grants, resulting in 23.641 million pounds of hazardous materials reductions, 4077.79 million gallons of water conserved, 0.43MMTCO2E conservation, and $110.74 million of cost savings. Through the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2RX), technical assistance and information is provided directly to businesses and indirectly through a network of state and tribal technical assistance providers.66 These centers also manage a data collection system for states to enter program results. To account for the contributions made by these centers, they are assigned 10 percent of state results reported through this system that are not attributable to EPAs P2 Grants. FY 2008 and FY 2009 EPA and state P2 results data made final in FY 2010 document that the P2 Programs technical assistance efforts reduced 353.841 million pounds of hazardous materials, 88881.99 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and 1.964 billion gallons of water saved, and saved $215.64 billion. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Environmentally Preferable Purchasing is a federal government-wide program that implements presidential EOs 13423 and 13514,67which require federal agencies to purchase environmentally preferable products and services, and assists agencies in meeting the EO requirements. The program has been active most recently in the electronics sector, partnering with 19 federal agencies through the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC). These agencies have 252 partner facilities and cover more than 761,000 federal employees. Finalized in FY 2010, the FY 2009 data for the FEC demonstrate that the federal government reduced 0.34 MMTCO2E reduced 9.99 million pounds of hazardous materials, and saved $46.68 million through pollution prevention actions.68 The EPP Program also employs the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)69 to identify environmentally preferable electronic products and is working with the Green Electronics Council to promote the purchase of these products. FY 2010 results show that the purchase of EPEAT-assessed computer products reduced 310 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, reduced 14 million pounds of hazardous materials, and saved $63.3 million.70
65 66
EPA P2 Grant Program website: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm EPA P2RX fact sheet: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppin/factsheet.htm 67 EPP EOs: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/guidance/executiveorders.htm 68 Results for EPP come from the FEC and EPEAT. FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting information from FEC partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator (EEBC) to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. Manufacturers of EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered products to the Green Electronics Council (GEC). The EPP team obtains this data from the GEC, runs these sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. 69 EPEAT website: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/epeat.htm 70 Results for EPP come from the FEC and EPEAT. FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting information from FEC partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. Manufacturers of EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered products to the GEC.
1322
In conjunction with EPAs Office of Policy, in FY 2010 the EPP Program also made significant progress in implementing its strategy for promoting adoption of green building practices 71 through development of key voluntary consensus standards, including the U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Rating System; the National Association of Home Builders Green Building Standard; the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 189; Green Globes; and National Science Foundation sustainability standards on carpet, textiles, furniture, wall-coverings, and other building products. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/epp/. Green Suppliers Network The Green Suppliers Network is collaboration between EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and industry to help all levels of the manufacturing supply chain achieve environmental and economic benefits. The Green Suppliers Network leverages the Department of Commerce manufacturing extension partnership centers and state pollution prevention experts to offer manufacturers clean production technical assistance to improve their productivity, efficiency, and environmental performance. In FY 2010, the Green Suppliers Network completed 46 partner reviews, with 62 reviews currently in process and 19 partner leads identified. In 2010 each Green Suppliers Network review identified potential reductions of 0.44 million pounds of hazardous materials, 0.216 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and 20.56 million gallons of water conserved, and $4.31 million saved. A year after these reviews, the manufacturing extension partnership centers follow up with the facilities, and soon thereafter results information is captured in the partnership survey. These results will be reported in the FY 2011 APR. An important element of the Green Supplier Network is Economy, Energy, and Environment (E3), a coordinated federal and local initiative enabling the industrial sector to adapt and thrive in a new business era focused on sustainability. E3 is boosting local economies and benefiting communities by reducing environmental impacts, reducing overall waste and increasing savings. Linda Jordan, the CFO of UEMC, was quick to comment that E3 is about much more than just saving the company money and energy. Jordan stated the impact reaches far beyond energy, dollars or the environment. It is about people and community. When tricetylmethyl ammonium chloride (TMAC) conducted our E3 assessment last year we had 100 people employed on the floor. We are now up to 200 employees with plans to grow to 240.Every dollar that we dont have to spend on wasted energy or materials is one more dollar that we have available to invest in our workforce. E3 provides small- and medium-sized manufacturers with lean and clean manufacturing, energy use, and GHG assessments 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 Technologys Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, DOE, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of
The EPP team obtains this data from the GEC, runs these sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis.
71
EPA Green Building Web site: www.epa.gov/greenbuilding
1323
Labor (DOL) to conduct the E3 program. In FY 2010, EPA began to phase out the federal cost share of the E3 assessments because of increasing understanding of the economic benefits they provide. The initiative has evolved from pilot projects conducted in FY 2009 and FY 2010 in Columbus, Ohio, and San Antonio, Texas, to include additional efforts initiated in FY 2010 in Alabama, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and parts of Michigan and North Carolina. Ohio and Texas have adopted statewide expansions of E3 efforts. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program recognizes innovations in greener chemical product and process design, development, and implementation.72 In FY 2010, the 15th year of the program, EPA recognized five winning entries from more than 77 nominations from businesses and academia in three focus areas: 1) greener synthetic pathways, 2) greener reaction conditions, and 3) the design of greener chemicals. Since program inception, winning technologies have been responsible for reducing the use of more than 198 million pounds of hazardous chemicals, saving 21 billion gallons of water, and eliminating 57 million pounds of CO2 releases to the air. Design for the Environment (DfE) Program EPAs Design for the Environment program partners with businesses, environmental nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders to design or redesign products, processes, and environmental management systems that are cleaner, more cost-effective, and safer for workers and the public. The Safer Product Labeling Program allows safer products to carry the DfE label, which helps consumers quickly identify and choose products that are safer and can help protect the environment. In FY 2010, the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program authorized its logo for use on more than 500 additional products from about 100 manufacturers, raising the total number of products bearing the label to more than 2,000 products, helping consumers identify safer products in making more informed purchasing decisions. Tens of millions of DfE products have been sold to consumers and institutional purchasers, reducing use of more than 620 million pounds of hazardous materials in 2010. In FY 2010, the DfE program conducted 18 best practices training and compliance assistance workshops for the automotive refinishing industry, reaching 1,432 auto-refinishing professionals. EPA estimates that the 343 shops implementing best practices could reduce 240,000 pounds of air toxics and particulates annually and save about $1.5 million in operational costs through the Design for Environmental emission reduction calculator for the automotive refinishing industry.73 Particulates reduced include diisocyanates (the leading attributable chemical cause of work-related asthma), hexavalent chromium, and lead. Green Engineering
72 73
Green Chemistry Program website: www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/. DfE emission reduction calculator: www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/auto/.
1324
The Green Engineering Program collaborates with other EPA offices, academia, and industry to incorporate environmentally beneficial engineering approaches and tools, such as life cycle assessment and risk-based tools, in engineering processes. In FY 2010, the Green Engineering Program developed the Solvent Decision Support Tool, which estimates reductions in energy use, GHGs, and other emissions to various media for the recovery of solvent streams, and cost savings. Using this tool for Puerto Rico pharmaceutical and solvent operations, the Green Engineering Program calculated that recovering just one solvent stream from Puerto Rico would result in reductions of 135 billion British thermal units (BTUs), 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and a cost savings of up to $6 million.74 The Green Engineering Program will begin pilot activities using the Solvent Decision Support Tool in FY 2011. The program has nearly completed an update of the Green Engineering textbook in 2010, with publication75planned for 2011. As of September 2010, about 45 chemical engineering departments at U.S. universities have either used the textbook as their primary course textbook or have incorporated it into other chemical engineering courses. The textbook also has also been used in engineering curricula in China, Australia, Singapore, Mexico, and Canada. For additional information see: www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/.
74
Practical Applications of Green Engineering: Solvent Recovery / Reuse in Pharmaceutical Processes, Solvent Recovery Presentation and Webinar to Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, August 19, 2010. 75 Prentice-Hall, November 7, 2010. (AIChE, short course)
1325
Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity

Objective 3 $85,703.60 10% Objective 4
FY 2010 Performance Measures: Objective 5.3 Met =3 Not Met = 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 = 0 (Total = 3)
EPA provides funds to federally-recognized tribes to plan, develop, and establish environmental protection programs. The Agencys Indian GAP is its core component for building tribal capacity. In 2010, 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 Agencys efforts to improve human health and the environment in Indian Country. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/Indian/gap.htm Environmental Programs in Indian Country In FY 2010, the Agency met its three externally-reported tribal performance measures. For the first measure, EPA continued to implement its Treatment in the Same Manner as a State (TAS) strategy, which streamlines the program approval process for establishing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian Country. The Agency met its FY 2010 target of 14 percent of tribes receiving this approval. Under its second tribal measure, EPA met its FY 2010 target of 42 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 Project Plans. Finally, EPA met its cumulative target of 65 percent of tribes having 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 III Tribal Environmental Agreements; established laws, codes, regulations, or ordinances 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.
1326
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. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/indian/laws/tas.htm Tribal Consultation Policy Released In addition to the externally-reported performance results achieved in FY 2010, EPA has worked closely and consistently with its tribal and federal partners to develop and implement President Obama's directive on Tribal Consultation.76 This policy will result in broad consultation and coordination with tribes, thus strengthening the partnership between tribes and EPA. To date, the Agency has developed an action plan, sought out and addressed comments, and is in the final stages of developing its Tribal Consultation Policy. EPA anticipates implementing this policy in FY 2011, once the policy is finalized. The policy will ensure consistent implementation of EPA's 1984 Indian Policy (http://www.epa.gov/indian/pdf/indian-policy-84.pdf) and Executive Order 13175 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2000.html).
76
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-tribal-consultation-signed-president.
1327

Objective 4 $64,015.20 8%
Objective 3
EPAs research programs help provide a sound scientific foundation for the decision to promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes. Research develops and evaluates new methods, approaches (decision-support tools), and technologies that stakeholders within and outside the Agency can use to advance sustainable production processes and land management practices. Promoting Innovation EPAs People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) program builds capacity for future generations by challenging interdisciplinary student teams to work together in designing and building sustainable technologies that improve quality of life, promote economic development, and protect the environment. In FY 2010, the P3 program awarded 55 competitive grants to college and university student teams across the country to design creative solutions to sustainability challenges in the developed and developing world. Phase 1 awards of $10,000 were granted to teams who developed solutions spanning media such as water, energy, built environment, and materials and chemicals. A subset of teams was selected for Phase 2 awards of $75,000 to further their designs, implement them in the field, and/or move them to the marketplace. All P3 grant designs were showcased at an April 2010 Sustainability Expo Event on the National Mall. Metrics for Sustainability Metrics or environmental indicators are crucial for defining and advancing sustainability. In collaboration with EPAs Region 8, EPAs Sustainability Research Program defined and tested the use of four sustainability metrics that captured the social, economic, and environmental components of a system. These include environmental footprint, as characterized by ecological footprint; economic well-being as ascertained from green net regional product; energy flow
1328
through the system as computed from an energy analysis; and dynamic order estimated from the computation of Fisher information.77 These metrics were applied to the San Luis Basin, a sevencounty rural region Colorado, for the period from 1980 to 2005. Federal, state, and local officials are using the results of this study to determine if the overall ecosystem is moving toward or away from sustainability. A second study applied to a more urban area has been launched in Puerto Rico. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/news/022010/news022010.html. Assessing Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Production and Use Under the Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA reports to Congress every three years on the potential environmental impacts of biofuel production and makes recommendations for protecting the environment. With new funding of $5 million in FY 2010, EPA launched a new biofuel research program. Research planning was based on critical EPA program and regional office needs and on advancing life cycle analysis and multidisciplinary research. EPA also prepared its first mandated Biofuel Report to Congress.
77
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/seb/research.html.
1329
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, tribes, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes. OBJECTIVE: 5.1: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED COMPLIANCE Address environmental problems, promote compliance and deter violations, by achieving goals for national priorities and programs including those with potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country. PMs Met 7 PMs Not Met 2 Data Available After February 7, 2011 0 Total PMs 9
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.1: Address Environmental Problems from Air Pollution Address Environmental Problems from Air Pollution Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 2,500 million estimated cumulative pounds of air pollutants. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 480 410 Million air pollutants through concluded Pounds enforcement actions. Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 480 million pounds Explanation - EPA settled multiple major enforcement cases in FY 2010.Many more cases remain in the pipeline. Factors that affected the results were DOJ case backlog and the ability of companies to agree to required controls due to the downturn in the economy. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution for air by 810 entities. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include entities that change
1330
their behavior due to enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and federal inspections that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit). FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (401) Total number of regulated 127 254 Entities entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for air as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions. Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 151 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits. Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the results. This measure will not be continued for FY 2011. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.2: Address Environmental Problems from Water Pollution Address Environmental Problems from Water Pollution Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 1,600 million estimated cumulative pounds of water pollutants.(Note: When reporting results for the pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated, EPA will break out the "environmentally significant" water pollutants that affect the top five to 10 causes of impairment to waters. For this measure, these "environmentally significant" pollutants are nutrients (with related environmental effects), mercury, other metals, sediment/turbidity, toxic organics, and salinity. Other environmentally significant water pollutants that are not measured in pounds will be normatively characterized.
1331
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 320 1,000 Million water pollutants through Pounds concluded enforcement actions. Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 320 million pounds. Explanation - Each year a small number of big cases provide the majority of pollutant reductions, which makes setting targets for pollutant reduction measures highly uncertain. This year just eight of the cases provided 85 percent of the pollutant reductions. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution for water by 3,300 entities. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include entities that change their behavior due to enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and federal inspections that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit). FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (403) Total number of regulated 608 1,361 Entities entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for water as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions. Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 626 entities. Results reported under this measure include enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits. Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the results. This measure will not be continued for FY 2011.
1332
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.3: Address Environmental Problems from Waste, Toxics, and Pesticides Pollution Address Environmental Problems from Waste, Toxics, and Pesticides Pollution Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 19 million estimated cumulative pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants(Note: EPA is analyzing methods for reporting out "environmentally significant" pollutants for the pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated). FY 2007 FY 2008 Annual Performance Measures and Target Actual Target Actual Baselines (404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate toxics and pesticides through concluded enforcement actions. Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 3.8 million pounds. FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 3.8 8.3
Unit Million Pounds
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 32,000 million estimated cumulative pounds of hazardous waste. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 6,500 11,800 Million hazardous waste through Pounds concluded enforcement actions. Baseline - FY 2008 baseline: 6,500 million pounds. Explanation - Each year a small number of big cases provide the majority of pollutant reductions, which makes setting targets for pollutant reduction measures highly uncertain. This year just two cases provided over 99 percent of the pollutant reductions. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution for waste, toxics, and pesticides by 1,300. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and federal inspections that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit).
1333
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (406) Total number of regulated 213 775 Entities entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for land as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions. Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 235 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits. Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the results. This measure will not be continued for FY 2011. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.4: Criminal Enforcement Criminal Enforcement Strategic Target (1) By 2014, increase the severity of the crimes investigated (as measured by the percent of open high impact cases). Strategic Target (2) By 2014, there will be an annual recidivism rate of <1 percent. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (407) Percent of recidivism. <1 2 Percent Baseline - FY 1998-2009 average baseline: <1 percent. Explanation - three cases out of 198 had recidivism. (1.5 percent rounded to 2 percent). This measure will not be continued in FY 2011.
1334
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, 37 percent of closed cases will have a criminal enforcement consequence (indictment, conviction, fine, or penalty). FY 2007 FY 2008 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual (408) Percent of closed cases with criminal enforcement consequences (indictment, conviction, fine, or penalty). Baseline - FY 2006-2008 average baseline: 33 percent. FY 2009 Target Actual FY 2010 Target Actual 33 35
Unit Percent
Strategic Target (4) By 2014, 82 percent of charged cases will have an individual that was charged. (FY 2006-2008 baseline: 78 percent). OBJECTIVE: 5.2: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OTHER STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES By 2014, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals. PMs Met 1 PMs Not Met 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 5 Total PMs 6
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship Strategic Target (1) By 2014, reduce 20 billion pounds of hazardous materials cumulatively compared to the 2006 baseline of 0.46 billion pounds.
1335
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (264) Pounds of hazardous 414 M 386.1 M 429 M 469.8 M 494 M 605.6 M 1,625 M Data Pounds materials reduced by P2 program Avail participants. 11/2011 Baseline - Baseline is 4.8 billion pounds reduced through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols. (297) MTCO2e reduced, N/A 1. 47 M N/A 1.014 M 2M 1.618 M 5.9 M Data MTCO2e conserved, or offset by P2 Avail program participants. 11/2011 Baseline - Baseline is 6.5 MMTC02e reduced through 2008 according to reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols. Strategic Target (2) By 2014, reduce, conserve, or offset 115 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02E) compared to the 2006 baseline amount of 1.2 MMTCE reduced, conserved, or offset. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (261) BTUs of energy reduced, 1,106.8 6,746.3 1,217.4 7,106 B 8,000 B 9,776.6 15,000 B Data BTUs conserved or offset by P2 program B B B B Avail participants. 11/2011 Baseline - Baseline is zero BTUs reduced in FY 2002 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols. Strategic Target (3) By 2014, reduce water use by 190 billion gallons compared to the 2006 baseline amount of 2.3 billion gallons reduced.
1336
Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (262) Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants.
FY 2010 Target Actual Unit 26.2 B Data Gallons Avail 11/2011 Baseline - Baseline is 51.3 billion gallons reduced through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols.
FY 2007 Target Actual 1,790 M 1.75 B
FY 2008 Target Actual 1.64 B 21.18 B
FY 2009 Target Actual 1.79 B 4.67 B
Strategic Target (4) By 2014, save $14 billion through pollution prevention improvements in business, institutional, and government costs cumulatively compared to the 2006 baseline of $2.1 billion dollars saved. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (263) Business, institutional and 44.3 M 282.7 M 45.9 M 227.2 M 130 M 276.5 M 1,060 M Data Dollars government costs reduced by P2 Avail Saved program participants. 11/2011 Baseline - Baseline is 3.1 billion dollars saved through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols. Strategic Target (5) By 2014, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals as measured by the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities program, Supplemental Environmental Projects, and contributions from other tools used by EPA to achieve chemical reductions throughout the lifecycle of products.
1337
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (PB5) Number of pounds of 0.5 1.30 1.0 5.70 1.0 7.05 0.75 3.7 Million priority chemicals reduced from Pounds all phases of the manufacturing lifecycle through source reduction and/or recycling. Baseline - In FY 2006, 1.28 million pounds of priority list chemicals were reduced. Explanation - Over 2 million pounds of the total reduction is due to a single partner accomplishing far more than pledged in FY 2010. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.2: Business and Community Innovation Business and Community Innovation Strategic Target (1) By 2014, the participating manufacturing and service sectors in the Sector Strategies Program will achieve an aggregate 8 percent reduction in environmental releases to air, water, and land, working from a 2006 baseline and normalized to reflect economic growth. SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.3: Promote Environmental Policy Innovation Promote Environmental Policy Innovation Strategic Target (1) By 2014, at least 75 percent of innovation projects completed each year 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.(Note: 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: 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.
1338
PMs Met 3
PMs Not Met 0
Data Available After February 7, 2011 0
Total PMs 3
1339
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.3.1: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country Strategic Target (1) By 2014, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country by 18 percent. (FY 2008 baseline: 6 percent of 572 tribes). FY 2007 FY 2008 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual (5PQ) Percent of tribes 6 14.16 implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian Country (cumulative). Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 5 percent of 574 tribes. FY 2009 Target Actual 7 12.6 FY 2010 Target Actual 14 14
Unit Percent Tribes
Strategic Target (2) By 2014, increase the percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country by 50 percent. FY 2007 FY 2008 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual (5PR) Percent of Tribes 21 42.31 conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian Country (cumulative). Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 20 percent of 574 tribes. FY 2009 Target Actual 23 40 FY 2010 Target Actual 42 49.3
Unit Percent Tribes
Strategic Target (3) By 2014, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program by 73 percent.
1340
FY 2007 FY 2008 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual (5PS) Percent of tribes with an 57 57 environmental program (cumulative). Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 54 percent of 574 tribes.
Unit Percent Tribes
OBJECTIVE: 5.4: ENHANCE SOCIETY'S CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology development, and sustainable systems. The products of this research will provide critical and key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving complex multimedia problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders. PMs Met 3 PMs Not Met 0 Data Available After February 7, 2011 0 Total PMs 3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.4.1: Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) STS Strategic Target (1) By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for preventing pollution, promoting environmental stewardship, and encouraging innovation.
1341
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit (I28) Percentage of planned 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent outputs delivered in support of STSs goal that decision makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability. Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 100 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. (I29) Percentage of planned 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and methodologies. Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 75 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. (I30) Percentage of planned 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent outputs delivered in support of STS goal that decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD. Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 75 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. No Target No Target (I31) Percentage of STS Biennial 35.3 35.4 Biennial Percent Established Established publications in "high impact" journals. Baseline - In FY 2005, the program established a baseline of 30.4 percent of publications referenced in "high impact" journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR.
1342
EPAS ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS PMs Met 8 HUMAN CAPITAL Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (005) Average time to hire Senior Executive Service (SES) positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is extended, expressed in working days FY 2007 Target Actual 90 66 FY 2008 Target Actual 73 66 FY 2009 Target Actual 68 58.8 FY 2010 Target Actual 68 Data Not Avail PMs Not Met 3 Data Available After February 7, 2011 0 Total PMs 11
Unit Days
Baseline - Baseline of 66 days was established in FY 2007. Explanation - The percentage of GS employees (DEU) hired within 80 calendar days is 7.8 percent. Please note that this measure was changed and agreed to by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to read "DEU positions" instead of "SES positions." While EPA did not reach its ambitious FY 2010 goals, EPA has established a 2010 Hiring Reform Action Plan aligned with the President's six hiring reform initiatives. These actions, once implemented, should move the Agency toward a more streamlined and effective hiring process, increase the quality of applicants, and provide for greater management involvement and accountability throughout the hiring process. (004) Average time to hire nonSES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is extended, expressed in working days 45 28.30 45 26.3 45 30.1 45 Data Not Avail Days
Baseline Baseline of 28.3 was established in FY 2007.
1343
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Explanation - The percentage of GS employees (other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days is 15.5 percent. Please note that this measure was changed and agreed to by OMB to read "non-DEU positions" instead of "non-SES positions." While EPA did not reach its ambitious FY 2010 goals, EPA has established a 2010 Hiring Reform Action Plan aligned with the President's six hiring reform initiatives. These actions, once implemented, should move the Agency towards a more streamlined and effective hiring process, increase quality of applicants, and provide for greater management involvement and accountability throughout the hiring process. FRAUD DETECTOIN AND DETERRENCE Annual Performance Measures and Baselines (35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions (ARRA measure)* FY 2007 Target Actual 80 103 FY 2008 Target Actual 80 84 FY 2009 Target Actual 80 95 FY 2010 Target Actual 75 115
Unit Actions
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions. (098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption 6 9 9 13 12 18 15 18.3 Percent
Baseline - On January 24, 2007, the President signed the EO "Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, requiring all federal agencies to reduce their GHG intensity and energy use by 3 percent annually through FY 2015. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption was 346,518 BTUs per square foot. (35A) Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction. (ARRA measure)* 318 464 334 463 318 272 334 391 Actions
* The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly.
1344
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Annual Performance Measures and Baselines Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Unit Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 564 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction. (35B) Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action (ARRA measure)* 925 949 971 624 903 983 903 945 Recommend ations
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html#quarterly. Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 885 environmental and business risks or recommendations identified for corrective action. (35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations 150 189 150 186 120 150 120 30 Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 150 percent in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget, from savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements. Explanation - Return on investment equals nearly $20 million. Target of $65 million (120 percent of OIG budget) not met as resources normally devoted to contract and grant audits and investigations were redeployed to ARRA oversight.
1345
INFORMATION EXCHANGE NETWORK 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 (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 (054) Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA FY 2007 Target 36 Actual 37 FY 2008 Target 45 Actual 48 FY 2009 Target 50 Actual 55 FY 2010 Target 60 Actual 60 Unit Systems
Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there was no data flows using the CDX. 55 57 55 59 60 59 65 69 Users
Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no nodes for states or tribes. 55,000 88,516 100,000 127,575 130,000 184,109 210,000 231,700 Users
Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no users.
1346
INFORMATION SECURITY (408) Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that are certified and accredited 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Baseline - FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to federal agencies and to the National Institutes of Technologies and Standards (NIST) to strengthen information system security. This continued goal, as required by Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), is for the agency to achieve a continuous goal of 100 percent security.
1347
FY 2010 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change Program Federal Support for Air Quality Manageme nt Measure
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process State Implementati on Plan revisions, weighted by complexity
FY07 Target 0
FY07 Actual 0
FY08 Target -1.2
FY08 Actual -3.3
FY09 Target -2.4
FY09 Actual -18
FY 2010 Target -2.9
FY 2010 Actual Data Avail 12/2011
Units Percentage
Baseline The 2007 baseline is 0 days. Cumulative Federal 21 percent Support reduction in for Air the number Quality of days with Manageme (AQI values over 100 nt
since 2003 per grant dollar allocated to the states in support of the NAAQS
31.1
25
34.4
29
31.2
33
Data Avail 12/2011
Percentage
Baseline The 2003 baseline is 0 days. Tons of Federal 0.01 pollutants Vehicle (VOC, NOX, and Fuels M, CO) Standards reduced per
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
.011
0.011
Data Avail 12/2011
Tons/Doll ar
1348
Program and Certificati on
Measure
total emission reduction dollars spent (both EPA and private industry)
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
Baseline The 2004 baseline is 0.016 tons/dollar. (r11) Total Indoor No Target Biennial cost (public Air: Radon Established and private) Program per future
premature cancer death prevented through lowered radon exposure.
Biennial
415,000
412,000
Biennial
Dollars
Baseline The 2003 baseline is $495,000. (r13) Average Reduce No Target Biennial cost to EPA Risks from per student per Established Indoor Air year in a
school that is implementing an indoor air quality plan.
Biennial
1.40
Data Not Avail
Biennial
Dollars
Baseline The 2003 baseline is $6.00. Explanation: EPA has collaborated with CDC to integrate the measures into the CDC Schools Health Policies and Programs Survey conducted every six years (most recently in 2006). The next survey will be conducted in 2012. Reduce (r12) No Target Biennial No Target Biennial 3.90 Data Not No Target Biennial Dollars Risks from Annual Established Established Avail Established Indoor Air cost to EPA per person
1349
Program
Measure
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
with asthma taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environme ntal asthma triggers Baseline The 2003 baseline is $25.10. Explanation: Data not available because the survey was not funded. The next Asthma Supplement of the National Health Interview Survey is expected to be fielded by the CDC in 2013 and 2018. HHRA Average 5,533 3,796 No Target Biennial 4,235,000 Data Average cost to Established Avail Cost in produce 03/2011 Dollars Air Quality Criteria/Sc ience Assessmen t documents 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. Radiation: Time to 40 43 46 50 53 46 53 Data Percentage Protection approve Avail site 12/2011
1350
Program
Measure
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
changes affecting waste characteriz ation at DOE waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP (measured as percentage reduction from a 2004 baseline) Baseline The 2003 baseline is 0 (150 days). Radiation: (R38) 4,159,000 4,418,000 Protection Population
covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million dollars invested
4,729,000
4,536,000
5,254,000
5,228,000
5,779,900
Data Avail 12/2011
People per Million Dollars
1351
Program
FY07 FY07 Target Actual Baseline The 2003 baseline is 3,033,000 people. Radiation: Average 1.3 1.3 time of Response availability Preparedn of quality ess assured
ambient radiation air monitoring data during an emergency
Measure
FY08 Target 1
FY08 Actual 0.8
FY09 Target 0.8
FY09 Actual 0.8
FY 2010 Target 0.7
Units
Days
Baseline The 2003 baseline is 2.5 days. Tons of Climate No Target GHG Protection Established emissions Program (MMTCE)
prevented per societal dollar in the building sector.
MTCE per Dollar
Baseline - Not Applicable Tons of Climate No Target Protection GHG Established emissions Program (MMTCE)
prevented per societal dollar in the industry sector
MTCE per Dollar
Baseline - Not applicable Climate Tons of No Target GHG Protection Established emissions Program
MTCE per Dollar
1352
Program
Measure
(MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in the transportatio n sector
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
Baseline - Not applicable Clean Air Reduction No Target Allowance in Established Trading exposure Programs to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per total dollar spent on SO2 emission reduction (personmicrogram / m3 per dollar [2003 $]) Baseline - Not applicable Federal Tons of U/D Support of toxicityAir Toxics weighted (for cancer and
PersonMicrogra m per m3 per Dollar
U/D
U/D
U/D
Tons
1353
Program
Measure
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
noncancer risk) emissions reduced per total cost ($) Baseline Not applicable Stratosphe Total 525 ric Ozone: federal Domestic dollars Programs spent per school joining the SunWise Program Baseline The 2004 baseline is $693.
484
485
414
455
385
433
Data Avail 12/2011
Dollars per School
1354
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water Program Measure FY07 Target 285 FY07 Actual 331 FY08 Target 332 FY08 Actual 332 FY09 Target 368 FY09 Actual 368 FY 2010 Target 371 FY 2010 Actual 371 Units Pounds of Pollutants
Loading (pounds) of Surface pollutants Water removed Protection per program dollar expended Baseline In 2004, 122 lb of pollutants were removed per program dollar expended. (Opc) 60 29 45 70 50 Number of homes that received Alaska improved Native service per Villages $1 million of state and federal funding Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 40 homes that received improved service in 2004. Categorica Cost per 615,694 589,455 643,119 547,676 708,276 impaired l Grant: water Pollution segment Control (Sec. 106) now fully
attaining standards
27
50
Data Avail 3/2011
Homes
570,250
771,000
581,231
Dollars/ Segment
Baseline - In 2004, the cost per impaired water segment now fully attaining standards was $1,544,998.
1355
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration Program Measure FY07 Target 30.5 FY07 Actual 23.4 FY08 Target 29 FY08 Actual 23.3 FY09 Target 28 FY09 Actual 22.73 FY 2010 Target 27 FY 2010 Actual Data Avail 2011 Units
Average time Days (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond to Land requests for Protection technical and document Restoration review, Research statistical analysis, and evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans 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.
1356
Program
Measure
Percent increase of final remedy components RCRA constructed at Corrective RCRA Action corrective action facilities per federal, state, and private sector Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 0.07 final remedy components constructed per million dollars.
FY07 Target 3
FY07 Actual 6.2
FY08 Target 3
FY08 Actual 7
FY09 Target 3
FY09 Actual 39.6
FY 2010 Target 3
FY 2010 Actual -9.2
Units Percent
Explanation - The FY 2010 target was 0.77 components per million dollars and the program achieved 0.925. Since the FY 2009 result was unexpectedly high at 1.019 (39.6 percent increase), the FY 2010 result, when reported as a year-to-year percentage, appears to be a drop in efficiency. The Corrective Action programs efficiency has increased by 33 percent overall from the FY 2006 baseline year to FY 2010. Number of 2 3.36 3.64 3.72 3.68 3.75 3.72 3.91 Percent facilities with RCRA Base, new or updated Permits, and controls per Grants million dollars of program cost Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 3.1 facilities under control (permitted) per million dollars of permitting cost. Superfund: Superfund-lead 0.92 1.04 0.93 1.049 0.94 1.298 .95 1.966 Removals Emergency removal actions Response completed and annually per Removal million dollars Baseline - In FY 2004, there were 0.87 removal actions annually per million dollars. Explanation - In FY 2010 EPA had 188 removal actions with financial data. For those actions, a total of $95,629,123 was obligated.
1357
Program
Measure
Human Superfund exposures Remedial under control Action per million dollars Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 6.1 human exposures under control per million dollars, and in FY 2005, there were 5.7. Program 960 846 920 898 813 696 813 1,034 dollars expended Superfund: annually per Federal operable unit Facilities completing cleanup activities Baseline - In FY 2004, program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing cleanup was $1.207 million Gallons of oil No Target Biennial 90,000 152,165 No Target Measure No Target Measure spilled to Established Established reported Established reported navigable on 3on 3 Oil Spill: waters per year year Prevention, million cycle cycle Preparedness program dollars and spent annually Response on prevention and preparedness at FRP facilities Baseline - Not applicable.
FY07 Target 6.1
FY07 Actual 6.9
FY08 Target 6.4
FY08 Actual 7.6
FY09 Target 6.7
FY09 Actual 8.5
FY 2010 Target 7.0
FY 2010 Actual 7.9
Units Thousand
Thousand
Gallons
1358
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Program

Chesapeake Bay
Measure
Total nitrogen reduction practices implementa tion achieved as a result of agricultural best managemen t practice implementa tion per million dollars to implement agricultural BMPs78
FY07 Target 47,031
FY07 Actual 43,529
FY08 Target 48,134
FY08 Actual 45,533
FY09 Target 49,237
FY09 Actual 49,237
FY 2010 Target 49,237
FY 2010 Actual 49,660
Units Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 43,289 lb per million dollars. Program NEP 505 492 500 909 dollars per /Coastal Waterway acre of habitat s
protected or restored
500
659
500
2,046
Dollars
Baseline - 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
78 The FY 2010 Performance Target assumes that the FY 2009 Farm Bill funds for the Chesapeake Bay watershed will have been spent on conservation practices that will help to reach the FY 2010 Performance Target for total nitrogen reduction.
1359
Program Great Lakes Legacy Act
Measure
Cost per cubic yard of contaminate d sediments remediated
FY07 Target 200
FY07 Actual 121
FY08 Target 200
FY08 Actual 121
FY09 Target 200
FY09 Actual 122
FY 2010 Target 200
FY 2010 Actual 125
Units Dollars/ Cubic Yard
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $115 per cubic yard in 2006. Baseline $459,800 No Target Percent Reduction 61 50 Established Reductions in cost of managing PMN Chemical submissio Risk ns through Review the focus and meeting as Reduction a percentage of baseline year cost Baseline is $46.13 per submission in FY 2009 according to OPPT's Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS) and Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database and EPA's Financial Data Warehouse (FDW). Explanation: When targets were originally developed for this measure, EPA planned to shift to a purely electronic system for PMN submission, processing and searches, but the new system as implemented is only partially electronic. Although companies are now able to submit PMNs electronically, the submissions continue to be processed manually once received by EPA. In addition, before EPA users can access the incoming PMNs online, any submitted in paper must be scanned manually and any submitted electronically must be uploaded manually into a data repository. Thus, many of the anticipated cost efficiencies are no longer attainable, making it very challenging to meet the original targets.
1360
Program
Measure
(72A) Percent Percent Cost reduction Savings from baseline Chemical year in Risk total EPA Review cost per and chemical Reduction for which proposed AEGL value sets are developed 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. Excess performance in FY 2009 resulted in completion of Proposed values for last of 260+ targeted chemicals, negating need for development of Proposed values for additional chemicals in FY 2010. Excess FY 2009 production recognized too late to cancel FY 2010 measure. (108) 1 63 1 3 1 38 1 -40 Percent Contract cost reduction Endocrine per study Disruptors for assay validation efforts in the EDSP
FY07 Target 2
FY07 Actual 19.1
FY08 Target 4
FY08 Actual 17.4
FY09 Target 10
FY09 Actual 12.3
FY 2010 Target 11
FY 2010 Actual N/A
Units
1361
FY07 FY07 FY08 FY08 FY09 FY09 FY 2010 FY 2010 Units Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Baseline - The average cost per study was calculated based on contract costs over a five-year period (2002 to 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. Continued high variability in the measure results, in part, from pooling items with a broad range of costs under the in vivo studies category. In the baseline year, this category consisted of comparatively simple, inexpensive studies while in FY 2010, complex and expensive Tier 2 studies were initiated. The calculated cost increase reflects this shift in the program as opposed to decreased efficiency. (10A) Annual 90 92 91 91 92 92 92 96 Percent percentage of Certificati lead-based on paint per Refund Leadcertification Based and refund Paint Risk applications Reduction that require Program less than 20 days of EPA effort to process Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process is 77 percent in 2004, which is taken from the FLPP database records. (273) 2 2 2 6 6 N/A 8 N/A Cumulativ Protect Reduced e Percent Human cost per Reduction Health pesticide from occupational Pesticide incident Risk avoided Baseline - Based on FY 2001 to 2003 data, the cost avoided for occupational pesticide incidents is $11,550 per incident avoided. PCC Data is no longer available to the program at the "worker/occupational" level as needed to calculate the results for this measure. This measure has been replaced by a new measure and will be reporting starting in FY 2012 using data reported in the American Association of Poison Control Center's National Poisoning Data System. Program Measure
1362
Program
Measure
FY07 Target
FY07 Actual
FY08 Target
FY08 Actual
FY09 Target
FY09 Actual
FY 2010 Target
FY 2010 Actual
Units
10 ($3,600 Data Not 19 ($3,240 & Data Not 28 ($2,916 & Data Not 35% ($2625 N/A (275) Cumulativ & 90 hrs) Avail 81 hrs) Avail 73 hrs) Avail & 66 hours) Average cost e Percent Protect the and average Reduction Environme time to nt from produce or Pesticide update an Risk Endangered Species Bulletin Baseline - Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin in FY 2004 is $4,000 and 100 hours. No bulletins were issued in 2010 to assess efficiency due to ongoing litigation. 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 6% (274) Reduce Cumulativ ($2.57/ ($2.57/ ($2.52/ ($2.52/ ($2.47/Acre) ($2.47/Acre) cost per acre e Percent Acre) Acre) Acre) Acre) using reduced Reduction risk pest (Dollar/ Realize the management Acre) Value practices from compared to Pesticide the grant Availabilit and/or y contract funds expended on environmenta l stewardship Baseline - For FY 2005, funding of Strategic Agriculture Initiative grants resulted in $2.63 per acre impacted.
1363
Program
Measure
Average Average time (in Days days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure to submittal Research: to EPA's Human Grants Health and Administr Ecosystem ation s Division while maintainin ga credible and efficient competitiv e merit review system 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.
FY07 Target 307
FY07 Actual 254
FY08 Target 292
FY08 Actual 250
FY09 Target 277
FY09 Actual 270
FY 2010 Target 250
Units
1364
Program Ecological Research and Ecosystem s
Measure
Percent Percent variance from planned cost and schedule Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal level of cost effectiveness. Percent No Target Data Not Percent variance Establishe Avail Global from d Change planned Research cost and schedule Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal level of cost effectiveness. Percent -10 -8.7 -8 Data Not -6 Data Not -5 Data Not Percent variance Avail Avail Avail Research: from Pesticides planned and Toxics cost and schedule
FY07 Target -11.65
FY07 Actual -0.3
FY08 Target -9.6
FY08 Actual Data Not Avail
FY09 Target -7.6
FY09 Actual Data Lag
FY 2010 Target -5.6
FY 2010 Actual Data Not Avail
Units
1365
FY07 FY07 FY08 FY08 FY09 FY09 FY 2010 FY 2010 Units Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal level of cost effectiveness. Percent N/A -5.3 Data Not Data Not Data Not Data Not No Target Data Not Percent Research: variance Avail Avail Avail Avail Establishe Avail NAAQS from d Research planned (ORD) cost and schedule Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal level of cost effectiveness. Program Measure
1366
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship Program Measure FY07 Target FY07 Actual FY08 Target 90 FY08 Actual 153 FY09 Target 100 FY09 Actual 303 FY 2010 Target 110 FY 2010 Actual 355 Units Pound/Dollar
(279) Annual reductions of DfE chemicals P2 Program of concern per federal dollar invested in the DfE program. Baseline - The baseline for percent change for pounds of chemicals reduced from the DfE program is 72 lbs/$ for FY 2006. (298) Baseline 0.79 M 1M 1.4 M 1.31 M 1.66 M 1.89 M Data Avail Energy 10/2011 savings per P2 Program dollar invested in the FEC program Baseline - The baseline for energy saved per dollar invested in 2007 is 0.79 million BTUs/dollar.
BTUs/Dollar
1367
Number of pounds of priority chemicals RCRA: reduced Waste from the Minimization environment & Recycling per federal government costs
1.5
1.3
0.422
2.59
0.429
3.35
0.435
1.9
Percent
Baseline The 2007 baseline for pounds reduced per government costs is 1.3 percent. Explanation: The bulk of the FY 2010 result came from the Con Edison Company of New York and Public Service Electric and Gas. Con Edison Company of New York achieved 1,168,607 lb lead reduction by replacing underground lead cabling with lead-free substitute. Public Service Electric and Gas achieved 1,461,762 lb lead reduction through the replacement of underground lead cabling.
1368
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification INDEX
A Acquisition Management ...... 241, 247, 509, 514, 515, 663, 666, 726, 730, 731, 784, 787, 800, 801, 1087, 1092, 1093 Administrative Law ......................................................................................................................... 240, 247, 475, 1087 Agency Financial Report ......................................................................................................................................... 1116 Air Toxics .......................................................................................................................... 272, 274, 281, 323, 489, 928 Air Toxics Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................... 274 Alaska Native Villages .............................................................................................................................. 861, 866, 869 Alternative Dispute Resolution...................................................................... 241, 247, 477, 662, 666, 719, 1087, 1092 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ...... 340, 369, 512, 519, 645, 729, 737, 765, 803, 809, 810, 861, 863, 868, 872, 878, 990, 1112, 1119, 1176 Analytical Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 115, 1172 Annual Performance Report ...................................................................................... 318, 331, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1117 Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations ......................................................... 641, 643, 645, 662, 664, 672, 1089, 1090 B Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ......................................................................................................... 761, 1014 Beach / Fish Programs ..................................................................................................................... 242, 249, 612, 1089 BRAC ...................................................................................................................... 552, 689, 761, 762, 763, 772, 1014 Brownfields ..... 6, 37, 38, 41, 43, 64, 215, 239, 243, 244, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 377, 493, 598, 647, 673, 751, 759, 768, 852, 856, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 888, 889, 965, 1010, 1012, 1044, 1064, 1068, 1072, 1084, 1095, 1096, 1107, 1112, 1119, 1125, 1209, 1235, 1247, 1248, 1273, 1274, 1275 Brownfields Projects................................................................................................................ 852, 856, 871, 889, 1095 C CASTNET ..................................................................................................................................................... 73, 75, 252 Categorical Grant Beaches Protection ...................................................................................................................... 852, 856, 886, 1096 Brownfields................................................................................................................................. 852, 856, 888, 1096 Environmental Information ......................................................................................................... 852, 856, 890, 1096 Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance ....................................................................................... 852, 857, 893, 1096 Homeland Security ..................................................................................................................................... 857, 1096 Lead ............................................................................................................................................ 852, 857, 895, 1096 Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) ........................................................................................................ 852, 857, 902, 1096 Pesticides Enforcement ............................................................................................................... 852, 857, 906, 1096 Pesticides Program Implementation............................................................................................ 852, 857, 908, 1096 Pollution Control (Sec. 106) ....................................................................................................... 852, 857, 911, 1096 Pollution Prevention ................................................................................................................... 852, 857, 918, 1096 Public Water System Supervision ............................................................................................... 852, 857, 920, 1096 Radon .......................................................................................................................................... 852, 857, 924, 1096 Sector Program ........................................................................................................................................... 857, 1096 State and Local Air Quality Management ................................................................................... 852, 857, 926, 1096 Targeted Watersheds................................................................................................................................... 857, 1096 Toxics Substances Compliance................................................................................................... 852, 857, 930, 1096 Tribal Air Quality Management .................................................................................................. 852, 857, 932, 1096 Tribal General Assistance Program ............................................................................................ 852, 857, 934, 1097 Underground Injection Control ................................................................................................... 852, 857, 938, 1097 Underground Storage Tanks ....................................................................................... 599, 812, 853, 857, 941, 1097 Water Quality Cooperative Agreements ..................................................................................................... 857, 1097 Wetlands Program Development ................................................................................................ 853, 857, 944, 1097 Categorical Grants ..... 579, 589, 852, 856, 858, 885, 886, 888, 890, 893, 895, 898, 899, 902, 906, 908, 911, 918, 920, 924, 926, 930, 932, 934, 938, 941, 944, 1095, 1097 Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance .................. 241, 247, 511, 663, 666, 736, 784, 787, 802, 1087, 1092, 1094
Chemical and Pesticide Risks .......................................................................................................................... 547, 1017 Chesapeake Bay... 3, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 61, 63, 240, 245, 317, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 425, 500, 604, 635, 636, 890, 961, 1006, 1007, 1032, 1039, 1040, 1084, 1107, 1126, 1127, 1235, 1253, 1259, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1308, 1309, 1355 Children and other Sensitive Populations .................................................................................................................. 414 Children and Other Sensitive Populations Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................. 240, 246, 414, 1086 Civil Enforcement.... 61, 62, 63, 105, 239, 245, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 322, 324, 325, 327, 330, 332, 599, 691, 694, 784, 786, 789, 790, 792, 793, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 830, 831, 1023, 1084, 1093, 1094 Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance .................................................................................................. 241, 247, 479, 1087 Clean Air .................................. 73, 251, 253, 254, 264, 265, 283, 285, 287, 288, 323, 339, 503, 932, 933, 1022, 1060 Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs ........................... 65, 67, 72, 75, 239, 244, 251, 253, 1079, 1083, 1133, 1349 Clean Air and Climate .... 65, 67, 71, 72, 76, 80, 83, 85, 239, 244, 250, 251, 255, 265, 271, 281, 283, 287, 1079, 1083 Clean Air and Global Climate Change .................................................................... 197, 1113, 1122, 1124, 1130, 1344 Clean and Safe Water ...................................................................................... 205, 209, 1113, 1122, 1124, 1170, 1351 Clean School Bus Initiative ............................................................................................................................. 856, 1095 Clean Water ............ 264, 323, 358, 383, 384, 602, 605, 610, 633, 641, 827, 830, 860, 902, 903, 911, 946, 1002, 1006 Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development ...................................................... 6, 34, 35, 977 Climate Protection Program ...................................................................... 65, 67, 76, 239, 244, 255, 1079, 1083, 1348 Commission for Environmental Cooperation ........................................................ 243, 421, 423, 585, 994, 1024, 1235 Communities.... 6, 8, 10, 20, 23, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 45, 53, 61, 65, 66, 69, 70, 113, 145, 162, 165, 169, 170, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 201, 213, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 279, 294, 304, 335, 396, 415, 416, 417, 421, 430,431, 436, 442, 448, 459, 467, 491, 492, 493, 495, 543, 544, 549, 554, 558, 597, 642, 663, 666, 681, 698, 739, 740, 741, 743, 744, 750, 755, 758, 764, 772, 774, 778, 779, 780, 781, 783, 784, 787, 805, 808, 811, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 823, 836, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 869, 871, 888, 893, 899, 934, 941, 943, 965, 977, 997, 1010, 1037, 1067, 1082, 1092, 1094, 1095, 1113, 1122, 1125, 1140, 1150, 1205, 1233, 1247, 1248, 1266, 1312, 1355 Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) ...................................................... 39, 245, 396, 1085, 1235 Compliance .. 4, 36, 42, 43, 56, 58, 59, 62, 232, 239, 241, 244, 245, 247, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 333, 359, 365, 366, 426, 428, 437, 440, 466, 467, 472, 479, 480, 483, 499, 500, 501, 503, 534, 551, 552, 569,572, 591, 597, 599, 618, 620, 624, 642, 646, 662, 665, 677, 678, 679, 693, 712, 782, 784, 786, 790, 791, 792, 805, 811, 820, 822, 824, 825, 827, 828, 831, 837, 839, 852, 857, 891, 906, 930, 955, 976, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060, 1068, 1073, 1076, 1084, 1087, 1090, 1093, 1094, 1096, 1113, 1122, 1127, 1144, 1204, 1304, 1306, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1316, 1363 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship .................................................. 232, 782, 1113, 1122, 1127, 1304, 1363 Compliance Assistance and Centers ......239, 244, 309, 311, 318, 326, 784, 786, 790, 792, 820, 822, 825, 1084, 1093, 1094 Compliance Incentives ................................................ 239, 244, 311, 312, 326, 665, 792, 825, 828, 1084, 1090, 1306 Compliance Monitoring ....... 62, 239, 244, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 333, 599, 662, 665, 678, 679, 693, 792, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 1084, 1090, 1094 Computational Toxicology ........................................................................................................................ 166, 213, 214 Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations.................................................................... 240, 246, 420, 1086 Congressionally Mandated Projects............................................................................... 70, 249, 858, 1083, 1089, 1097 Corrective Action .................................................................................................................................... 555, 894, 1015 Criminal Enforcement ... 60, 63, 239, 245, 327, 329, 330, 332, 489, 662, 665, 690, 691, 692, 1023, 1084, 1091, 1312, 1330 D Decontamination .................................................................... 68, 111, 114, 115, 246, 665, 700, 774, 1080, 1085, 1091 Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program.................................................................................... 852, 856, 877, 1095 Drinking Water .................................................................................. 156, 193, 205, 617, 618, 620, 687, 865, 920, 938 Drinking Water Programs .......................................................................... 66, 70, 192, 242, 249, 617, 818, 1082, 1089
E Ecosystem Protection .............................................................................................................................................. 1235 Ecosystems 22, 66, 70, 73, 146, 151, 154, 174, 184, 185, 189, 201, 212, 213, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 229, 232, 235, 237, 239, 241, 248, 249, 252, 343, 358, 369, 372, 373, 377, 381, 382, 383, 387, 393, 395, 396, 400, 441, 459, 528, 534, 540, 545, 553, 572,583, 600, 601, 604, 606, 627, 633, 741, 772, 779, 815, 817, 846, 847, 850, 860, 869, 880, 902, 911, 944, 954, 973, 979, 1001, 1082, 1089, 1113, 1122, 1125, 1160, 1180, 1233, 1355, 1360, 1361 eManifest ......................................................................................................................................................... 248, 1088 Endocrine Disruptors ..............................70, 174, 215, 216, 217, 218, 235, 241, 248, 525, 547, 647, 1082, 1088, 1357 Energy Star ........................................................................................................................................ 129, 255, 507, 725 Energy STAR .................................................................................................................................................. 244, 1083 Enforcement 4, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 104, 105, 239, 245, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332, 333, 335, 339, 359, 365, 431, 440, 489, 498, 599, 662, 665, 678, 680, 681, 683, 684, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692,693, 694, 784, 786, 788, 789, 790, 792, 793, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 852, 857, 906, 914, 930, 955, 976, 1016, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1068, 1076, 1079, 1084, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1094, 1096, 1107, 1204, 1210, 1306, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1330 Enforcement Training .....................................60, 239, 245, 317, 319, 329, 333, 662, 665, 690, 693, 1023, 1084, 1091 Enforcing Environmental Laws .......6, 9, 11, 55, 56, 105, 309, 311, 313, 322, 329, 333, 406, 678, 683, 688, 690, 693, 694, 697, 789, 792, 825, 827, 830, 906, 930, 943, 1022 Enhance Science and Research ...... 197, 201, 205, 209, 213, 216, 219, 222, 228, 232, 237, 778, 814, 845, 1113, 1114, 1151, 1180, 1216, 1257, 1324 Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution .... 6, 9, 11, 47, 48, 62, 113, 133, 136, 140, 162, 176, 339, 409, 414, 430, 431, 439, 452, 457, 525, 529, 535, 542, 546, 563, 574, 584, 588, 698, 746, 895, 908, 918, 943, 978, 1017 Environmental Education .............................................................. 240, 246, 375, 401, 417, 418, 419, 422, 1028, 1086 Environmental Information ..................................................................................................................................... 1030 Environmental Justice ...... 39, 48, 63, 186, 239, 245, 305, 325, 335, 336, 337, 340, 398, 607, 643, 662, 665, 681, 873, 1010, 1084, 1090, 1126, 1176, 1235, 1249, 1312 EPA IG Comments on FY 2012 Budget .......................................................................................................... 990, 1109 Exchange Network .... 240, 246, 319, 424, 426, 428, 466, 467, 472, 662, 665, 705, 706, 707, 712, 855, 890, 891, 892, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1077, 1086, 1091 Expected Benefits of the Presidents E-Government Initiatives ................................................................................ 990 F Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ...65, 68, 69, 128, 130, 241, 247, 506, 509, 515, 652, 654, 659, 661, 662, 666, 724, 726, 731, 784, 787, 798, 799, 820, 823, 842, 1080, 1081, 1087, 1090, 1092, 1093, 1095 Federal Stationary Source Regulations ...................................................................................... 92, 239, 244, 265, 1083 Federal Support for Air Quality Management ....... 65, 67, 80, 81, 83, 239, 244, 271, 281, 878, 932, 1079, 1083, 1344 Federal Support for Air Toxics Program ............................................... 65, 67, 81, 83, 239, 244, 278, 281, 1079, 1083 Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification ............................................. 65, 67, 81, 83, 85, 93, 1079, 1344 Forensics Support .............................................................................................. 65, 68, 105, 662, 665, 694, 1079, 1091 FY 2011 High Priority Performance Goals ............................................................................................................... 990 G General Counsel 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 481, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890 Geographic Program Chesapeake Bay .......................................................................................................................... 240, 245, 358, 1084 Great Lakes ................................................................................................................................................. 245, 1084 Gulf of Mexico............................................................................................................................ 240, 245, 387, 1085 Lake Champlain .......................................................................................................................... 240, 245, 393, 1085 Long Island Sound ...................................................................................................................... 240, 245, 383, 1084
Other ........................................................................................................................................... 240, 245, 396, 1085 Geographic Programs ............. 31, 239, 245, 342, 343, 358, 369, 373, 377, 381, 383, 387, 393, 396, 1084, 1085, 1235 Great Lakes .................................................................................... 343, 358, 605, 610, 612, 614, 886, 945, 1000, 1006 Great Lakes Legacy Act .................................................................................... 28, 29, 249, 345, 357, 358, 1089, 1356 Great Lakes Restoration ...............................3, 24, 28, 29, 240, 245, 343, 344, 351, 352, 357, 1006, 1084, 1126, 1251 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry........................................................................................................ 244, 946, 1083 Gulf of Mexico .............................................................................................................. 388, 603, 628, 630, 1004, 1008 H Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance ............................................................................................................. 893, 894 Healthier Indoor Air ...................................................................................................................................... 1113, 1139 Healthier Outdoor Air .................................................................................................................................... 1113, 1134 Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.............201, 213, 216, 219, 222, 232, 237, 459, 1113, 1122, 1125, 1233, 1355 Homeland Security .. 26, 30, 41, 43, 54, 65, 68, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 119, 121, 165, 224, 240, 245, 246, 301, 302, 344, 359, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 409, 410, 411, 437, 464, 534, 550, 652, 654, 655, 656, 661, 662, 665, 696, 697, 698, 702, 710, 753, 755, 799, 857, 981, 996, 997, 999, 1007, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1027, 1029, 1033, 1056, 1079, 1080, 1085, 1086, 1090, 1091, 1096, 1145, 1204, 1235, 1302 Communication and Information ................................................................................................ 240, 245, 403, 1085 Critical Infrastructure Protection ........................ 65, 68, 108, 240, 245, 246, 406, 662, 665, 697, 1080, 1085, 1091 Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ...................... 65, 68, 113, 240, 246, 409, 662, 665, 698, 1080, 1085, 1091 Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure .... 65, 68, 121, 240, 246, 411, 652, 654, 656, 662, 665, 702, 1080, 1085, 1090, 1091 HR Shared Service Center ......................................................................................................................................... 523 Human Health ...... 22, 34, 38, 44, 53, 65, 66, 69, 70, 108, 111, 133, 134, 146, 151, 154, 163, 165, 173, 174, 175, 176, 184, 185, 189, 191, 192, 194, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 229, 235, 239, 241, 242, 248, 249, 346, 406, 410, 441, 528, 529,534, 540, 545, 553, 572, 583, 611, 612, 617, 663, 666, 741, 746, 772, 779, 815, 817, 846, 847, 850, 865, 886, 920, 938, 952, 970, 971, 979, 999, 1016, 1081, 1082, 1088, 1089, 1093, 1113, 1173, 1235, 1267, 1294, 1336, 1358, 1360 Human Health Risk Assessment ......53, 66, 70, 163, 165, 173, 175, 176, 215, 218, 226, 228, 235, 239, 663, 666, 746, 979, 1082, 1093, 1235 Human Resources Management .................................................. 241, 247, 520, 663, 666, 733, 735, 1087, 1092, 1100 I Indoor Air .... 15, 18, 65, 67, 68, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 239, 244, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 300, 662, 664, 668, 669, 925, 995, 1079, 1083, 1084, 1090, 1113, 1133, 1139, 1162, 1345 Radon Program ............................................................................................... 65, 67, 96, 239, 244, 291, 1079, 1083 Information Exchange / Outreach ......240, 246, 413, 414, 417, 420, 424, 430, 433, 436, 439, 442, 662, 665, 704, 705, 1086, 1091 Information Security .. 126, 240, 247, 327, 403, 404, 428, 463, 464, 465, 473, 513, 534, 553, 557, 572, 583, 595, 646, 650, 662, 666, 707, 709, 710, 711, 716, 717, 772, 834, 987, 1032, 1056, 1066, 1086, 1092, 1343 Infrastructure Assistance ................................................................................. 448, 852, 856, 860, 865, 869, 880, 1095 Alaska Native Villages ............................................................................................................... 852, 856, 869, 1095 Clean Water SRF ........................................................................................................................ 852, 856, 860, 1095 Drinking Water SRF ................................................................................................................... 852, 856, 865, 1095 Mexico Border ............................................................................................................................ 852, 856, 880, 1095 Inspector General ... 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 551, 641, 643, 645, 650, 651, 656, 659, 664, 672, 675, 676, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 943, 1033, 1034, 1066, 1089, 1090, 1119 Integrated Environmental Strategies ........................................................................................ 241, 247, 491, 493, 1087 International Programs ............................................................................................ 240, 246, 447, 448, 452, 457, 1086 International Sources of Pollution ......................................................................................... 240, 246, 452, 1086, 1235 IT / Data Management ... 65, 68, 123, 124, 240, 247, 462, 463, 466, 662, 666, 708, 709, 712, 784, 786, 794, 795, 820, 822, 832, 833, 1080, 1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094
IT / Data Management / Security... 65, 68, 123, 124, 240, 247, 462, 463, 466, 662, 666, 708, 709, 712, 784, 786, 794, 795, 820, 822, 832, 833, 1080, 1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094 L Laboratory Preparedness and Response .......................................................................................... 68, 665, 1080, 1091 Lake Champlain ................................................................................................................................. 358, 605, 610, 945 Lake Pontchartrain ......................................................................................................... 245, 397, 400, 401, 1085, 1235 Land Preservation and Restoration .......................... 175, 228, 229, 778, 779, 814, 845, 1113, 1122, 1125, 1202, 1352 Land Protection ... 66, 184, 189, 190, 207, 227, 228, 663, 741, 743, 744, 777, 778, 784, 813, 814, 815, 818, 819, 820, 844, 845, 846, 850, 851, 982, 1204, 1231, 1352 Lead ................................................................................................................. 332, 589, 592, 618, 619, 620, 896, 1020 Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review .... 240, 247, 474, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 491, 497, 503, 662, 666, 718, 719, 721, 1086, 1087, 1092 Legal Advice Environmental Program ............................................................................ 241, 247, 483, 662, 666, 721, 1087, 1092 Support Program ......................................................................................................................... 241, 247, 486, 1087 Libraries ................................................................................................................................................................... 1020 Long Island Sound ............................................................................................................................................. 383, 386 LUST / UST .................................................................. 241, 248, 596, 597, 784, 787, 804, 805, 808, 811, 1089, 1094 LUST Cooperative Agreements ...................................................................................................... 784, 787, 808, 1094 LUST Prevention ..................................................................................................................... 784, 787, 811, 812, 1094 M Marine Pollution ............................................................................................................ 242, 249, 627, 632, 1004, 1089 Methane to markets ......................................................................................................................................... 244, 1083 Mexico Border 40, 240, 246, 448, 642, 852, 854, 856, 880, 881, 882, 963, 1011, 1066, 1086, 1095, 1236, 1248, 1275 Mississippi River Basin ............................................. 3, 32, 240, 245, 317, 319, 381, 382, 390, 603, 1084, 1256, 1287 Monitoring Grants ........................................................................................................................................... 857, 1096 Multi-Media Tribal Implementation .............................................................. 442, 852, 857, 899, 934, 935, 1078, 1096 N NAAQS ......................................................................................................... 53, 80, 177, 265, 271, 272, 274, 926, 927 Nanotechnology ....................................................................................... 163, 173, 175, 215, 218, 226, 235, 239, 1020 National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways .............................................................................. 241, 249, 601, 1089 NEPA Implementation .................................................................................................... 239, 245, 327, 339, 340, 1084 O OAR............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 OARM121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 1029 OCFO 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 685, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 1029, 1058 OECA .......................................................................................................................................... 955, 1054, 1308, 1316 OEI .... 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 469, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1056, 1077 Office of Environmental Information 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 943, 1030, 1063 Office of the Chief Financial Officer .121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 1029, 1063
OGC... 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890 Oil .. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 19, 36, 41, 43, 46, 58, 101, 102, 103, 114, 124, 128, 183, 185, 215, 228, 300, 302, 309, 313, 322, 332, 405, 410, 466, 472, 485, 487, 506, 510, 659, 661, 678, 697, 701, 712, 724, 727, 740, 752, 755, 778, 789, 792, 795, 798, 814, 817, 820,822, 825, 827, 828, 830, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 840, 842, 845, 846, 849, 851, 900, 976, 977, 1016, 1067, 1094, 1095, 1128, 1136, 1145, 1204, 1212, 1214, 1216, 1309, 1354 Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response ........................................................................... 820, 822, 836, 1094, 1354 Operations and Administration 65, 68, 69, 127, 128, 241, 247, 505, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 652, 654, 658, 659, 662, 666, 723, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 784, 787, 797, 798, 800, 802, 820, 823, 841, 842, 1080, 1081, 1087, 1090, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095 ORD................................................................... 166, 169, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 1199, 1216, 1338, 1362 OSWER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 559 OW ........................................................................................................................................................ 983, 1054, 1199 P PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY .............................................................................................................. 945, 979 Performance and Accountability Report ........................................................................................................ 1116, 1315 Pesticides Licensing ................... 51, 65, 69, 132, 133, 136, 140, 241, 248, 524, 529, 535, 542, 546, 1081, 1088, 1235 Pollution Prevention .................................................................................................. 79, 264, 410, 840, 918, 919, 1021 Pollution Prevention Program........................................................ 166, 237, 241, 248, 398, 574, 579, 918, 1088, 1307 Potomac Highlands .................................................................................................................................................... 401 Preserve Land .......................................................... 34, 38, 549, 558, 597, 805, 811, 893, 941, 966, 1013, 1113, 1205 Protect Human Health ..... 22, 65, 69, 108, 111, 133, 134, 154, 192, 241, 248, 406, 410, 529, 534, 612, 617, 865, 886, 920, 938, 952, 971, 999, 1081, 1088, 1113, 1173, 1267, 1358 Protect the Ozone Layer ................................................................................................................................ 1113, 1141 Protect Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 1113, 1176 Protecting Americas Waters ....................................................................................................... 23, 61, 943, 999, 1125 Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) ............................................................................................................... 920 Puerto Rico ................................................................................................................................................................ 863 Puget Sound ......................................................240, 245, 373, 374, 375, 604, 630, 963, 1084, 1235, 1256, 1291, 1292 R Radiation 12, 15, 18, 19, 65, 67, 68, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 114, 116, 177, 178, 197, 239, 244, 290, 291, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 363, 398, 466, 660, 661, 662, 664, 668, 669, 670, 774, 898, 925, 951, 997, 998, 1036, 1060, 1068, 1079, 1083, 1084, 1090, 1113, 1133, 1139, 1140, 1144, 1145, 1164, 1165, 1346, 1347, 1348 Protection .................................................................... 65, 68, 100, 239, 244, 297, 662, 664, 669, 1079, 1083, 1090 Response Preparedness ................................................................................. 65, 68, 102, 239, 244, 300, 1079, 1083 Radon................................................................................................................................................... 97, 293, 924, 925 RCRA Corrective Action ........................................................................................................................ 241, 248, 554, 1088 Waste Management..................................................................................................................... 241, 248, 549, 1088 Waste Minimization & Recycling............................................................................................... 241, 248, 558, 1088 Recovery Act - EPM...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Recovery Act - IG.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Recovery Act - LUST ....................................................................................................................................................3 Recovery Act - SF ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Recovery Act - STAG ...................................................................................................................................................3 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 559, 1113, 1147 Reduce Risks from Indoor Air ................................................................... 65, 68, 98, 239, 244, 294, 1079, 1083, 1345 Regional Science and Technology ................................................................................................... 241, 247, 488, 1087 Regions ............................................... 39, 518, 756, 983, 993, 1014, 1017, 1024, 1038, 1041, 1043, 1053, 1193, 1215 Regulatory Innovation ............................................................................................................................................... 491 Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis .......................................................................... 241, 247, 497, 1087
Rent ........................................................................................... 68, 247, 666, 787, 823, 1080, 1087, 1092, 1093, 1095 Research Air, Climate and Energy ....................................................................................................................... 69, 144, 1081 Chemical Safety and Sustainability .................................................................... 70, 162, 176, 666, 746, 1082, 1092 Drinking Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 983 Global Change ...................................................................................................................................................... 983 Pesticides and Toxics ............................................................................................................................................ 984 Safe and Sustainable Water Resources ....................................................................................... 69, 154, 1081, 1082 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................ 179 Sustainable Communities................................................................................................................ 69, 70, 183, 1082 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ..... 40, 61, 126, 228, 241, 248, 313, 323, 368, 401, 405, 428, 473, 487, 548, 549, 553, 554, 557, 558, 561, 579, 632, 707, 717, 834, 893, 941, 1024, 1054, 1061, 1088, 1125 Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems ................................................................................................................... 400 Restore Land ........ 34, 38, 40, 554, 597, 698, 750, 755, 756, 758, 764, 774, 775, 805, 808, 836, 893, 967, 1014, 1113, 1208 S Safe Building ............................................................................................................................. 68, 114, 115, 119, 1080 Safe Buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 114, 115, 119 San Francisco Bay ................................................................................................... 240, 245, 369, 371, 372, 604, 1084 Science Advisory Board .... 49, 114, 147, 156, 157, 158, 164, 186, 206, 241, 247, 503, 504, 581, 589, 591, 741, 1026, 1028, 1087, 1242 Science Policy and Biotechnology .......................................................................................... 241, 248, 546, 547, 1088 Security 26, 30, 41, 43, 54, 61, 65, 68, 86, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 131, 149, 151, 165, 224, 234, 240, 245, 246, 247, 259, 301, 302, 324, 327, 344, 359, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414,416, 428, 437, 438, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 473, 513, 534, 550, 553, 557, 572, 583, 595, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 655, 656, 657, 660, 661, 662, 665, 666, 674, 696, 697, 698, 702, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 716, 717, 753, 755, 772, 784, 786, 794, 795, 799, 820, 822, 832, 833, 834, 981, 987, 994, 996, 997, 999, 1007, 1012, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1027, 1032, 1033, 1035, 1056, 1064, 1066, 1079, 1080, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1137, 1145, 1204, 1235, 1302, 1325, 1343 Sign Language ........................................................................................................................................................... 522 Small Business Ombudsman ......................................................................................... 240, 246, 430, 431, 1028, 1086 Small Minority Business Assistance................................................................................................ 240, 246, 433, 1086 Smart Growth .............................................................................................................. 38, 39, 492, 493, 495, 599, 1235 State and Local Prevention and Preparedness ........................................................... 36, 43, 240, 246, 436, 1086, 1236 State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) ............ 448, 574, 852, 856, 859, 860, 865, 869, 871, 877, 880, 883, 1095 Stratospheric Ozone Domestic Programs ........................................................................................................... 239, 244, 283, 1083, 1350 Multilateral Fund ........................................................................................................................ 239, 244, 287, 1083 Sunwise...................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Superfund Emergency Response and Removal ............................................................................................ 663, 666, 750, 1093 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................ 662, 665, 683, 1090 EPA Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................... 663, 667, 755, 1093 Federal Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 663, 667, 758, 1093 Federal Facilities Enforcement ......................................................................................... 662, 665, 688, 1024, 1090 Remedial ........................................................................................................................... 663, 667, 764, 1093, 1112 Support to Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................................. 663, 667, 774, 1093 Superfund Special Accounts ...................................................................................................................................... 990 Surface Water Protection ............................................................. 242, 249, 381, 603, 633, 645, 916, 1089, 1172, 1351
T Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality .... 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 72, 76, 80, 83, 85, 96, 98, 100, 102, 113, 144, 251, 255, 265, 271, 281, 283, 287, 291, 294, 297, 300, 406, 669, 877, 883, 898, 924, 926, 932, 943, 945, 977, 992 Targeted Airshed Grants .................................................................................................................. 852, 856, 883, 1095 test 14, 40, 46, 53, 85, 87, 90, 92, 97, 106, 137, 141, 165, 173, 213, 216, 225, 256, 258, 259, 275, 291, 292, 348, 390, 449, 525, 526, 527, 567, 620, 694, 699, 756, 850, 972, 1019, 1047, 1048, 1050, 1054, 1126, 1136, 1149, 1169, 1180, 1217, 1243 Toxic Research and Prevention ................................................................................................................... 66, 236, 237 Toxic Substances Chemical Risk Management ....................................................................................................... 241, 248, 584, 1088 Chemical Risk Review and Reduction ........................................................................................ 241, 248, 563, 1088 Lead Risk Reduction Program ............................................................................................ 241, 248, 588, 896, 1088 Toxics Risk Review and Prevention .............................................. 241, 248, 525, 562, 563, 574, 584, 588, 1088, 1089 Trade and Governance ........................................................................................................... 240, 246, 457, 1086, 1236 TRI / Right to Know ........................................................................................................................ 240, 246, 439, 1086 Tribal - Capacity Building ............................................................................................................... 240, 246, 442, 1086 Tribal General Assistance Program ........................................................................................................................... 442 U Underground Storage Tanks ............................................................................................................ 317, 789, 792, 1015 Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) .................. 241, 248, 596, 597, 784, 787, 804, 805, 808, 811, 1089, 1094 US Mexico Border ........................................................................................................................... 240, 246, 448, 1086 Utilities ...................................................................... 28, 68, 111, 247, 618, 666, 1000, 1038, 1080, 1087, 1092, 1257 W Waste Management ......................................................................................................................... 549, 550, 893, 1013 Water Ecosystems ......................................................................................................................... 248, 249, 601, 606, 1089 Human Health Protection .............................................................................. 66, 191, 242, 249, 611, 612, 617, 1089 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 377, 378, 536, 632, 911, 1001, 1006, 1009 Water Quality Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 377, 378, 1003 Water Quality Protection ....................................................................... 242, 249, 377, 378, 626, 627, 633, 1089, 1255 Water Sentinel ................................................................................................................................................... 68, 1080 Wetlands .. 241, 249, 351, 358, 377, 378, 395, 602, 604, 605, 606, 608, 609, 610, 645, 853, 857, 944, 945, 958, 1005, 1064, 1067, 1071, 1089, 1097, 1236, 1251, 1279
FY 2012 Verification and Validation GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Mitigate Greenhouse Gases Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the buildings sector (program assessment measure) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the industry sector (program assessment measure) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the transportation sector (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System. The tracking systems primary purpose is to maintain a record of the annual greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and accomplishments for the voluntary climate program using information from partners and other sources. It also measures the electricity savings and contribution towards the Presidents greenhouse gas intensity goal. Data Source: EPA develops carbon and non-CO2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the business-as-usual case without the impact of EPAs voluntary climate programs. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPAs Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These data are used for both historical and projected greenhouse gas emissions and electricity generation, independent of partners information to compute emissions reductions from the baseline and progress toward annual goals. The projections use a Reference Case for assumptions about growth, the economy, and regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases, are maintained by EPA. The nonCO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also independently from partners information. Data collected by EPAs voluntary programs include partner reports on facility- specific improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power levels and usage patterns Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The report includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory (sources, industries, emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second chapter addresses projected greenhouse gases in the future (model assumptions, growth, sources, gases, sectors, etc.) U.S. Department of State. 2002. U.S. Climate Action Report2002. Third National Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure. EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs focus is on energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., metric tons carbon equivalent (MMTCE) prevented per kWh). Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission reductions are estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a tracking system for emissions reductions. The Integrated Planning Model, used to develop baseline data for carbon emissions, is an important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power sector. The IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from EPAs program office. QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. Peerreviewed carbon-conversion factors are used to ensure consistency with generally accepted measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed methodologies are used to calculate GHG reductions from these programs. Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure. EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received. Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-2002 as part of the United States submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPAs Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate programs examined used good management practices and effectively estimated the impact their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment... Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion factors and methods to convert material-specific reductions to GHG emissions reductions). Also, the voluntary nature of the programs may affect reporting. Further
research will be necessary in order to fully understand the links between GHG concentrations and specific environmental impacts, such as impacts on health, ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth. Error Estimate: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions. Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from its voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses, and econometric analyses. The only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG emissions are voluntary. New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and methodologies as new information becomes available. References: The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is available at: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. The accomplishments of many of EPAs voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division Annual Report. The most recent version is ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2008 Annual Report. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/annualreports/annual_report_2008.pdf FY 2012 Per for mance Measur e: Percentage of registered facilities that submit required and complete GHG data by the annual reporting deadline of March 31.
Performance Databases: e-GGRT, EPAs electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool collects and stores entity level registration and GHG data submitted by reporters under the GHG Reporting Program (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Rule). For Subparts LL and MM, the OTAQ registration database, OTAQReg, collects and manages entity level GHG registration data. Additionally, OTAQs fuels compliance database, DCFUELS, will store GHG data submitted via the Agencys Central Data Exchange (CDX) by reporters under the GHG Reporting Program (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Rule). OTAQ will provide OAP with LL & MM data for incorporation into e-GGRT. Data Sources: Individual facilities and suppliers covered under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data excluding subparts LL & MM are submitted directly by facilities and suppliers (reporters) using either web forms or XML bulk file upload options via the electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool. Registration is completed in advance of data submission using e-GGRT. Registration and annual GHG report submission is done in a CROMERR compliant manner. Subpart LL & MM data are submitted directly by suppliers using the OTAQs registration and reporting system. All data is collected and submitted by reporters following methodologies and procedures specified in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. EPA assumes that registered facilities in the measure includes both facilities and suppliers subject to the reporting rule. EPA assumes that registered includes only those reporters that have submitted complete certificates of representation per 40 CFR Part 98.4. EPA assumes that reporters may resubmit their annual GHG reports throughout the year. EPA assumes that not all reporters that register in e-GGRT and/or OTAQReg are required to report under the program. This may include facilities using e-GGRT to comply with State-level GHG reporting programs and facilities that register erroneously. QA/QC Procedures: To determine the correct denominator (number of registered facilities) for the measure EPA will discount those reporters that are not required to report. In order to do this EPA will, for each reporting year, review estimated applicability determination lists for each subpart, review lists of facilities registering for state-only reporting, look at data that is below applicable thresholds that was entered into e-GGRT by registered facilities but not submitted, and look at data that was entered and submitted into e-GGRT by registered facilities but rejected by e-GGRT because it is below the emissions reporting threshold for required reporting. To determine the correct numerator (number of facilities submitting required data) both e-GGRT and DCFUELS will include a completeness check for every annual GHG report that is signed and submitted to EPA. A complete report is defined as one that includes all applicable subparts for a given facility or supplier and, within each subpart all necessary data elements for applicable methods. Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures. Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate as this is a new reporting program and e-GGRT is a new data collection tool. New/Improved Data or Systems: e-GGRT: Effective on December 29, 2009, EPAs Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases requires annual GHG reports from certain facilities and suppliers
beginning in reporting year 2010. All reporting under the rule is required to be electronic only. EPAs electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool (e-GGRT) is being developed to help reporters fulfill their reporting requirements under the rule with the exception of subpart LL and MM reporters. OTAQs existing registration and reporting systems have been modified to accommodate LL and MM GHGRP data. OTAQ will transfer this data to OAP for incorporation into eGGRT. References: For additional information about the greenhouse gas reporting program, see: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. For more information on electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool (e-GGRT), see: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/data-reporting-system.html. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Adapt to Climate Change Cumulative number of major scientific models and decision support tools used in implementing environmental management programs that integrate climate change science data Cumulative number of proposed major rulemakings with climate sensitive, environmental impacts, and within existing authorities, that integrate climate change science data Cumulative number of dollars from major grants, loans, contracts, or technical assistance agreements spent on climate sensitive projects that have an environmental outcome
Performance Database: Tracked in a spreadsheet and maintained by the Office of Policy (OP) Data Source: Data will be submitted to the Office of Policy (OP) from environmental and research program offices across the Agency Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The scientific models/decisions support tools measure is calculated by assigning a numeric value of one (1) to any major scientific model or decision support tool. The proposed rule making measure is calculated by assigning a numeric value of one (1) to any major rule proposed. The dollars from grants, loans, contracts, and technical assistance agreements measure is calculated by tallying the total dollar value of funds dedicated to climate change sensitive projects that have an environmental outcome. EPA is defining a major rule based upon guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget. Specifically, a major rule is one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Also, the term rule refers to a proposed rule. Consistent with this approach, EPA is defining a major scientific model and/or decision support tool as one that may influence a major agency rule or action. For example, the
BASINS CAT model is a decision support tool that enhances the ability of U.S. cities and communities with combined sewer systems to meet the requirements of EPAs Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy [1]. In 1996, EPA estimated the cost of CSO control, consistent with the CSO Control Policy, to be $44.7 billion (1996 dollars). For this reason, the BASIN CAT model is an appropriate decision support tool to include. EPA will measure the amount of grants, loans, contracts, or technical assistance agreements (>$1 million per project or $5> million per program). The term project is defined as an individual funding agreement and a program is defined as multiple projects. For example, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is a program that includes funding for grants. This EPA-led interagency initiative targets the most significant problems in the region, including invasive aquatic species, non-point source pollution, and contaminated sediment. It has outcome-oriented performance goals and measures, many of which are climate-sensitive. To ensure the overall success of the initiative, it is imperative that consideration of climate change and climate adaptation be integrated into GLRI grants and projects. Aside from GLRI, other climate-sensitive programs across the Agency include those for land revitalization and cleanup, air quality monitoring and protection, wetlands and water protection and restoration to name a few. Greenhouse gas mitigation programs and projects would not be included in this total. QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Policy will ensure that all deliverables: (1) meet the qualification criteria listed above under Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability and (2) satisfy EPA peer review guidelines to ensure their scientific quality and credibility Data Quality Review: No additional data quality review is necessary Data Limitations: None Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during data entry New/Improved Data or Systems: New data collection References: 1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Combined Sewer Overflow Demographics, 2010: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5 2. National Research Council of the National Academies, Americas Climate Choices report, 2010: http://americasclimatechoices.org/paneladaptation.shtml 3. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Adaptation Options: http://www.globalchange.gov/component/content/article/67-themes/153-ourchanging-planet 4. Council on Environmental Quality, Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Maintain annual emissions of SO2 from electric power generation sources nationwide at or below 6 million tons
Performance Databases: Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SO2 and NOx emissions Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) - dry deposition National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems program (TIME) - surface water chemistry Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) surface water chemistry Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of SO2, NOx, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than 3,400 fossil fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. These measurements are collected by certified continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous monitoring methods. CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically, CASTNET measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 88 monitoring sites, primarily in the East. CASTNET is a long-term dry deposition network funded, operated and maintained by EPAs Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The National Park Service operates approximately 30 of the monitoring stations in cooperation with EPA. NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation chemistry and provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and deposition of precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of sulfate and nitrate wet deposition at approximately 255 monitoring sites. EPA, along with several other Federal agencies, states, and private organizations, provide funding and support for NADP. The Illinois State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains the NADP database. The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years. They provide invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition; such data are essential for assessing progress toward the programs intended environmental outcomes. These networks need to be modernized to ensure the continued availability of these direct environmental measures. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of the Acid
Rain and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Programs (and/or Clear Skies if new legislation is enacted). The TIME project measures surface water chemistry and is based on the concept of a probability sample, where each site is chosen to be statistically representative of a target population. In the Northeast (New England and the Adirondacks), this target population consists of lakes likely to be responsive to changes in rates of acidic deposition (i.e., those with Gran ANC < 100 eq/L). In the Mid-Atlantic, the target population is upland streams with a high probability of responding to changes in acidic deposition (i.e., Northern Appalachian Plateau streams with Gran ANC < 100 eq/L). Each lake or stream is sampled annually (in summer for lakes, in spring for streams), and results are extrapolated to the target population. The most recent (2003) TIME trends analysis reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30 New England lakes, and 31 Appalachian Plateau streams. The TIME project goals are to determine not only how a representative sample of water bodies is changing through time, but also whether the proportion of the population that is acidic has changed. The project is operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state agencies, academic institutions and other federal agencies. The LTM project complements TIMEs statistical approach to sampling lakes and streams. LTM samples a subset of sensitive lakes and streams with long-term data, most dating back to the early 1980s. These sites are sampled 3 to 15 times per year. This information is used to characterize how the most sensitive aquatic systems in each region are responding to changing deposition, as well as providing information on seasonal chemistry and episodic acidification. In most regions, a small number of higher ANC (e.g., GranANC >100 eq/L) sites are also sampled, and help separate temporal changes due to acidic deposition from those attributable to other disturbances such as changes in land use. The most recent (2003) LTM trends analysis reported data from 48 Adirondack lakes, 24 New England lakes, 9 Northern Appalachian Plateau streams, and 69 streams in the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and West Virginia. The project is operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state agencies, academic institutions and other federal agencies. Methods, Assumption, and Suitability: Promulgated methods are used to aggregate emissions data across all United States utilities for each pollutant and related source operating parameters such as heat input. QA/QC Procedures: Promulgated QA/QC requirements dictate performing a series of quality assurance tests of CEMS performance. For these tests, emissions data are collected under highly structured, carefully designed testing conditions, which involve either high quality standard reference materials or multiple instruments performing simultaneous emission measurements. The resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of statistical procedures, including one that tests for systematic bias. If a CEM fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic underestimation of emissions, the source of the error must be identified and corrected or the data are adjusted to minimize
the bias. Each affected plant is required to maintain a written QA plan documenting performance of these procedures and tests. Further information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html. CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001. The QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy and precision. {U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November 2001)}. In addition, the program publishes annual quality assurance reports. Both the CASTNET QAPP and 2007 Annual Quality Assurance Report may be found at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs/annual_report_2007.pdf NADP has established data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy, precision and representation, available on the Internet: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/. The intended use of these data is to establish spatial and temporal trends in wet deposition and precipitation chemistry. For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, laboratory methods, and quality assurance procedures are specific to each research group. QA/QC information is contained in the cited publications of each research group and compiled in Newell et al. (1987). The EMAP and TIME protocols and quality assurance methods are generally consistent with those of the LTM cooperators, and are detailed in Peck (1992) and in Table 3 of Stoddard, et al (2003). Data Quality Review: The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting problems, format errors, and inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are described at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/report-emissions.html All quarterly reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and to identify reports that must be resubmitted to correct problems. EPA also identifies reports that were not submitted by the appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly reports, with corrected deficiencies found during the data review process, must be obtained from sources by a specified deadline. All data are reviewed, and preliminary and final emissions data reports are prepared for public release and compliance determination. CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in Examination of CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs, and Implications (United States EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, February 1997). The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer review; this process has been managed by NADP program office at the Illinois State Water Survey/University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are developed primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the technical literature process.
The TIME and LTM data used in EPA trends analysis reports are screened for internal consistency among variables, including ion balance and conductance balance. Samples with unexplained variation in these variables are deleted. Sites with mean Gran ANC greater than 200 eq/L also are deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites with chloride values that are outliers in their region, because high Cl- is typically associated with human development in the watershed. The Cl- and associated Na+ would alter normal soil ion exchange relationships, thus obscuring the response to acidic deposition. Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional monitoring sites are needed, particularly in the middle of the country. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: The program plans to modernize and enhance CASTNET to ensure network viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support ongoing and future accountability needs, particularly relating to long range pollutant transport. References: For additional information about CASTNET, see http://www.epa.gov/castnet and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/. For a description of EPAs Acid Rain program, see http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR parts 72-78.) For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC procedures, see Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term monitoring of Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stoddard, J. L., J. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R. DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, J. H. Kellogg, P. S. Murdoch, J. R. Webb, and K. E. Webster. 2003. Response of surface water chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-03/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. FY 2012Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline
Performance Databases: AQS The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate an areas air quality levels relative to the NAAQS. FREDSThe Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of states and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State Implementation Plans (SIP). SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will take to improve the air quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards Data Sources: AQS: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce FREDS: Data are provided by EPAs Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Design values are calculated for every county with adequate monitoring data (for more information on and a definition for design values, see www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/cdv.pdf). Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the baseline level and the design value. The change in air quality concentrations is then multiplied by the number of people living in the county. This analysis assumes that the populations of the areas are held constant at 2000 Census levels. Data comparisons over several years allow assessment of the air programs success. QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods program, EPAs National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network reviews (Available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of Commerce. FREDS: No formal QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review: AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits are regularly conducted. Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of Commerce. FREDS: None
Data Limitations: AQS: None known Populations: Not known FREDS: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological conditions, for example). New/Improved Data or Systems: AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agencys data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agencys Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass. Population: FREDS: None None
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process SIP revisions weighted by complexity Efficiency
Performance Databases: None Data Sources: Data are provided by EPAs regional offices. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Baseline for processing SIP revisions is 420 days (The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 60 days for completeness + 360 days for technical review) Each Region will maintain a SIP tracking system. It will include the date of receipt, interim dates and the final Regional Administrators signature for each SIP submission. At the end of the fiscal year, each Region will sum the total allowable SIP processing days and the total actual SIP processing days for SIP revisions processed to final action during the fiscal year. Each Region will then submit the totals to the National SIP processing work group chair who will then divide the total actual processing days by the total allowable processing days and calculate the percent difference from base year processing time. The SIP revisions are weighted by complexity because it takes some areas longer than others to reach attainment. QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional staff ensure the number of SIP revisions finalized is equal to or less than the total number of SIP revisions received. Data Quality Review: Same as QA/QC procedures Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during data entry. New/Improved Data or Systems: None References: None. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Cumulative percent reduction in the average number of days during the ozone season that the ozone standard is exceeded in baseline nonattainment areas, weighted by population. Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value. 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 program. Efficiency
Performance Databases: AQS The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate an areas air quality levels relative to the NAAQS. AIRNow DMC The AIRNow Data Management System (DMC) stores real-time ambient air quality data used for the sole purpose of reporting real-time AQI and air quality forecasting. Data Sources: AQS/DMC: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS). Program dollars are based on the grant dollars allocated to the States in support of the NAAQS program, which will be retrieved from the EPA Financial Data Warehouse. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data are gathered from monitors using EPA-approved federal reference and/or equivalent methods, all of which are published via the Federal Register. EPA assumes the collecting agency has properly maintained each monitor and that the data sent to EPA have passed at least an automated QA/QC check. The monitoring networks have been providing data for decades and the data are considered highly reliable. In addition these data form the basis of EPAs attainment decisions, trend analysis, and health impact assessments. QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods program, EPAs National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network reviews (Available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15) DMC: The QA/QC procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the same as documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data checks are built into the data flow process to further guard against erroneous values being
passed through the system. Data in the DMC are not considered final and are not used for any regulatory purpose. Data in the AQS system are the official values used for regulatory analyses. Data Quality Review: AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits are regularly conducted. No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external users where applicable.
DMC:
Data Limitations: AQS: DMC: None known None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological conditions for example). New/Improved Data or Systems: AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agencys data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agencys Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass. DMC: AIRNow Data Management Center was redesigned in 2004 to more efficiently handle additional pollutants and provide for easier access to real-time data. In addition, automated QA/QC procedures were updated and increased flexibility for state/local agencies to update information was included.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. For more information on the monitoring network, as well as reference and equivalent methods, see the Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic . For information on the AIRNow real-time program, see: http://www.airnow.gov/.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application. Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
Performance Databases: TOPS (Title V Operating Permit System). Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local) via EPA Regional Offices Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by comparing the number of new permits or significant permit modifications issued during past 18 months to the total number of new permits or significant permit modifications received during the same period. Data are collected every 6 months. There are no underlying assumptions in the development of this measure. QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the number of permits issued in 18 months is equal to or less than the total number of permits received. 2) ensuring the percentages seem reasonable compared to previous reporting periods, and 3) making sure clock does not restart when additional information is submitted after the application is received. Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures Data Limitations: None Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during data entry. New/Improved Data or Systems: TOPS has been revised and improved to ensure better consistency between states and to specifically track program assessment measures. References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application. Performance Databases: RBLC (RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) BACT (Best Available Control Technology) LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate) Clearinghouse) Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local)
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by determining the time period between the date of complete permit application and permit issuance. The percentage represents the number of major NSR permits issued within one year of complete application to the total number of permits issued within that same period. There are no underlying assumptions in the development of this performance measure. QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the permit issuance dates are after the complete permit application dates and appear reasonable, 2) ensuring the permit processing times are similar for comparable permits in previous reporting periods and 3) making sure the time period does not restart when additional information is submitted after the application is received. Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures Data Limitations: None Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during data entry. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources. Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources. Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources Not in 4-year table Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOx, PM, CO) reduced per total emission reduction dollars spent (both EPA and private industry) Long-term efficiency
Performance Database: National http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Emissions
Inventory
Database.
See:
Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed into the relevant models, which in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.
The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per mile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. Inputs to the model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information, and control program characteristics. The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxides from small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the model include fleet composition, activity and temporal information. Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only if there is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-types), temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are updated each year. Emission factors for all mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road sources are changed only when the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be done and is able to provide the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for mobile sources are MOBILE6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.) The inputs to these and other models will be reviewed and updated, sometimes on an annual basis for some parameters. Unless the model inputs are updated and recalculations done for the performance measures to obtain updated numbers, the actual numbers will be the same as the projected numbers. Major EPA regulatory packages always include detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis which estimates the costs industry is projected to accrue in meeting EPA regulations. These cost estimates will form the basis of the numbers in the EPA performance measures. Also, costs for the EPA mobile source program (including personnel costs) will be included also. Estimates will be made for various years for tons/dollar for pollutants (the total of HC, CO, NOx, and PM) removed. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set limits on how much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source. Mobile sources include vehicles that operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles), as well as nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers have responded to many mobile source emission standards by redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce pollution. EPA uses models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years. The estimates are used in a variety of different settings. The estimates are used for rulemaking.
The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source emissions is the Trends inventory process executed each year by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD). The Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, provides EMAD information and methods for making the mobile source estimates. In addition, EMADs contractors obtain necessary information directly from other sources; for example, weather data and the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates by state. EMAD creates and publishes the emission inventory estimate for the most recent historical year, detailed down to the county level and with over 30 line items representing mobile sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis projects, EMAD creates estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating emissions changes significantly, EMAD usually revises its older estimates of emissions in years prior to the most recent year, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions trend. EMAD publishes the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level estimates are available electronically. Additional information about transportation and air quality related to estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research being conducted on technologies for reducing emissions is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm When major changes are made in the emission models or resulting inventories (and even the cost estimates), the performance measures will be reviewed to determine if they should be updated. QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved. Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and external parties, including the states, locals and industries. Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come from limitations in the modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and models predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation data). http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For nonroad emissions, the estimates come from a model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work, and an estimate of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types of nonroad equipment. Any limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in the emission inventory estimates. Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. New/Improved Data or Systems: To keep pace with new analysis needs, new modeling approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling system termed the Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new system will estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of
pollutants, and allow multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national inventory estimation. When fully implemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new system will not necessarily be a single piece of software, but instead will encompass the necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and guidance necessary for use in all official analyses associated with regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements, and national/regional inventory projections. Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm References: For additional information about mobile source programs see: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/. FY 2012 Performance Measures:Reduce Air Toxics Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline
Performance Databases: National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) EPAs Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization Data Source: To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the public, a toxicity-weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed. This measure utilizes data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPAs Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which is a compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This compendium includes tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188 hazardous air pollutants. These health risk data were obtained from various data sources including EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, California Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting cancer and the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other than cancer. The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point sources, and mobile sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993) includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected during the development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted
emission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain facility specific data. The 2002 NEI and a slightly modified/updated 2005 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source estimates. These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc. The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air pollution control agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality. EPA evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data. For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information and references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#1999 Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed every three years, EPA utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for off-years and to project the inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by weighting the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to toxicity-weighted tons would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk on an annual basis Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#aspen and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and reduction information used for the projections are further described at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and (3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on current data. The EPA has incorporated an automated AAQA content tool into its data submission process. Information on emission inventory reporting (including a QA check) can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data. One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision. The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. QA/QC - An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs, Anne Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei11/qa/pope.pdf EPAs Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or elements, which provide meta information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields. These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification, Facility Identification,
Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The 1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for HAPs facilities. For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego. The Challenge of Meeting New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002 NEI Point Source Data for HAPs, Anne Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei12/dm/pope.pdf. The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo scientific peer review in early 2005. The tables used in the EPAs Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are compiled assessments from various sources for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act of 1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at different times for purposes that were similar but not identical, results are not totally consistent. To resolve these discrepancies and ensure the validity of the data, EPA applied a consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA risk assessment guidelines and various levels of scientific peer review. These risk assessment guidelines can be found at http://www.epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm. Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI, and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March 2003. The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003. Beginning in 2005, the NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review. The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the country in a process called scientific peer review. This ensures that EPA uses the best available scientific methods and information. In 2001, EPAs Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html. The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support hazard identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm (www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html). Because the health criteria data were obtained from various sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance
measure, for example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment guidelines and 2) various levels of scientific peer review. The prioritization process is aimed at incorporating the best available scientific data. Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have improved over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still exist. The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of the different data sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of the data limitations and the error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality Guidelines in the documentation at: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#haps99. In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on EPAs Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement (report can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p00012.pdf). The report stated that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action plan and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action plan. While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter used to convert from exposure to cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but lack data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air toxics in this assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the probability of cancer (i.e. effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable, exposures by a straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For other air toxics compounds, however, the URE used was an upper bound estimate, meaning that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound estimates, it is assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is likely, therefore, that this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in the environment. The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered upper bound in the science policy sense.
All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety. All of the Reference Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer are conservative, meaning that they represent exposures which probably do not result in any health effects, with a margin of safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty and variability. Like the URE used in cancer weighting the values are, therefore, considered upper bound in the science policy sense. Further details on limitations and uncertainties associated with the agencies health data can be found at: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9.html#L10 New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agencys Central Data Exchange (CDX). For more information on CDX, please go the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with health benchmarks to predict risks. References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites: Emissions Inventory Data: Available inventories: Contents: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/ 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs Modeling data files for each state Summary data files for nation Documentation README file individuals who want full access to NTI files http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/ 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs Summary data files EPA staff www.epa.gov/ttn/chief 1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials 1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how compiled the 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience: NEON: Available inventories: Contents: Audience: CHIEF:
EPA
Audience:
QC tool for data submitters Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to augment data 99 NTI Qs and As provides answers to frequently asked questions NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit data using CDX Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories Emission factor documents, databases, and models State/local/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants: EMS-HAP: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/other/emshapv3ug.pdf http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html Contents: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs Audience: public Information on EPAs Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization: Health Criteria Data: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html Contents: Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic) inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term (acute) inhalation exposure Audience: public FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants Expressed as a percentage, the cumulative number of existing homes with an operating mitigation system (HOMS)) compared to the estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L* action level Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure [Long-term performance measure] Total cost (public and pr ivate) per futur e pr ematur e lung cancer death pr evented thr ough lower ed r adon exposur e [Long-ter m efficiency measur e]
Performance Database: Data are stored in an internal spreadsheet Data Source: EPA compares the number of existing homes that have been mitigated to all homes anywhere in the country requiring mitigation because they exceed the EPA action level of 4pCi/L. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
EPA annually calculates the estimated number of existing homes mitigated for an elevated radon level based on radon mitigation vent fan sales data obtained through voluntary reporting by the fan manufacturers. Radon mitigation fans have an estimated life of ten years. When estimating the number of new radon mitigations annually, the data from fan manufacturers is adjusted based on an assumption that previously-installed radon mitigation systems will require a fan replacement every ten years. Historically, about 60% of the new homes built with radon-reducing features in the U.S. are built in Zone 1 areas, the highest risk areas (classified as Zone 1 by EPA). The calculation of the number of homes across the country at or above EPAs 4pCi/L action level is based on methodology in the 1992 technical support document for radon (internal document available upon request) and current census data. To estimate the reduced number of lung cancer deaths resulting from lowered radon exposure, EPA applies risk reduction estimates from its 2003 radon risk assessment to the number of existing homes mitigated for elevated radon levels and the number of new homes built with radon resistant new construction. Cost estimate includes both public and private sector costs, using EPA's 2003 estimate as a baseline. QA/QC Procedures: EPA relies on the radon fan manufacturers annual reporting on sales data for radon venting (vent) fans that are used for mitigation.
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization. EPA reviews the data to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer. Data Limitations: Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate the number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the number of homes mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon including: passive mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static venting and ground covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods, there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated. No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the market. Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications. However, vent fans typically used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed as substitutes for radon vent fans in some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market. Ascertaining the actual number of radon vent fans used for other applications, and the number of non-radon fans being substituted in radon applications, would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the benefit of having such data.
Error Estimate: N/A. New/Improved Data or Systems: None References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html (last accessed 8/23/10) for National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction. Data through 2004 are available from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
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)
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the National Association of Home Builders. Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States most of whom are members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB members construct 80% of the homes built in the United States each year. Using a survey methodology reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of these homes that are built radon resistant. The percentage built radon resistant from the sample is then used to estimate what percent of all homes built nationwide are radon resistant. To calculate the number of people living in radon resistant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67 people per household. NAHB Research Center has been conducting this annual builder practices survey for over a decade, and has developed substantial expertise in the surveys design, implementation, and analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent confidence interval. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual survey of home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices. NAHB Research Center voluntarily conducts this survey to maintain an awareness of industry trends in order to improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs of the home building industry. The annual survey gathers information such as types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, etc. The NAHB Research Center Builder Survey also gathers information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses, and these questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire. In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year is typically mailed out to home builders. For the most-recently completed survey, NAHB Research Center reported mailing the survey to about 45,000 active United States home building companies, and received about 2,300 responses, which translates to a response rate of about 5 percent. The survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market
areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage and number of homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high radon potential areas in the United States (high risk areas). Other analyses include radonreducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for radon-resistant new home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-year comparisons. QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures have been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data. Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete. The review includes data quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and answered the questions appropriately. NAHB Research Center also applies checks for open-ended questions to verify the appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three percent of the values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each years draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer. Data Limitations: The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The NAHB Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of NAHB. Home builders that are not members of NAHB are typically smaller, sporadic builders that in some cases build homes as a secondary profession. To augment the list of NAHB members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center sends the survey to home builders identified from mailing lists of builder trade publications, such as Professional Builder magazine. There is some uncertainty as to whether the survey adequately characterizes the practices of builders who are not members of NAHB. The effects on the findings are not known. Although an overall response rate of 5 percent could be considered low, it is the response rate for the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon activities. Thus, a low response rate does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive bias under the speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely to respond to the survey. NAHB Research Center also makes efforts to reduce the potential for positive bias in the way the radon-related survey questions are presented. Error Estimate: See Data Limitations New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports of radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed 12/15/2009 for more information about NAHB. The most recent report, Builder Practices Report: Radon Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004. Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
Additional health care professionals trained annually by EPA and its partners on the environmental management of asthma triggers
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports used to document the outcomes of individual projects as well as EPA staff reports of healthcare professionals directly educated by EPA. Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. For those healthcare professionals directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires (programmatic terms and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide reports identifying how many health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma triggers. QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers. Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality. Data Limitations: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: The Indoors Environments Division has developed a centralized tracking system, known as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters and regional actions, as well as from grantees. References: N/A FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
Percent of public that is aware of the asthma programs media campaign
Performance Database: In partnership with the Advertising Council, EPA conducts a national public awareness campaign designed to raise awareness and promote action on asthma trigger management. Data on this campaign, including target audience impressions, demographics, campaign recall, attitudes and behaviors are collected by the Ad Council through continuous tracking and point in time surveys. Data Source: An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides media tracking of outcomes of all their public service campaigns and this is publicly available information. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA. QA/QC Procedures: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA. Data Quality Review: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA. Data Limitations: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA. New/Improved Data or Systems: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA. References: Advertising Council Reporting. EPA Assistance Agreement number X82820301. For additional information see the Ad Council web site http://www.adcouncil.org/ FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers [Long-term performance measure]
Performance Database: The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Childrens Exposure to ETS (NSEMA) provides information about the measures taken by people with asthma, and parents of children with asthma, to minimize exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers, including environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Additional information about asthma morbidity and mortality in the US is obtained from surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. Annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf. last accessed 7/25/2007.
EPA also collects data on children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the home. This information is used in supporting the asthma goals of the program. EPA focuses its work on ETS on children in low income and minority populations, and on children with asthma. In addition to NSEMA, information about ETS is obtained periodically from the CDC studies cited above Data Source: The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on asthma morbidity and mortality is available from the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/25/2007). Data on annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook. (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf. last accessed 7/25/2007). EPA will gather asthma trigger data through questions that are being integrated into a CDC survey. Essential actions address mold, dust mites, secondhand smoke, cockroaches, pets, nitrogen dioxide, and chemical irritants. Cost includes EPA full cost of implementing the asthma program. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-ofyear performance for the asthma program is a best professional estimate using all data sources (including information on annual measures on partner performance and advertising awareness outlined below). The estimate of the number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers as of 2007 will be based on a projection from previous surveys, and this estimate will be verified using a national survey instrument in 2009. EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions on environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey mechanism to provide performance results data in the future. Also, data provided for the annual measures are used to support progress towards the long term performance measure. The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) is the most robust data set for this performance measure, but it is not administered annually. The first survey, administered in 2003, was designed in consultation with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agencys objectives. In addition, care has been taken to ensure that the survey questions target the population with asthma by using the same qualifier question that appears on other national surveys on asthma collected by the CDC. QA/QC Procedures: The NSEMA was designed in accordance with approved Agency procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html. The computer assisted telephone interview methodology used for this survey helps to limit errors in data collection. In addition, the QA/QC procedures associated with conducting the survey include pilot testing of interview questions, interviewer training to ensure consistent gathering of information, and random data review to reduce the possibility of data entry error. Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources to ascertain reliability.
Data Limitations: Asthma: The survey is subject to inherent limitations of voluntary telephone surveys of representative samples. For example, 1) survey is limited to those households with current telephone service; 2) interviewers may follow survey directions inconsistently. An interviewer might ask the questions incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response; or 3) the interviewer may call at an inconvenient time (i.e., the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will reflect this attitude.). ETS: Currently available cotinine (a chemical in environmental tobacco smoke) survey data do not address 50% of the age specific portion of EPAs target population. It does not include birth to three years old, the portion of children most susceptible to the effects of ETS. Error Estimate: In 2003 collection with this instrument, the Agency achieved results within the following percentage points of the true value at the 95 percent confidence level (survey instrument): Adult Asthmatics Child Asthmatics Low Income Adult Asthmatics plus or minus plus or minus plus or minus 2.4% 3.7% 6.1%
These precision rates are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the results measured by the survey accurately reflect the characteristics of our nations asthmatic population. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions on environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey mechanism to provide performance results data in the future. The 2003 NSEMA estimates, and the integration of the CDC survey population, will provide consistent tracking measures at a reduced cost, while reducing the burden to the public. This collaboration will improve national asthma surveillance efforts. References: Asthma National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 7/25/2007) EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/25/2007) ETS National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are part of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/25/2007 )
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed 7/25/2007), US Surgeon Generals report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/ last accessed 7/25/2007), National Cancer Institutes (NCI) Tobacco Monograph (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 7/25/2007), Series
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureaus Current Population Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 7/25/2007), Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 7/25/2007).
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs based on EPAs Tools for Schools guidance Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan [Long-term performance measure]
Performance Database: To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools which establish IAQ Tools for Schools (TfS) programs each year from reports from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of guidances distributed and number of people trained by EPA and its partners. EPA also collects information on program benefits such as reduced school nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction among staff, reduced absenteeism, and cost savings experienced by schools. Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. For those organizations directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools which establish IAQ Tools for Schools programs each year from reports from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of guidance distributed, and number of people trained by EPA and its partners. QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies. Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting. Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year. New/Improved Data or Systems: The Indoor Environments Division has developed a centralized tracking system, known as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters and regional actions, as well as from partners. References: See the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (EPA 402-K-07-008) FY 2012 Performance Measure: Total federal dollars spent per school joining the SunWise program [Longterm efficiency measure]
Performance Database: Not applicable Data Source: Federal dollars spent is estimated from annual program budget tracking documents. The number of schools joining the SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program in each year, which is collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html. Schools also have the option of sending in a paper registration, which EPA then enters at this website. EPA tracks the data at an internal website http://intranet.epa.gov/sunwise/track/trac_teacher.html. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of schools joining the SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program in each year, which is collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html, and adding the incremental number of schools joining the program to the prior years cumulative total. The efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the cumulative number of dollars EPA has spent on the SunWise program by the cumulative number of schools that have joined the program. QA/QC Procedures: All registrations by schools are reviewed by EPA staff for completeness and to assure there is no double counting of entries. EPA updates the registration information during the course of program implementation. Data Quality Reviews: Each year researchers at an independent contractor contact a statistical sample of schools in the program database in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. EPA updates the website based on the contractors findings as appropriate.
Data Limitations: The number of participating schools is probably underestimated since schools that fail to provide full registration information are not entered into the database, even if they participate in the program. Note that additional organizations besides schools may also register and provide the SunWise curriculum. These organizations include scout troupes, camps, and 4-H groups, for example. Therefore, counting only schools underestimates the programs reach and efficiency. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: For more information about the SunWise School program, see: http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/ and http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html Data collection regarding schools that participate in SunWise is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439. GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3 FY 2012 Performance Measure:Reduce Consumption of ODS Remaining US Consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer, measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP)
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained by the Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). ATS is used to compile and analyze quarterly information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and allowance trades of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class II HCFCs is tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPAs phase-out regulations. Data are provided by U.S. companies producing, importing, and exporting ODS. Corporate data are typically submitted as quarterly reports. Specific requirements as outlined in the Clean Air Act are available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/index.html. Monthly information on domestic production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is maintained in the ATS. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies for each individual ODS to analyze U.S. total consumption and production. QA/QC Procedures: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.13. These sections of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule specify the required data and accompanying
documentation that companies must submit or maintain on-site to demonstrate their compliance with the regulation. The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002). In addition, the data are subject to an annual quality assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff separate from those on the team normally responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is programmed to ensure consistency of the data elements reported by companies. The tracking system flags inconsistent data for review and resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is then cross-checked with compliance data submitted by reporting companies. SPD maintains a users manual for the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry and data analysis. Regional inspectors perform inspections and audits on-site at the producers, importers, and exporters facilities. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data submitted to EPA through examination of company records. Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review of U.S. participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data submissions from the U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer. No deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report. Data Limitations: None, since companies are required by the Clean Air Act to report data. EPAs regulations specify a quarterly reporting system. Error Estimate: None. New/Improved Data or Systems: The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a system to allow direct electronic reporting. References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on ODSs. See http://www.epa.gov.ozone/intpol/index.html for additional information about the Montreal Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations (measured as percentage of radiation response team members and assets that meet scenario-based response criteria).
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: Annual measurement of readiness based on an evaluation of the emergency response assets. Methods and Assumptions: EPA developed standardized criteria based on the functional requirements identified in the National Response Plans Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). A baseline analysis for the Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) was performed in 2005, for EAP Headquarters and is based on the effectiveness of the RERT during incidents and national exercises. Suitability: This measure and its criteria were developed to complement Department of Homeland Security criteria as well as those of the EPA Core Emergency Response and Removal (Core ER) program evaluation measures. QA/QC Procedures: An evaluation panel consisting of three representatives from the Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), one from each Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) Laboratory and one from ORIA Headquarters, and ORIA management representatives (including at least one representative from outside the ORIA Radiological Emergency Response Program) annually perform a critical evaluation of ORIAs Radiological Emergency Response Programs capabilities versus the standardized criteria, resulting in an overall annual percentage score, as well as component percentage scores. Representatives will not be involved in the evaluation of their own location. Members are chosen based on volunteerism and by lottery on an annual basis. The Panel is chaired by the non-RERT management representative Data Quality Review: Evaluation information is provided to the ORIA Office Director annually for use in evaluating progress. Data quality is certified by the Laboratory Directors at the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory and the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory as well as by the Division Director of the Radiation Protection Division. Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: None known New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan: Long-Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation program Program Assessment (Draft: 7/25/2007) FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies Average time before availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an emergency.
Performance Database: Data from the near real-time gamma component RadNet will be stored in an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama. Data Source: The baseline for this measure is the current calculated response time which is based on shipment time and laboratory analysis time. As real-time monitors are put into service, the efficiency of the system will increase. Near real-time units will have reliable data in hours compared to days for conventional monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time of samples. Methods and Assumptions: The time between data collection at the monitoring sites and availability of data for release by EPA will be determined annually for the system as a whole, including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors. The efficiency data will be compiled from existing and ongoing operational records of RadNet. The monitoring system efficiency is based on two assumptions: (1) 43 conventional (nonreal-time) monitoring stations exist in the system before the addition of any real-time monitors, and (2) a baseline of two and one-half days (60 hours) are required for data to become available (during emergency conditions) from the 43 non-real-time monitors. The initial interval of 2.5 days assumes the network is in alert status when time counting begins. Six (6) hours is the time required for data to become available from the near realtime monitors. Suitability: This measure provides key data regarding availability of data and operational readiness of the nationwide RadNet ambient radiation monitoring network. QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan once it is complete (scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air filters and other media, as well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory Quality Management Plan Revision 3 dated June 1, 2009). Data Quality Review: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction. Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of the data. Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will use data from the enhanced RadNet ambient air radiation monitoring system. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies 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)
Performance Database: Internal Database Data Source: EPA has established a range of baseline data from existing records that indicate the date(s) of the EPA site inspection and the EPA approval date for waste streams and waste characterization equipment. EPA will measure the time between the DOE request for approval/notification of change (or the date of the inspection, if applicable) to the date of EPA approval, disapproval or concurrence of the change. Methods and Assumptions: Under the new requirements of 40 CFR Part 194.8, EPA will perform a baseline inspection of each DOE waste generator site. If all requirements are met, EPA will approve the sites waste characterization program and assign tiers, based on abilities demonstrated during the baseline inspection. DOE will inform EPA of changes in the waste characterization program that can affect the quality of the data required by EPA to ensure the disposal regulations are met. The tiering protocol, which applies to waste streams, equipment, and procedures, will require DOE to either notify EPA of changes to the waste characterization program prior to implementation of the change (Tier 1) or to notify EPA of the changes upon implementation (Tier 2). For Tier 1 changes, EPA may request additional information or conduct an inspection prior to issuing an approval. EPA assumes that adequate resources commensurate with the workload (which varies by up to 3 fold on an annual basis) are available and that sufficiently qualified EPA personnel and contractor consultants are available. Suitability: This measure provides key information about the time required for EPA to approve DOEs request to dispose of transuranic waste at the WIPP site. QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency guidelines and be consistent with EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Revision, dated October 2004. Data Quality Review: N/A Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly Supplement http://www.wipp.energy.gov/shipments.htm (last accessed 8/23/2010) contains information on the volumes of waste that are received at the DOE WIPP. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million dollars invested. Efficiency
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. The percent of the U.S. population covered is dependent on the number of monitors deployed and includes everyone in the continental U.S. within 25 miles of an ambient radiation monitor. Dollars invested includes the full budget of the Radiation Protection Program. Data Source: The performance measurement datapercentage of U.S. population covered by the programwill be calculated annually from operational records maintained at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. These records are an inherent part of program oversight and will not require special data collection efforts. U.S. population numbers are based on the Census 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Program dollars are based on the full budget of the Radiation Protection Program, which will be retrieved from the EPA Financial Data Warehouse. The costs and data points produced will be determined annually for the system as a whole, including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors. Methods and Assumptions: This measure reflects the population covered (i.e., within 25 miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and assessment per program dollar. As such, it is a very conservative estimate of coverage. In the event of a radiological emergency, the enhanced radiological monitoring system would support a number of response measures and activities that cover and apply to the population as a whole. This entails complete mobilization of EPAs Radiological Emergency Response Program and full deployment of all monitoring capability, including up to 40 portable RadNet monitors. As real-time monitors are put into service, the efficiency of the system will increase dramatically. Near real-time units produce reliable data each hour as opposed to twice weekly for conventional (legacy) monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time of samples. Suitability: This measure provides key information about population covered (i.e., within 25 miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and assessment per program dollar. QA/QC Procedures: N/A Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: N/A GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink Percent of the population served by community water systems that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection 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 Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance)
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version (SDWIS or SDWIS/FED). SDWIS contains basic water system information, population served, and records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statutes implementing health-based drinking water regulations. The performance measures are based on the percent of the population served by community water systems, or the percent of community water systems, that did not report any violations designated as health based. Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a treatment technique are health-based violations. Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement authority) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are either: States, EPA for non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the only tribe with primacy. Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated water systems, determine compliance, and report a subset of the data to EPA (a subset of the inventory data and summary violations).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Under the drinking water regulations, water systems must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants. State certified laboratories report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine exceedances of maximum contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment techniques and report these violations to EPA. QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control steps to provide high quality data for program use, including: (1) SDWIS/FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data. (2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard operating procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data, including timely corrective action(s). (3) Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error correction. (4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and maintained on EPAs web site. System, user, and reporting requirements documents can be found on the EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/. System and user documents are accessed via the database link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule reporting requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html. Documentation is also available at the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators web site at www.ASDWA.org. (5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooters guide, a system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the results of each data submission, and an error code database for states to use when they have questions on how to enter or correct data. (6) User support hotline available 5 days a week. The SDWIS/FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan 1 (DRAP). The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be employed and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality standards. This plan has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control. Data Quality Review: The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is modifying its approach to data quality review based on the recommendations of the Data Quality Workgroup and on the Drinking Water Strategy for monitoring data. As part of the Drinking Strategy, EPA expects to regularly receive compliance monitoring data from states beginning in 2013 for which it will use analytical tools to determine the completeness of reporting of violations to SDWIS. Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting by the states of
1
2006 Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07-010 March 2008
monitoring and health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics. The most significant under-reporting occurs in monitoring violations. Even though those are not covered in the health based violation category, which is covered by the performance measure, failures to monitor could mask treatment technique and MCL violations. Such under-reporting of violations limits EPAs ability to: 1) accurately portray the percent of people affected by health-based violations, 2) target enforcement oversight, 3) target program assistance to primacy agencies, and 4) provide information to the public on the safety of their drinking water facilities. States may also choose to use electronic Data Verification (eDV) tool to help improve data quality. New/Improved Data or Systems: Several approaches are underway. First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP, which has already improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in SDWIS/FED through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and reporting requirements, 2) state-specific technical assistance, 3) targeted data audits conducted each year to better understand challenges with specific rules and 4) assistance to regions and states in the identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or conflicting data. Second, more states (as of January 2011, 55 States, Tribes, and territories are using SDWIS/STATE) will use SDWIS/STATE, 2 a software information system jointly designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program. Third, in 2006 EPA modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies, all of which will improve the accuracy of the data. Data are stored in a data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It has improved the programs ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making and effectively manage the program. EPA has also begun a multi-year effort to develop the next generation information system to replace SDWIS/State. In addition to reducing the total cost of ownership to EPA, a high priority goal of this effort is to support improved data quality through the evaluation of all public water system monitoring data. Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, developed and is in the process of deploying a data system to manage information for the Underground Injection Control Program
SDWIS/STATE is an optional data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support implementation of their drinking water programs. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
2
(UIC). This database will provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the nations drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. The UIC database began receiving data in 2007. References: Plans SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan. The SDWIS/FED equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Reports 2006 Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07010 March 2008
Guidance Manuals, and Tools PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html Web site addresses OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports. Sites of particular interest are: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to better analyze the data, and http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm contains reporting guidance, system and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF
Performance Database: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System (DWNIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are entered by state regulatory agency personnel and by EPAs Regional staff; they are collected and reported once yearly. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into DWNIMS directly represent the units of performance for the performance measure. These data are suitable for yearto-year comparison and trend indication. QA/QC Procedures: EPAs headquarters and Regional offices are responsible for compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends. States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda (e.g., 2005 DWNIMS Data Collection.) Data Quality Reviews: EPAs headquarters and Regional offices annually review the data submitted by the states. State data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html in individual state reports. Headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA Regional office. Additionally, EPAs contractor tests the data for logical consistency. An annual EPA headquarters DWNIMS Analysis provides detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during: 1. Annual EPA Regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems with the programs pace which might affect the performance measure. 2. Reviews by EPAs headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds. 3. Annual reviews by EPAs Regional offices of their states revolving funds operations. State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions. Any inconsistencies that are found in need of correction are incorporated into future DWNIMS reports. These adjustments are historically rare and very minor. Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the DWNIMS database by typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through data testing performed by EPAs contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been largely reduced. These definitions are publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf . There is typically a lag of approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the DWNIMS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use. New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1999. It is updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed. References: State performance data as shown in NIMS are available by state at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf 2005 DWNIMS Data Collection memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05 DWNIMS analysis FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) that are closed or permitted (cumulative). Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is authorized under Part C Sections 1421, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1431 and 1445 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Regulations for the UIC program are in 40 CFR Parts 144 - 148. Basic program information is collected from states and EPAs regional offices (regions) with direct implementation (DI) responsibilities through the 7520 Federal Reporting forms 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. In July 2005, EPA issued a measures reporting assistance memorandum, Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on Underground Injection Control Programs National Water Program Guidance Performance Activity Measures, which is updated as measures are modified or changed. Starting in FY 2005, including annual updates thereafter, states report to EPA the results of their UIC performance measures. The measures have evolved over time. In the initial 2005 reporting, primacy program directors (states or the regions, if they have direct implementation of the program), report the following information: (1) The number of Class I, II, III, and V violations and significant violations that have been identified and addressed; (2) the number of Class I, II, III and V inspections; (3) The number of Class I, II and III salt solution mining wells that maintained mechanical integrity; (4) the number of Class V wells in Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs) with surveys completed; and (5) the number of Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells that were closed or permitted. The measures were modified in FY 2008. Primacy program directors reported on the closure of permitting of high priority wells, as defined by the primacy program, in sensitive ground water areas. For Class I, II, and Class III salt solutions wells, primacy program directors reported on the percentage of wells that lost mechanical integrity and were returned to compliance within 180 days. In FY 2012, primacy program directors will continue to report on mechanical integrity and will limit Class V reporting to only those high priority wells that are regulated under the 1999 Class V i.e Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells and Large Capacity Cesspools. This information was reported to help determine the impact that the UIC program is having relative to public health protection. It also helps assess the progress being made to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW). In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these reporting elements in a spreadsheet format. In FY 2005, states and/or regions reported summary measures information through a spreadsheet. In FY 2006, measures data was entered into
a web-based reporting form which mirrored the spreadsheet from the previous year. The UIC program began collecting program information in a UIC national database in 2007; this system electronically transfers information from state databases to EPAs national database using EPAs Exchange Network. EPA is currently working with the regions and states to populate. Data Source: Until the UIC national database is populated, states or DI programs will report to EPA using the UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System. This is a web-base data entry system. States and DI programs began transition to the UIC national data system for reporting of UIC data in 2007. It is anticipated that all states will be participating in the UIC database in FY 2013 and that the web based system will be phased out. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For these measures, the states reporting of progress is based on EPAs guidance, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Measures in the National Water Program Guidance for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Revised guidance will be issued for FY 2012. State reporting will be based on definitions and procedures fond in the guidance. Most States only report state-level summary information, much of which is contained in state databases. EPA believes that the data will be reliable for use in making management decisions but will be greatly improved as more programs are reporting well specified information through the UIC database. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include validation of information in states 7520 reporting forms and data submitted to the National UIC database. Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the web entry system and the database. EPAs regional offices also will work with individual states to verify information. Additional checks are performed by EPA headquarters on randomly selected states. Data Quality Reviews: EPAs regional offices will conduct data quality reviews of state data using the QA/QC procedures and work with states to resolve data issues. EPA headquarters will communicate any additional concerns that may occur. The national data system includes software to reject erroneous data. As a result, EPA expects the quality of data to improve over time. Data Limitations: Current reporting through the web based system only provides summary-level information. There is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate this summary data against well-level information contained in state databases. There is standard protocol to verify and validate well specific date reported to the UIC National database. Some of the information used for calculation of the measures has not been collected historically reducing the availability of information, which may cause the data to be incomplete and inconsistent across states. Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for these performance measures given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A centralized data system for information required under the Class VI Rule for Carbon Dioxide Class Geosequestration is being developed. There are no performance measures at this time although EPA will be evaluating rule implementation. References: Guidance, Regulations and Data Forms Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on Underground Injection Control Programs National Water Program Guidance Performance Activity Measures (Reporting Assistance Memo)--7/06/06 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Measures in the National Water Program Guidance for 2009 and 2010. Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148 UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures Web Data Entry System 7520 Federal Reporting Forms (OGWDW Homepage-UIC Program) Form 7520-1 Permit Review and Issuance/Wells in Area of Review Form 7520-2A (Compliance Evaluation) Form 7520- 2B (Compliance Evaluation/ Significant Noncompliance) Form 7520-3(Inspections/Mechanical Integrity Testing) Form 7520-4 (Quarterly Exceptions List)
Web site addresses Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html For more detailed information on Underground Injection topics, US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on the website: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html FY 2012 Performance Measure: Fish and Shell-fish safe to eat Percentage of women of child-bearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern identified by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Performance Database: There is no publicly accessible database that contains this information. Rather, the information is reported periodically by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which presented findings for the years 2001 and 2002, was published in 2005. In the report, CDC reported that 5.7% of the women of child-bearing age have mercury blood levels above the level of concern.1 The most recent report, the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, was published in July 2009. This report presents exposure data for the U.S. population over the two-year
survey period of 20032004. The Fourth Report also includes data from 19992000 and 20012002, as reported in the Second and Third National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. In the Fourth Report, CDC presents data on 212 chemicals, including results for 75 chemicals measured for the first time in the U.S. population. The Updated Tables (published in July 2010) provide nationally-representative biomonitoring data from the 2005-2006 survey cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 51 of the environmental chemicals measured in the Fourth Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (released in December 2009), covering NHANES 1999-2004. The Updated Tables are cumulative, containing all the results from previous survey cycles (1999-2006). EPA is in the process of normalizing and analyzing the data from the Fourth Report. Data Source: CDCs National Center for Health Statistics conducts the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which chemicals or their metabolites are measured in blood and urine samples from a random sample of participants. NHANES is a series of surveys designed to collect data on the health and nutritional status of the U.S. population. CDC reports the NHANES results in the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Methods and Assumptions: Biomonitoring measurements for the Report were from samples from participants in NHANES. NHANES collects information about a wide range of health-related behaviors, performs a physical examination and collects samples for laboratory tests. Beginning in 1999, NHANES became a continuous survey, sampling the U.S. population annually and releasing the data in 2-year cycles. The sampling plan follows a complex, stratified, multistage, probability-cluster design to select a representative sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population in the United States. Additional detailed information on the design and conduct of the NHANES survey is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has a policy for release of and access to NHANES data at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelines_june_04.pdf. Other details about the methodology including statistical methods are reported in the Third and Fourth National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Suitability: This indicator was selected because it provides an indication of levels of exposure in the human population to organic mercury where the main source is the consumption of fish and shellfish contaminated with methylmercury. As consumers follow fish consumption advice, changes in mercury in blood levels will decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual comparison but the periodic reports from NHANES provide a direct measure of mercury in blood levels in a representative sample of the US population. QA/QC Procedures: The CDC quality assurance and quality control procedures are not specified in the Third and Fourth National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. However, the Data Sources and Data Analysis chapters in the reports delineate the assumptions inherent in the analysis.
Data Quality Review: The data comes from the NHANES study, which CDC has designed to have a high quality. Data Limitations: NHANES is designed to provide estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population. The current design does not permit examination of exposure levels by locality, state, or region; seasons of the year; proximity to sources of exposure; or use of particular products. For example, it is not possible to extract a subset of the data and examine levels of blood lead that represent levels in a particular states population. Error Estimate: The Third and Fourth National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals provides 95% confidence intervals for all statistics. At the point of interest for this measure, the 95% confidence interval is roughly 1.2 ug/l. New/Improved Data or Systems: In the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, weighted percentile estimates for 19992000 and 20012002 data were calculated using SAS Proc Univariate and a proportions estimation procedure. A percentile estimate may fall on a value that is repeated multiple times in a particular demographic group defined by age, sex and race (e.g., in non-Hispanic white males 12-19 years old, five results that all have a value of 90.1). Since the Third Report, we have improved the procedure for estimating percentiles to better handle this situation. This improved procedure makes each repeated value unique by adding a unique negligibly small number to each repeated value. All data from 19992004 have been reanalyzed using this new procedure to handle situations where the percentile falls on a repeating value. Therefore, occasional percentile estimates may differ slightly in the current Fourth Report compared to the Third Report. Appendix A gives the details of the new procedure for estimating percentiles. References: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Atlanta, GA. July 2005. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. December 2009. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Water Safe for Swimming Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with, coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a fiveyear average.
Performance Database: Data on waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDOs) are collected by the states and are submitted to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under an agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the organization that sponsors the collection of the data. EPA/ORD collaborates with CDC in the analysis of the data. The data are published every two years for the prior second and third years occurrence of outbreaks as a Surveillance Summary in the CDCs Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), e.g. data from 1997-1998 were published in 2000. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis, dermatitis, and other diseases are listed according to date of occurrence, state in which the outbreak occurred, etiological agent, the number of cases that resulted from the outbreak, class of the outbreak data (index of data quality for the reporting of the outbreak), and the type of source (e.g., lake, river, pool) involved. Data Source: Since 1971, CDC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have collaboratively maintained a surveillance system for collecting and periodically reporting data that relate to occurrences and causes of WBDOs. The surveillance system includes data about outbreaks associated with drinking water and recreational water (added in 1978). State, territorial, and local public health departments are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and for voluntarily reporting them to CDC. Methods and Assumptions: State, territorial, and local public health agencies report WBDOs to CDCs online database, the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS), launched in 2009. CDC annually requests reports from state and territorial epidemiologists or from persons designated as WBDO surveillance coordinators. As indicated above, the data are submitted to CDC by the states under an agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Many, if not most, outbreaks occur in treated man-made water environments which are not reflective of outcomes of Clean Water Act programs. Others occur in untreated natural waters in smaller water bodies not affected by EPA programs or activities. Accordingly, cooperation of database managers is required to identify specific outbreaks which should be counted under this measure as occurring in waters of the United States. The unit of analysis for the WBDO surveillance system is an outbreak, not an individual case of a waterborne disease, although this information is reported. Two criteria must be met for an event to be defined as a water-associated disease outbreak. First, two or more people must have experienced a similar illness after exposure to water. This criterion is waived for single cases of laboratory-confirmed primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). WBDOs associated with cruise ships are not summarized in the CDC report. Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the increased incidence of outbreaks from recreational water contact due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling sources of water contamination would result in maintaining or improving water quality conditions, thereby avoiding an increase in outbreaks QA/QC Procedures: Data are submitted to CDC through an online database. Procedures for reporting outbreaks on the Internet for web-entry electronic submission
are found on CDCs website1. Information on QA/QC procedures employed by the individual states or other reporting entities is not included in the CDC reporting. Data Quality Review: The CDC and EPA/ORD report team review the outbreak reports to ensure the information is complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed. There are currently no external party reviews of this information conducted prior to publication. WBDOs reported to the surveillance system are classified according to the strength of the evidence implicating water as the vehicle of transmission. The classification scheme (i.e., Classes I--IV) is based on the epidemiologic and water-quality data provided on the outbreak report form. Epidemiologic data are weighted more than water-quality data. Although outbreaks without water-quality data might be included in this summary, reports that lack epidemiologic data were excluded. Single cases of PAM are not classified according to this scheme. Weighting of epidemiologic data does not preclude the relative importance of both types of data. The purpose of the outbreak reporting system is not only to implicate water as the vehicle for the outbreak but also to understand the circumstances that led to the outbreak. Data Limitations: There are two primary limitations to the CDC WBDO data with respect to this performance measure. The first limitation relates to original data forms and the primary database itself not being available for external review. The implication of this limitation is that database managers or report authors will have to be consulted to identify which of the reported outbreaks have, in fact, occurred in Waters of the United States. The second limitation is the fact that very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data that have been reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this measure.2-7 The implication of this measure is that were a small number of outbreaks to occur within a given year, it may still be within the range of normal statistical variability and therefore not an effective performance measure. One key limitation of the data collected as part of the WBDO surveillance system is that the information pertains only to disease outbreaks rather than endemic illness. No waterborne disease outbreaks associated with marine waters were reported to WBDOSS before 2005--2006; however, evidence from multiple sources demonstrates that contamination of marine waters is common and that swimmers in marine waters are at increased risk for acquiring gastrointestinal illness. The reasons for a lack of reported marine-associated outbreaks might include the wide geographic spread of beachgoers, the fact that some of the marine-associated illnesses are not enteric illnesses typically linked to waterborne causes, and a lack of illness attribution to marine waters. Error Estimate: The relative quality of data and the error estimate associated with data of a given quality are indicated by the classification of the outbreak report. A classification of I indicates that adequate epidemiologic and water-quality data were reported. Specifically, a classification of I indicates that adequate data were provided about exposed and unexposed persons with a relative risk or odds ratio of =>2 or P value of =<0.05, which indicates statistical significance. Higher classification numbers (II-IV)
indicate relatively higher error estimates based on factors such as completeness of data and sample size. For instance, outbreaks that affect fewer persons are more likely to receive a classification of III rather than I because of the relatively limited sample size available for analysis. New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The manual reporting of WBDOs has been practiced since the collaborative surveillance system for collecting and reporting data began in 1971. The National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) is a web-based platform designed to support reporting of waterborne, foodborne, enteric person-toperson, and animal contact-associated disease outbreaks to CDC by state and territorial public health agencies. NORS launched in 2009 following a four year commitment by CDC to the planning, development, and launch phases of the project. CDC developed NORS for waterborne disease outbreak reporting in collaboration with the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve the quality, quantity, and availability of data submitted to the Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Reporting System (WBDOSS). The launch of NORS represents an important shift in national waterborne disease outbreak reportinga transition from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting of outbreak data. NORS will improve the ability to describe and prevent waterborne disease outbreaks at national and state levels through the collection of detailed information about deficiencies and risk factors associated with water exposure. These data, along with historical outbreak report data transferred into NORS, will be more readily available for review and analysis to state health officials. This should enable waterborne disease outbreak investigators, researchers, and health policy makers to evaluate and implement effective measures designed to prevent illness and reduce the burden of waterborne disease in the United States. An increased number of reported WBDOs resulting from electronic reporting would require the baseline for the performance measure to be reset to a baseline consistent with the new level of reporting in order to yield meaningful trends in the occurrence of waterborne outbreaks in the future. References 1. http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/wbdoss/nors/forms.html and http:/www.cdc.gov/healthywater/wbdoss/nors/training.html 2. Yoder JS et al. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic Facility-Associated Health Events United States, 20052006. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, September 12, 2008. MMWR 2008; 57(SS09); 1-29. 3. Yoder JS, Blackburn BG, Craun GF, Hill V, Levy DA, Calderon RL, et al. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks---United States, 2001--2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, October 22, 2004. MMWR 2004;53(SS-08): 1--22 4. Lee SH, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks---United States, 1999--2000. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, November 22, 2002. MMWR 2002; 51(SS-8): 1--47.
5. Barwick RS, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne disease outbreaks---United States, 1997--1998. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, May 26, 2000. MMWR 2000; 49 (No. SS-4):1--34. 6. Levy DA, Bens MS, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Herwaldt BL. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks---United States, 1995--1996. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, December 11, 1998. MMWR 1998; 47(No. SS-5):1--34. 7. Kramer MH, Herwaldt BL, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Juranek DD. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks---United States, 1993--1994. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, April 12, 1996. MMWR 1996; 45 (No. SS-1):1--33. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Water Safe for Swimming Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming Percent of days of the beach season that Great Lakes beaches monitored by the state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields identifying the beaches for which monitoring and notification information are available and the date the advisory or closure was issued, thus enabling trend assessments to be made. The database also identifies those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health) Act grant. EPA reports the information annually, on a calendar year basis, each May. The calendar year data are then used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g., 2009 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2010 commitments). For the 2009 swimming season, states and territories monitored for pathogens at 3,819 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. In re-evaluating their beach programs, some states combined small beaches into larger beaches during 2007, reducing the total number of beaches monitored (from 3,771 in 2006 to 3,602 in 2007), but maintaining the scope of their programs. 1 Data Source: Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local governments for information on their monitoring programs and on their advisories or closures. The Agency created the PRAWN database to store this information. State and local governmental response to the survey was voluntary up through calendar year 2002. Starting in calendar year 2003, data for many beaches along the coast and Great Lakes had to be reported to EPA as a condition of grants awarded under the BEACH Act2. Since 2005, states have used an online process called eBeaches to electronically transmit beach water quality and swimming advisory information to EPA instead of using the paper survey. The latest information reported by a state or local government is accessible to the public through the BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification) system. Methods and Assumptions: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-specific advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year. Performance against the target is tracked using a simple count of the number of beaches responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure actions were
taken. This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could be open. Thus the data are suitable for the performance measure. Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the frequency of beach closings primarily due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling sources of contamination would result in water quality improvement at beach thereby leading to fewer closures. QA/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard survey form, approved by OMB, to coastal and Great Lakes state and county environmental and public health beach program officials in hard copy by mail. The form is also available on the Internet for web-entry electronic submission. When a state or local official enters data using the web-entry format, a password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is completing the survey. Currently the Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of Waters Quality Management Plan, approved September 2001 and published July 20023). In addition, coastal and Great Lakes states receiving BEACH Act grants are subject to the Agencys grant regulations under 40 CFR 31.45. These regulations require states and tribes to develop and implement quality assurance practices for the collection of environmental information. Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed. The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by states and territories as part of their grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of this information. Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey and submission of data was voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it did not capture the complete universe of beaches. The voluntary response rate was 92% in calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded). The number of beaches for which information was collected increased from 1,021 in calendar year 1997 to 2,823 in calendar year 2002. Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for implementation grants awarded under the BEACH Act program to coastal and Great Lakes states, with information now available for 3,602 of approximately 6,000 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and Great Lakes states and territories utilize the implementation grants. Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2009, states and territories reported that they monitored at 3,819 of the approximately 6,000 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies among states. For example, North Carolina monitors all its 240 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors 23 of 299 beaches it identified. Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may miss some instances of high pathogen concentrations. EPAs 2002 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches found that 90% of the nations beaches are monitored once a week or less4. Studies in southern California found that weekly sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70% of the exceedances lasted for only one day.6
An EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) beach monitoring study found a positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities one day as compared to densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when compared to densities after four days7. These studies indicate that weekly sampling most likely misses many pathogen events that can affect public health. This information is not sufficient to calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to indicate that the reporting may understate the number of days that beaches should be closed or under advisory. New/Improved Data or Systems: Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for grants awarded under the BEACH Act program. As the Agency awards these implementation grants, it will require standard program procedures, sampling and assessment methods, and data elements for reporting. The amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve to the extent that state governments apply for and receive these grants. In FY 2012, EPA expects all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and notification programs. References: 1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. EPAs Beach Report: 2009 Swimming Season. EPA823-F-08-006. Washington, DC, May 2010. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2009 2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/guidance/index.html 3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. A Quality Management Plan. EPA 821-X-02-001. Washington, DC, July 2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmp_july2002.pdf 4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. EPAs BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season. EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf 5. Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001. 6. Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002. 7. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. The EMPACT Beaches Project, Results and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-04/023. Washington, DC, August 2005.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories that has access to continuous drinking water meeting all applicable health-based drinking water standards measured on a four quarter rolling average basis
Performance Database: SDWIS (Safe Drinking Water Information System) is the database used to track this performance measure throughout the United States now including the Pacific territories. SDWIS contains basic water system information: population served, and detailed records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statutes implementing health-based drinking water regulations. However, because of computational idiosyncrasies in CNMI (including double counting of bottle water service with utility-provided water, and areas which lack 24-hour water service), we apply a hand-correction to the CNMI figures. Data Source: Health-based violations are reported by the territories. Percentage of population served by community drinking water systems receiving 24-hour water is obtained through direct communication with territory (CNMI only). Population data are obtained from U.S. Census data. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Our method is to calculate the performance measure as the percentage of people in the territories served by public water systems who are receiving 24-hour water that meets all health-based drinking water standards (i.e., no health-based violations). We provide an aggregate value for the three Pacific territories using a weighted average based upon their populations. Our first main assumption is that a public water system must provide 24-hour water on a regular basis before it can provide drinking water that meets all health-based drinking water standards. This is an assumption that generally does not need to be made in the rest of the United States; and in the Pacific territories is an issue now solely in the CNMI. For example, the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands (population 70,000) is the only municipality of its size in the U.S. without 24-hour water (all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water or rain water as the main source of their drinking water). This method is suitable for the Pacific islands because the situation is unique to the Pacific Island territories, and is one of the underlying reasons for the need to track access to safe drinking water. Our second main assumption is that health-based violations reported by the territories are correct. Our third main assumption is that US Census data are correct. QA/QC Procedures: The territories follow QA/QC procedures in the data submitted to EPA for entry into the SDWIS database. Routine data quality assurance and quality control analysis of SDWIS by the Agency revealed a degree of non-reporting of violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result, the Agency is now tracking and quantifying the quality of data reported to SDWIS/FED as part of the Agencys National Program Guidance. The Agency will continue to follow and update the Data Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. EPA will continue to review the results of on-site data verification (and eDV) and initiate a discussion with individual states concerning any potential discrepancies with the data reported to SDWIS/FED. The on-site DV will be conducted as described in the Data Verification Protocol. Even as improvements are made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the development of drinking water regulations, trend analyses, and public information.
Data Quality Reviews: Although the territories are responsible for reviewing and assuring quality of health-based violation reporting, EPA periodically communicates directly with public water systems to corroborate the data (and continues to do so as part of ongoing enforcement and compliance efforts). EPA is also in direct communication with the CNMI to obtain percentage of population receiving 24-hour water. The US Census is responsible for reviewing and assuring population data quality. There is no other peer review or external data quality review. Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) potential for inconsistencies in reporting health-based violations among territories; and (b) inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of percentage of population served by public water systems that receives 24-hour water. Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible. New/Improved Data or Systems: Regarding SDWIS data, EPA has worked with the territories of Guam and CNMI over the last few years to improve performance on data collection and entry. Regarding percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, EPA continues to work closely with the CNMI public water system and the CNMI Division of Environment Quality to both more accurately assess percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, and to provide 24-hour water to an increasing percentage of the population. References: USEPA SDWIS/FED: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/indexx.html GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of urban water projects initiated/completed addressing water quality issues in the community
Measure Database: Data will be stored in a database or spreadsheet that includes fields identifying the grantee name, grant number, location, and when the project was initiated and completed. Measure Definitions: Initiated will be defined as meeting the following criteria: 1) Stakeholder group identified; 2) Scope of Work submitted that includes: a) Description of water body name and location (with photos and maps), b) Demography of community living near the water body,
c) Problem statement of waterbody (e.g., impairments, trash, aesthetics, access, safety) d) Project goals (description of communitys use of water body, both current and desired state (include metrics where they exist), and e) Project description (address how it will take the water body from current to desired use); and 3) Urban Waters grant awarded by EPA to the stakeholder group. Completed Criteria: 1) Results/Measures of Success(project dependent) but should include measures that describe how the water meets the desired state of community use. At a minimum, this should include site changes and all metrics identified in Section 1, project goals of the scope of work; 2) Partners and Fundingdescription of all project partners and all funding (includes UW funds and other leveraged funds and resources), and 3) Replicationdescription of outreach and education efforts within the community and to other communities. Project will be defined as an individual grant awarded to a showcase community. Data Source: Data will come from reports prepared by grantees. EPA will aggregate the data provided by each grantee to arrive at a national total. Methods and Assumptions: Data will be reviewed by Regional EPA urban water coordinators and grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Suitability: Measure tracks progress toward meeting EPA's strategic goals to improve and restore impaired water quality on a watershed basis and facilitate ecosystem-scale protection and restoration under EPA Strategic Goal 2 Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2 (Protect Water Quality), Sub-objective 2.2.1 (Protect and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis) and Goal 3, Cleaning Up Our Communities, Objective 1 (Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities). QA/QC Procedures: Data will be reported by grant recipients and reviewed by EPA Regional grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of performance measure definitions. EPA will provide guidance for grantees on how to calculate acreage restored or protected. References: Urban Waters Strategic Framework EPA Urban Waters website: http://www.epa.gov/ow/urbanwaters/
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis and Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to improve national and regional coastal aquatic system health on the good/fair/poor scale of the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) Long-term measure Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the good/fair/poor scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program/National Coastal Assessment) database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED, Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA database and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca. The final data are then migrated to the STORET data warehouse for integration with other water quality data with metadata documenting its quality. Data Source: Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the Mid- Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPAs Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1991-1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the MidAtlantic in 1997-1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2006 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in Alaska in 2002 and 2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and 2004, and in other island territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in 2004. Surveys collect condition information regarding water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/Region (e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or territory/year (site number dependent upon state) after 1999. Additional sampling by the National Estuary Program (NEP) included all individual national estuaries; the total number of sites within NEP boundaries was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2002. These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel. Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case - all estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude
combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess Regional conditions, whereas the states analyze the data to assess conditions of statespecific waters. Results of analyses on a national and Regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series. The overall Regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators scores used in the Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR II a recalculation method was provided for direct comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one of the indicators by a full category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the Regional estimate to meet the performance measure goal (+0.2 over an eight year period). Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the United States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data into indices are completed in a statistically rigorous manner. Suitability: By design all data are suitable to be aggregated to the state and Regional level to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition. Samples represent reasonable, site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of data use) and an excellent representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to entire resource supportable). The intended use of the data is the characterization of populations and subpopulations of estuarine resources through time. The data meet this expectation and the sampling, response, analysis and reporting designs have been peer reviewed successfully multiple times. The data are suitable for individual calendar year characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and assessment of long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable for use in National Coastal Condition calculations for the United States and its Regions to provide performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis appeared in the NCCRIII representing trends between1990-2002. QA/QC Procedures: The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal Assessment Information Management Plan (IMP)[EPA 2001]. These plans are followed by all twenty-three coastal states and five island territories. Adherence to the plans are determined by field training (conducted by EPA/ORD), field audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD), round robin testing of chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD), overall systems audits of state programs and national laboratory practices (conducted by EPA) sample splits (sent to reference laboratories), blind samples (using reference materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA samples in each batch. All states are subject to audits at least once every two years. All participants received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years. Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA/ ORD at the Regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003, and written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies). No deficiencies were found in the program. A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the Inspector Generals Office for potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only one incorrect use of a chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was found. This error was corrected and all samples digested incorrectly were reanalyzed at no cost. Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner to permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO) (<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the results at the Regional level (appropriate for this performance measure) are within about 2- 4% of true values dependent upon the specific sample type. Other limitations as follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are minimized by audits, in the first year of the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting in loss of some data. These problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been observed since. (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found irregularities regarding the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls exceeded detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were flagged so that users are aware of the potential limitations. (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of condition. Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states and territories would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure. (d) The only major source of external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.) and the only source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in data collected and analyzed). This internal reporting modification requires a re-analysis of earlier information to permit direct comparison. (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag from the time of collection until reporting. Sample analysis generally takes one year and data analysis another. Add another year for report production and peer review. (f) Data collections are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration continued through 2004. Beginning in 2005, ORD began assisting OW, as requested, with expert advice, but discontinued its financial support of the program.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 57% for individual Regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a Regional estimate), and about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are calculated using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems: (1) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition. QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence and cross-laboratory sample analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories entering the program. Data from ORDs National Coastal Assessment Program (NCA) for 2003-2006 will be presented in the NCCRIV. This report is projected to be available at the end of calendar year 2011.
(2)
(3)
ORDs National Coastal Assessment Program has ended and the Office of Water is now administering the program as part of the National Aquatic Resource Surveys. The next coastal survey report, NCCRV, is scheduled for release in calendar year 2012.
References: 1. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National Coastal Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present) National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding results of QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator NCA, USEPA, ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561) National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R01/002.(Available through John Macauley above) National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R01/003 (Available through Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator, ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R- 01/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. National Coastal Condition Report III. EPA 842-R-08-002.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6. 7.
FY 2012Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Gulf of Mexico Restore, enhance, or protect acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
Performance Database: Coastal Emergent wetlands border the Gulf of Mexico and include tidal saltwater and freshwater marshes and mangroves. Encompassing over two million hectares (five million acres or more than half of the national total), the Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands serve as essential habitat for a diverse range of species. Total wetland loss (coastal and inland) for the five Gulf States from 1780 until 1980 was estimated to be 40 million square kilometers, approximately 50%. Between 1985 and 1995 the southeastern U.S. lost the greatest area of wetland (51% of the national total). Coastal emergent wetland loss for Louisiana represents 67% of the nations total loss (177,625 hectares or 438,911 acres) from 1978 to 1990. The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves its acreage goal each year by cooperative funding of projects that result in the enhancement, protection or restoration of coastal habitat. This coastal habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses, mangroves, dunes and maritime forest ridge areas. Data Source: The amount of acreage restored, protected and enhanced by the Gulf of Mexico Program is derived from the individual projects Statement of Work contained within the project proposal. This acreage is then verified by the EPA Project Officer and by the Projects Program Manager through Site visits during the life of the project, quarterly reports submitted to GMPO, aerial photography, ground truthing, digital topographic data and verification at the end of the project. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves this goal successfully each year by cooperatively funding restoration projects with our multiple federal and state Program partners. Our partners additionally follow required QA/QC procedures on there projects and routinely conduct site visits to provide verification of the acreage restored. These partners and our process to restore, protect and enhance Gulf coastal habitat include: 1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office State Proposal Solicitation through RFPs 2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Programs A) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) QA/QC Procedures: The projects that are funded are required to provide a QA/QC plan if the restoration project involves monitoring. In those cases, EPA has documented Assistance Agreements with QA/QC approved plans. NOAA additionally requires QA/QC Plans, if the projects involve scientific monitoring. Additionally, the EPA Project Manager is required to conduct site visits, during the duration of the project to verify actual acreage restored, protected and/or enhanced. This QA/QC includes but is not limited to, aerial
photography, ground truthing; transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all funded projects. Data Quality Reviews: Award Process for supporting habitat at restoration projects through partnership cooperative agreements. 1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office Competitive RFPs 2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program Grants A) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS). The Gulf of Mexico Foundation, NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Program established a Steering Committee to review and select the NOAA CRP projects for funding. The steering committee consists of EPA, all GEMS State Managers, NOAA and USFWS staff and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation. Ensures there is no duplication of funding and seeks opportunities for brokering with other restoration grant programs. Review of the restoration data occurs in the field and through field analysis by the project manager as the project progresses. This review is accomplished through measures such as aerial photography, ground truthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all funded projects, and is verified by EPA and our Program Partners through site visits and quarterly reports. Data Limitations: Limitations of use for the data are carefully detailed by the data provider and project manager for each project that yields acreage. Images and topographic data have routinely been used for restoration projects and few to no limitations are expected from these datasets beyond that of image resolution. Error Estimate: The acreage is documented by the project managers for each project during the life of the effort through required EPA Quarterly Reports and is subject to a second verification following the completion of the project. References: Status and Trends of the Nations Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 1998
The Gulf Community Restoration Partnership Program (GCRP). This program provides acreage through the combined efforts of the NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program and the Gulf of Mexico Programs Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) program and the Gulf States natural resource agencies and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation. Website: http://www.gulfmex.org/restoration.htm
Handley, L., Altsman, D., and DeMay, R., eds., 2007, Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 19402002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 20065287, 267 p. FY 2012Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Gulf of Mexico Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 13 coastal areas
Performance Database: EPAs Surf Your Watershed and EPAs WATERS Expert Query Tool Data Source: Data regarding impaired segments are collected from EPAs Surf Your Watershed and EPAs WATERS Expert Query Tool every two years as the databases are updated as determined by the TMDL schedule. Another source is the Decision Documents which are an approved EPA source and is basically the QAPP plan for the state 303(d) data. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To begin the project, the Decision Documents for each state must be acquired. The water bodies listed as impaired for Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi are compared to Surf Your Watershed and then to the WATERS Expert Query Tool. Louisiana and Texas have a different form for the Decision Documents in that only the delisted water bodies are listed in the document. For these two states Surf Your Watershed and WATERS Expert Query Tool are used. All the data is cross referenced: Surf Your Watershed is cross referenced with WATERS and the Decision Documents and WATERS are cross referenced to the Decision Documents. After all data are cross reference against each of the sources, tables were created for each watershed in the Gulf of Mexico Programs Priority Watershed Inventory. In all, 67 tables were created and populated with information obtained from Surf Your Watershed. These tables included an id num for the segment to view location of the segment in the map, the segment id with link to URL in Surf Your Watershed, name of the state basin the segment is located within, the watershed the segment is located in, the name of the waterbody, the number of impairments for that segment, the impairments for that segment, and the year the impairment is listed. Delisting information is also listed in the tables for segments that have that information available. The information available in that table includes the id num, the segment id, the waterbody name, what impairment was delisted, the basis for the delisting, and a link to the TMDL document if it exists. Segments that are shared among two or more watersheds are highlighted for easier recognition when counting the number of segments duplicated among watersheds. Shapefiles are acquired from the states that contain the 303(d) segments for that state. Although, the segments listed in the shapefile do not always match the documents that EPA provides (Surf Your Watershed, WATERS Expert Query Tool, and Decision Documents). Therefore, it may be necessary to contact the state for additional shapefiles that contain other segments not available in the shapefile originally obtained from the
state. The data is grouped by the watershed with a name to represent the area in the shapefile (ex. 2002_03170009_303d_line). New fields are added to the shapefile to provide meaningful data to the Gulf of Mexico Program Office. New fields include, id num (matches the number from the tables), TMDL status (Impaired Water Segment, TMDL Completed, Restored), Number of Impairments for that segment, List of Impairments for that segment, and the waterbody name for that segment. Maps are then generated for each watershed to show the number of impairments in each of the watersheds. Impaired Water Segments are visible with a red cross hatch, while a segment that has a TMDL completed would appear with a yellow cross hatch, and a Restored segment would appear with a blue cross hatch. Each segment is then labeled with the id num that is found in the shapefile and the table. All maps include the HUC number and the HUC name, the map, legend, scale bar, inset map, GMPO logo and a disclaimer for the state if one was provided, and the date the map was created. In all, 67 maps were created. QA/QC Procedures: To create the best report possible, there were three EPA sources used to cross reference the data. Each source was verified with the other two sources (ex. Surf Your Watershed vs. WATERS, Surf Your Watershed vs. Decision Documents, WATERS vs. Decision Documents). It was pertinent that each of the sources matched and no discrepancies in the listed impaired segments could be found. No state documents were used in this process, since all state documents have to go through EPA review. Thus, the EPA sources used were a result of EPA reviewing the state documents. Data Quality Reviews: There are no outside reviews of the report generated. The tables and maps generated for each cycle are uploaded to the Surf Your Gulf Watershed website located on the Gulf of Mexico Program home web page. This Surf Your Gulf Watershed details the impaired segments for the Gulf Programs 13 priority areas. New web pages were created to display this data from the GMPO web site. This new site is a subset of Surf Your Watershed and is labeled as Surf Your Gulf Watershed. Surf Your Gulf Watershed details the impaired segments for the 13 priority areas. Data Limitations: Data is updated every two years on Surf Your Watershed and in WATERS Expert Query Tool due to the fact that states submit a 303(d) report every two years of the status of the impaired segments in each state as required in Clean Water Act (CWA) 305(b) report. Error Estimate: None identified. References: EPAs Surf Your Watershed http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/map2.cfm EPAs WATERS (Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results) Expert Query Tool http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
EPA GMPOs Surf Your Gulf Watershed http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/surfgulf/ FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by States in 2002 Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach Cost per water segment now fully attaining standards
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPAs approach for viewing water quality information related to these measures. WATERS can be used to view information compiled from states listings of impaired waters as required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d), which are recorded in the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System (ATTAINS). This information (found at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T) is used to generate reports that identify waters that are not meeting water quality standards (impaired waters) and that need one or more TMDLs to be developed. ATTAINS also includes information on other impaired waters for which TMDLs have been completed. See New and Improved Data Systems for more information on the ATTAINS database. There are several reasons why EPA or states may determine that specific waterbodies listed as impaired in 2002, the baseline year, are no longer impaired in the current reporting year. For example, water quality might improve due to EPA or state actions to reduce point and nonpoint source discharges of pollutants. In other cases, a state or EPA might conduct more robust monitoring studies and use these data to complete more accurate assessments of water quality conditions. In some cases, a state might modify its water quality standards, in accordance with EPA's regulations, to update scientific criteria or to better reflect the highest attainable conditions for its waters. Each of these examples represents a case where an impaired water may no longer exceed water quality standards. Any such removals of waterbody impairments will be recorded based on reports from states scheduled every two years through 2012. EPAs measure that tracks the improvement of water quality conditions utilizes the information on impairments described above and incorporates two additional features: 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) boundaries and data on watershed-wide water quality improvement. In 2009, boundaries and data on 12-digit HUC code watersheds were completed, certified and stored on USDAs comprehensive website for HUC watershed information (see http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html). Data on water quality improvements (e.g., a 20% reduction in nitrogen levels) will be documented via the extensive process laid out in computational guidance for this measure and for the
measures on water quality standards and waterbody impairment (see http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/goals_objectives/waterplan/pamsfy11_index.cfm). Data Source: The primary data source for these measures is state 303(d) lists of their impaired waterbodies needing development of TMDLs, and required submittals of monitoring information pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. These lists/reports are submitted each biennial reporting cycle. Most states have provided this information in Integrated Reports, pursuant to EPA guidance (see New/Improved Data Systems below). The baseline for this measure is the derived from the 2002 reporting cycle. States prepare lists/reports using actual water quality monitoring data, probabilitybased monitoring information, and other existing and readily available information and knowledge the state has, in order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the total extent of the states waterbody impairments. Once EPA approves a states 303(d) list, the information is entered into ATTAINS, as described above. The efficiency measure for the section 106 grant program is derived by dividing the cumulative actual expenditures or President Budget requests for the section 106 grant program, plus state funding matches for these grants (as reported to EPA by the states), by the cumulative number of waterbody segments now fully attaining standards. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: States employ various analytical methods of data collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of chemical, physical, and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality standards attainment; 3) Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of data from volunteer groups, academic interests and others. EPA-supported models include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX, and CORMIX. Descriptions of these models and instructions for their use can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/models/. The standard operating procedures and deviations from standard methods for data sampling and prediction processes are stored by many states in the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database. States exercise considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available information to make decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards. EPA then aggregates state data to generate national performance measures. Delays are often encountered in state 303(d) lists and 305(b) submissions, and in EPAs approval of the 303(d) portion of these biennial submissions. EPA encourages states to effectively assess their waters and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely submittal of required 303(d) lists of impaired waters. EPA will continue to work with states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georeferenced data submissions. Also, EPA is heightening efforts to ensure expeditious review of the 303(d) list submissions with national consistency. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state 303(d) lists (under CWA Section 303(d)) and/or Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Reports) is
dependent on individual state procedures. EPA regional staff interact with the states during the process of approval of the lists and before the information is entered into the database to ensure the integrity of the data, consistent with the Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data). Data Quality Review: Independent reports have cited the ways in which weaknesses in monitoring and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPAs ability to depict the condition of the Nations waters and to support scientifically sound water program decisions. The most recent reports include the March 15, 2000, Government Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, EPAs Draft Report on the Environment, and the 2007 Office of the Inspector General report, Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to improve: 1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; 2) data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and 3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users. First, EPA enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the National Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information. Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool called WATERS that integrates many databases including STORET, ATTAINS, and a water quality standards database. These integrated databases facilitate comparison and understanding of differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results. Third, EPA and states have developed guidance. The 2006 Integrated Report Guidance (released August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG) provides comprehensive direction to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act sections 305(b) and 303(d). EPA also issued a 2010 Integrated Report clarification memo (released May 5, 2009 available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance/final52009.html) which includes suggestions for the use of the rotating basin approach and Category 3, circumstances and expectation for partial approval/further review pending determinations, and using and reporting on Statewide Statistical Survey Data in ATTAINS and the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology Toward a Compendium of Best Practices (released on the Web July 31, 2002, at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html) intended to facilitate increased consistency
in monitoring program design and the data and decision criteria used to support water quality assessments. Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPAs Regional Offices have developed the Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (March 2008). This guidance describes ten elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and directs states to develop monitoring strategies that propose time-frames for implementing all ten elements. Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States, territories and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their waterbodies. States do not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of water quality standards. For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community assessments to levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. These variations in state practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can be used to describe water quality at the national level. There are also differences among sampling techniques and standards. State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or modeled data. Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the agency from aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence. States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically lag times between data collection and reporting can vary by state. Also, as noted above under Methods, Assumptions and Suitability, states exercise considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available information to make decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards. EPA then aggregates these various state decisions to generate national performance measures. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. In 2005 EPA issued listing guidance entitled Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. This document provided a comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA had issued to date regarding the Integrated Report. It included some specific changes from the 2004 guidance. For example, the 2006 Integrated Report Guidance provided greater clarity on the content and format of those components of the Integrated Report that are recommended and required under Clean Water Act sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314. The guidance also gave additional clarity and flexibility on reporting alternatives to TMDLs for attaining water quality standards (e.g., utilization of reporting Category 4b).
In May 2009 EPA released Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Integrated Report list submissions remained steady with 15 lists submitted to EPA by the April 1, 2010, deadline. Timely submittal and EPA review of integrated reports is important to demonstrate state and EPA success in accomplishing Strategic Plan goals for water quality. EPA has combined the former National TMDL Tracking System and the former National Assessment Database into one integrated system, ATTAINS, which became operational in May 2008. ATTAINS tracks the status of all assessed waters and waterbody impairments, including impaired waterbodies. Also, EPA released the Water Quality Exchange (WQX) which provides data exchange capability to any organization that generates data of documented quality and would like to contribute that data to the national STORET data warehouse so that their data may be used in combination with other sources of data to track improvements in individual watersheds. Currently data providers must transmit data and required documentation through their own Exchange Network node. EPA rolled out a web data entry tool called WQXweb for users who have not invested in the node technology. References: USEPA, 2008, EPAs 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=190806 USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf. USEPA, Office of Water. 2006. Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html, USEPA, Office of Water. 2005. Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG. USEPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 2003. 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf. USEPA. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm. USEPA, Office of Water. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. Washington, DC. Available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/.
USEPA. 2002. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology Toward a Compendium of Best Practices. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html. Government Accountability Office. 2002. Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nations Efforts to Identify its Most Polluted Waters. GAO-02-186. Washington, DC. Government Accountability Office. 2000. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. GAO-RCED-00-54. Washington, DC. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDLs] on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)
Note: 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. Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is the database which captures water quality information related to these measures. ATTAINS is an integrated system that documents and manages the connections between state assessment and listing decisions reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated reporting) and completed TMDLs. This system holds information about assessment decisions and restoration actions across reporting cycles and over time until water quality standards are attained. TMDL information (found at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T) is used to generate reports that identify waters that have an approved TMDL. Annual TMDL totals, spanning from 1996 to the present, are available in ATTAINS by fiscal year. As TMDLs and other watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, waterbodies that were once impaired will meet water quality standards. Thus these TMDL measures are closely tied to the program assessment measure, Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained. Data 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 system allows search for TMDL documents at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl_document_search.html.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: State and EPA TMDLs are publicly reviewed during their development. Upon approval by EPA, relevant information from each TMDL is entered into ATTAINS by EPA Regional staff. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data is provided by EPA Regional staff and through cross-checks of ATTAINS information regarding impaired water listings, consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires that organizations prepare a document called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data). Data Quality Review: In the past, internal reviews of data quality have revealed some inconsistencies in the methodology of data entry between EPA Regional Offices. In 2005 and 2006, EPA convened a meeting of NTTS users to discuss how to improve the database. As a result, data field definitions were clarified, the users group was reinstituted, several training sessions were scheduled, and an ATTAINS design team is currently directing the database upgrades. One of the issues raised included the methodology used to count TMDLs. Previous methodology generated a TMDL count based on the causes of impairment removed from the 303(d) impaired waters list as well as the TMDL pollutant. EPA proposed to change the counting methodology to directly reflect only the pollutants given allocations in TMDLs. During a 2007 EPA Office of the Inspector General review they concurred with this recommendation. This proposed change was vetted during the TMDL Programs annual meeting in March 2007 and implemented in August 2007, resulting in a cumulative net reduction of 1,577 TMDLs. Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA continues to improve the 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. Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for these data. New/Improved Data Systems: See above. References: USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf. USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2005. Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdf. National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the
TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Link to TMDL report data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ Link to the Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS) can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any time during the fiscal year Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards
Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include major permittee self reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on permittee compliance status, data on state and EPA inspection and enforcement response. Data Source: Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or EPA Regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit. This automated process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted levels. Facilities are designated as being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants. PCS contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site inspections, which are used to determine SNC, including: non-effluent limit violations such as unauthorized bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which cause water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of DMRs; submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement orders. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached. QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in place for PCS data entry. State and regional PCS data entry staff are required to take PCS training courses [See references]. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for ensuring timely input, review and certification of PCS information. OCs current QMP,
effective for 5 years, was approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI). The required re-approval of OECAs QMP has been prepared and is in the management approval process at this time. Data Quality Review: Information contained in PCS is required by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy. SNC data in PCS are reviewed quarterly. Data Limitations: Legal requirements for permittees to self report data on compliance with effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and accuracy. EPA monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and data entry quality. National trends over the past several years show an average of 94% of DMRs is entered timely and complete. Where data entry problems are observed, OECA works directly with regions and states to improve performance, and in limited circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant resources to help regions and states correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation OECA is working to deploy an electronic DMR process to save resources on data entry workload and reduce data input errors. Error Estimate: Not available New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980s and has undergone periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a modernized data system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and analytical approaches. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System NPDES), a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, began in June 2006 when eleven states began using the system; seven other states will be migrated to the new system in August. During phased implementation of ICISNPDES across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate SNC data. Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES SNC data. References: PCS information is publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Percentage 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 information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous standards. Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from States and Territories that are approved by EPA
Performance Database: The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA), an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and Technology described at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the performance database for these measures. The information in this system provides the baseline and performance data for these measures. Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states and territories of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act and EPAs water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. States and territories are required to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and submit any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval. Each submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official, and includes a certification by the state or territorial attorney general that the standards were duly adopted pursuant to state or territorial law. EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter it into the WATA system. The information includes identifying data (name of jurisdiction, date of submission), data concerning components of the submission, and data concerning EPAs action on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and disapproval decisions to the Regional Administrator; the Regional Administrator may redelegate the decisions to the appropriate Division Director, but no further. Approval decisions are judicially reviewable, and are accompanied by an appropriate administrative record. Methods and Assumptions: The Office of Science and Technology has established computation metrics in the Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA) system to produce the baselines and performance data for both measures. These metrics are as follows: Percentage of State and Territorial water quality standards submissions (received in the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by EPA. Partial approvals receive fractional credit. This metric considers all new or revised submissions from May 1 of the previous year through April 30 of the current year. This reporting period provides EPA Regional Offices at least five months to reach and document a valid approval decision. EPA management believes this is an adequate time for processing most submissions. A submission is determined by the submitting jurisdiction, as described above. The metric then searches for whether the Regional Office has made any approval decision concerning the submission. If EPA approves the submission in full by the end of the reporting period, it will be counted with an approval value of 1. If EPA disapproves all provisions of the standards, it will be counted with an approval value of 0 (zero). In some cases the Regional decision official may decide to approve some portions of the standards provisions, disapprove some portions, or defer actions on some portions. To accommodate these possibilities, and to reflect the complex nature of some submissions,
the WATA system allows Regional staff to track portions of a submission as separate parts with weights corresponding to the number of actual provisions involved. When different decisions are reached on different parts or provisions of a submission, the metric calculates a fractional approval value. The fractional approval value is a number between 0 and 1, equal to the number of provisions approved, divided by the total number of provisions in the original submission. For example, if a submission contains 10 provisions and EPA approves 8 and disapproves 2, then the metric would count this as 0.8 submissions. The final performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval values divided by the total number of submissions during the reporting period. Number 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 information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous standards This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the WATA system which indicates whether a submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria or revised criteria that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in designated uses would count under this entry. If a state or territory has not adopted any such criteria, the jurisdiction can nevertheless be counted under this measure if (a) EPA has issued new or revised water quality criteria, including revisions to the published table of EPA recommended criteria at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable, but the state has determined through a scientific assessment that such a change is not relevant for its waters, or (b) the jurisdiction could certify to EPA that it has completed a defensible scientific review of the new scientific information EPA has issued and has determined that no changes are needed to their existing water quality criteria. The metric searches for one or more qualifying submissions or submission parts for each jurisdiction during the three-year period ending five months before the end of the reporting period, and that have been approved by EPA by the end of the reporting period. For example, for FY 2012 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2012, that were approved by September 30, 2012, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note the overlap from one reporting year to the next: a state that last made such a submittal, in, say, February 2010, could be counted in FYs 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 but not in FY 2013. Suitability: These two performance measures provide important information about how well EPA and states/territories are carrying out their respective roles and responsibilities for establishing and approving up-to-date scientifically defensible WQS. The first measure describes how well EPA and states/territories are working together to set revised WQS that EPA can approve in a timely fashion. The second measure provides an indicator of how well states WQS reflect latest scientific data. QA/QC Procedures: States and territories conduct QA/QC of water quality standards submissions pursuant to individual state procedures. Because such submissions are subject to judicial review, the attorney generals certification described above provides
assurance of the content of each submission. EPA regional staffs provide support to and interact with the jurisdictions as they develop, review, and adopt water quality standards. Each Regional Office provides data quality review of its entries in the WATA system. For example, Regional Offices generally assure that each entry is reviewed by the water quality standards coordinator, usually a senior scientist or environmental protection specialist with extensive experience in water quality standards actions. Data validation algorithms built into each entry screen also help improve data quality. In addition, a sample of entries is spot-checked by Headquarters Office of Science and Technology staff. The Regions and Headquarters have been able to conduct the data quality reviews fairly easily because the number of submissions has averaged about 50 to 60 submissions per year in recent years, which is within the range than can be adequately reviewed with available resources. Data Quality Review: No external reviews of the data have been conducted.
Data Limitations: Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity. For example, a submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use attainability analyses for specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific types of waters, general statewide policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and variances. Therefore, these measures the number of submissions approved, and the number of jurisdictions with updated scientific information contained in adopted standards do not provide an indicator of the scope, geographic coverage, policy importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards. This information would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by reviewing the content of adopted and approved standards available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/, or contacting the appropriate Regional Office or state/territorial personnel. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Science and Technology is continuing to enhance the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality. References: USEPA. May 1, 2009. Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users Guide. Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf. USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 131. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr131_05.html. USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (millions of pounds), phosphorous (millions of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only.)
Performance Database: The Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) is used by grant recipients (State agencies) to supply information about State NPS Management Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which include watershed-based BMP implementation projects. GRTS includes information about Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented under 319-funded watershed projects, and the NPS load reductions achieved as a result of implementation. EPA uses GRTS to compile and report information about state section 319 program projects, including load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. State reporting via GRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 319(h)(11) and 319(m)(1); however, GRTS also provides EPA and other stakeholders greater and more efficient access to data, information, and program accomplishments than would otherwise be available. Besides load reduction information, GRTS, in conjunction with WATERS (see below) provides detailed georeferencing (i.e., National Hydrography Dataset or NHD-- reach addresses) for 319-funded projects, project cost information, and a host of other elements. GRTS is also part of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System (WATERS), which is used to provide water program information and display it spatially using a geographic information system integrated with several existing databases. These databases include the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database, the Assessment TMDL Tracking and ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS), the Water Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), and GRTS. Data Source: States enter load reduction data for individual 319-funded projects into GRTS. Various watershed models are used in the States to estimate the load reductions resulting from implementation of BMPs. Two models used by many states, and directly supported by EPA, are the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) model, and the Region 5 model. States, at their discretion, may use other models or methods (e.g., AGNPs, SWAT, GWLF, etc), or may use actual water monitoring data to generate estimates of pollutant load reduction resulting from BMP implementation. The load reduction data generated by modeling and/or monitoring efforts are entered by State staff directly into the appropriate GRTS data fields. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ two main methods to make pollutant load reduction estimates for the purpose of entering information into GRTS: 1) watershed models to estimate load reductions after watershed project BMPs are implemented, and 2) direct sampling over time of pollutants using targeted site selection. Even direct sampling methods, however, usually involve some type of modeling to separate BMP effects from other variables when determining load reductions.
EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national load reduction number for each pollutant. In the past, we had to calculate the annual load reduction achieved as an increment from the previous year. With each successive time period each of which includes load reduction estimates from projects funded under more than one fiscal year grant (since BMPs are still working for some time after initial installation) -- the total from the previous period would be subtracted from the total of the current time period to get the incremental total. For example, our first report on national load reduction numbers in the program assessment included projects funded from FY 2002 and most of FY 2003 (FY 2002 was the first grant year for which load reduction information was mandated). For the next report we totaled load reductions for projects from FY 2002 through 2004, with a smattering of projects for FY 2005 for which information was available in GRTS. The total from the first time around was subtracted from this latter total to give us the increment. In an effort to improve the accuracy of the annual national load reduction amount, we have modified this method of calculating the annual increment. We explicitly instruct the States to enter their load reduction values within the year they should be reported, and to only enter new (not cumulative) load reduction amounts. Then, because the GRTS can automatically track when the State enters the load reduction in the database, we simply sum the load reductions entered within the reporting timeframes. The user can also make corrections to report the load reductions entered at the wrong time by associating a load reduction date to the value. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is dependent on individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans (QMPs), which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions. EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5 models. EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be developed (in accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects, especially where water quality models are being used or where monitoring is being conducted. EPA also stresses that site-specific parameters be used whenever possible for input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by some modeling tools. States have continual access and opportunity to review the information in GRTS to ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA procedures). EPA periodically reviews GRTS and reminds states of the critical importance of their completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner. Data Quality Review: Data entered in GRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA Regions and Headquarters. Regional personnel also maintain hardcopies of the states work programs, watershed project implementation plans, and Annual Progress Reports. Verification of data in GRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure quality, consistency, and reliability in progress reporting on an incremental (such as, year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in data quality in GRTS. EPA frequently
reviews various aggregation(s) of all the data in GRTS by our use of ad-hoc and standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system. In the past, Nonpoint Source Program reporting under Section 319 had been identified as an Agency-level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. The Agencys establishment and subsequent enhancements of GRTS has served to mitigate this problem by requiring states to identify the activities and results of projects funded with Section 319(h). In response to the FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to improve data input and quality. We sponsor national GRTS-users group meetings each year. These meetings serve not only to meet the training needs of the user community, but also provide a forum for discussing needed enhancements to GRTS. These enhancements range from better capturing environmental results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-by-state comparisons. The CWA Sections 319(h)(11) and 319(m)(1) require States to report their Nonpoint Source Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of Water (OW) authority to require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to require reporting by states to demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source pollutant loads and improving water quality. OW has issued several guidance documents designed to improve state NPSMPs, watershed-based projects, and consistency in state progress reporting, including their use of GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants. This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in GRTS load reductions for nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects). Our current National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines (October, 2003) includes sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting. Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source program activity measures (PAMs) -- including nonpoint load reductions. We have also communicated (e.g., via email) to states further detailed explanations of the NPS program activity measures, expected reporting sources and dates, and results of our reviews of data input to GRTS by the States. Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies, and therefore use of the data may be rather limited. Load reduction data are typically generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in model inputs and outputs. States generally do not apply model results to decision making for implementing and/or revising their NPS Management Programs. State assessments of load reductions and water quality typically include uncertainties associated with any measuring or modeling tools. Variability in the environment, as well as in state methods and application of tools limit the accuracy of data for describing load reductions and water quality at the project level. Aggregating the load reduction data up to the national measure compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the Agency from assigning a reasonable numerical confidence level to it.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data. New/Improved Data or Systems: A significant improvement to the GRTS was the conversion from a Lotus Domino system to an Oracle database in 2005. Oracle is the standard database used by Federal agencies. Conversion to Oracle will allow GRTS to seamlessly connect with WATERS, as well as facilitate potential linkages to a variety of other databases, models, and watershed planning tools. The Oracle-based GRTS will greatly improve reporting capabilities for all end users. Reports are easily customized to fit programmatic needs of both state and EPA. Another focus of improvement has been to simplify the georeferencing process for GRTS users. In 2008, we released a new mapping tool, which makes it much easier for States to geolocate their 319 projects and identify the impacted waterbodies. This tool links to the WATERS database, enabling linkages between 319 projects and other water program features, such as impaired waters. In addition, GRTS users and the public can query for 319 projects using a similar map interface. These improvements in mapping 319 projects have made it easier to answer questions for stakeholders, like Where are watershed projects being developed and implemented? Are they concurrent with impaired waters and established TMDLs? Do they pursue actions necessary to reduce pollutant loads and attain water quality standards? We are also making efforts to ease the data entry burden on the States by offering them the flexibility of entering their data in different formats. States currently have the option to either enter their data over the web using an online form, or directly upload their information into GRTS as an XML file. Many States have expressed interest in using XML but are unfamiliar with the technology. EPA will provide training on XML at our annual User Group Meeting, and through a series of webinars. Also, since most users are familiar with Microsoft Excel, we will develop an Excel template for XML import. Training on STEPL and the Region 5 model are ongoing in hopes of minimizing operational mistakes for State staff utilizing one or both of these models to estimate section 319 project load reductions. References: USEPA. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories. October 23, 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html). USEPA. Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants. September 27, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html). USEPA. GRTS. Grants Tracking and Reporting System. GRTS Web User Guide, Version 1.6 March 15, 2007. USEPA. WATERS. Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results. (http://www.epa.gov/waters/).
USEPA. NHDPlus. National Hydrography Dataset Plus (http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus/). USEPA. STORET. Storage and Retrieval (http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html). USEPA. NAD. National Assessment Database (http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/). USEPA. WQSDB. Water Quality Standards Database (http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/). USEPA. STEPL. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (http://it.tetratechffx.com/stepl/). FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year
Performance Database: U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS). [database]. Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance] U.S. EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES). [database]. Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance] Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) [database]. Washington, DC [Office of Water] Priority Permits Data Base. [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of Water] Permit Management Oversight System (PMOS). [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of Water] EPA has carried out detailed permit renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since November 1998. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) are used to determine which individual permits are current through date fields for permit issuance and expiration. To supplement the individual permit data from PCS, EPA uses the Permit Management Oversight System (PMOS) database to track the current or expired status of facilities covered under nonstorm water general permits as well as to track issuance of priority permits. Prior to PMOS, the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) was used to track nonstorm water general permit facilities since January 2001. In March 2004 a new priority permit issuance strategy was initiated under the Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) program. The priority permits issuance strategy focuses permitting activities on environmentally and administratively significant expired
permits. The PMOS database is a web-based system that tracks the specific permits that each State and Region has identified as priority. States and Regions enter the permits, and EPA HQ uses PCS/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of these permits. Data Source: EPAs Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS and/or ICIS-NPDES, and States and EPAs Regional offices are responsible for entering data into the PMOS. EPAs Regional offices and States also enter permit identification information into the Priority Permits database. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annually, Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) provides State and Regional authorities with a list of candidate priority permits, defined as permits that have been expired for two years or more. Beginning in FY 2008, States and Regions were permitted to add to this list additional high-priority permits that were expired less than two years or those that would expire within the fiscal year of reporting. States and Regions then use several programmatic and environmental criteria to select which of those candidate permits should be prioritized for issuance. They then commit to issue a certain number of permits over the next fiscal year. Regions enter their commitments into PMOS. Results are confirmed using PCS/ICIS-NPDES reports. QA/QC Procedures: The PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are managed by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); PMOS is a web-based system that is managed by the Office of Water (OW). EPA Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA review data submitted by states as part of the QA/QC process. In addition, OW continues to work with States and Regions to improve the quality and completeness of the data. EPA generates state-by-state reports that list PCS/ICIS-NPDES key data fields, lat/long, and compliance and enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and Regions for review and cleanup. EPA is providing support to upload these data to PCS. Data Quality Review: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This weakness affects EPAs ability to obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, permit event data such as the permit issuance and expiration data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other key data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data upload, data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation to improve data quality. This has resulted in improved tracking of data, particularly industrial permits. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, began in June 2006 and twenty-eight states and several territories have successfully migrated to the new system. Use of ICIS-NPDES should greatly increase state participation and data quality. Batch states (those states with their own data systems) will not be migrated to ICIS-NPDES until appropriate mechanisms are in place to transfer the data.
Data Limitations: Priority Permits data are verified and reliable. We are aware of data gaps in PCS in general, particularly for minor facilities, and of discrepancies between state databases and PCS; however, EPAs data clean-up over the past five years has significantly improved data quality. PMOS (and its precursor, E-PIFT) has enabled EPA to report on inventories and status of non-storm water facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data are not as comprehensive as those tracked in PCS. In addition, to date, there has been no national-level data system to track permit issuance and expiration status of facilities covered by stormwater general permits. In 2008, OWM is planning to improve PMOS to enable tracking of stormwater general permits and facilities covered under them. Error Estimate: We believe that the permit renewal backlog data for major facilities is accurate within 2 percent based on input from EPA=s Regional offices and states through a quarterly independent verification. For minor facilities, however, the confidence interval is less precise and probably overestimates the permit renewal backlog for minor facilities by 5 percent based on anecdotal information from EPA=s Regional offices and states. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters has been providing contractor assistance to improve the data quality in PCS and will continue to do so. The new modernized ICIS-NPDES was rolled out in June 2006, with twenty-eight states and several territories now using the system. ICIS NPDES will be easier to use and will improve the quality of data needed to manage the NPDES program. References: Information for PCS and ICIS-NPDES is publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended Efficiency
Performance Database: Data for this measure are derived using different methods for industries subject to effluent guidelines, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), municipal storm water and construction storm water (industrial storm water is not included nor are reductions from water quality based effluent limits). The values derived from these methods are summed to obtain the total pollutant load reductions achieved under the surface water program. 3
Beginning in 2008, the values for Phase I municipal stromwater and construction stormwater were added and back-filled to 2002. POTW values were updated and back-filled based on the 2004 CWNS.
To calculate the program assessment efficiency measure, the annual 4 cumulative pollutant reductions are divided by the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface Water Program (SWP), grants to States under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 106, plus State match dollars, annually. SWP and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled from EPAs Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). State match dollars are reported to EPA by States. Data Sources: For industry sectors subject to effluent guidelines, estimated loading reductions are taken from reductions estimated in the Technical Development Document (TDD) when the effluent guideline is developed. The common components for such analyses include wastewater sampling, data collection from the regulated industry, and some amount of estimation or modeling. TDDs are available for: Pulp & Paper, Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment, Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing, Offshore Oil & Gas, Coastal Oil & Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Meat and Poultry, Metal Products and Machinery, Aquaculture. States and EPAs Regional offices enter data into PCS and ICIS. For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), trend data is taken from a detailed analysis for BOD and TSS loadings from POTWs in Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, USEPA, June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-008. The report provides flow estimates, loading estimates and a distribution of treatment class for every 2 to 4 years from 1968 through 1996. In addition, the report uses data from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) to provide projections for 2016. EPA has also prepared a 2004 Update to Progress in Water Quality that uses data from the 2004 CWNS to provide flow and loading estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2025. For Municipal Stormwater, estimates were derived from EPA models of the volume of storm water discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) developed as part of a 1997 EPA draft report. The methodology and results of the 1997 draft report are described in Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, EPA, October 1999. 5 Estimates of the sediment load present in Construction Stormwater is derived using a model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The model uses the construction site version of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Uncontrolled (i.e. prior to implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)) and controlled (i.e. after the implementation of BMPs) sediment loadings were estimated for 15 climatic regions with three site sizes (one, three, and five acres), three soil erodability levels (low,
4
The method of calculating the denominator was changed in 2008 to reflect total annual dollars, rather than cumulative dollars. 5 Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, Oct. 1, 1999, US EPA. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes or http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pkeyword.cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0
medium, and high), three slopes (3%, 7%, and 12%), and various BMP combinations. The methodology and results are described in Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. As EPA develops the new Construction and Development Rulemaking, new and better sources of data may be developed that may help to refine this calculation. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) loadings are estimated based on data obtained from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey and from the Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows. States and EPAs Regional offices provide data for the CSO Report to Congress and the Clean Watershed Needs Survey. Data for the program assessment denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data become available. EPA Surface Water Program funds and CWA Section 106 budget are initially based on the Presidents Budget until a final budget is adopted; it is then pulled from EPAs Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). State match dollars are reported to EPA by States; where updated data is not available, the last year of confirmed data is carried forward. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA uses the spreadsheet described above to estimate loadings. The data are aggregated across different sources to determine loading reductions at the national level. Loadings appear to be the best surrogate for determining the environmental impacts of point sources. Pollutant load reductions, along with some of the water quality improvement measures, tell the story about environmental outcomes. Pollutant reductions per dollar spent provides a snapshot of the effectiveness and efficiency of the surface water program, and comparing this over time helps to delineate a trend. QA/QC Procedures: The loadings spreadsheets are based on information from rulemakings and policies that have undergone extensive review. The effluent guidelines follow EPA quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Data Quality Reviews: The methodology for this measure was submitted for review during the program assessment process. Data Limitations: Loadings data must be modeled rather than measured as there is inconsistent and poor data quality in the PCS data base with respect to flow and discharge monitoring, including missing data for minor facilities which has not been required to be entered. Neither monitoring nor flow data are required for certain categories of general permits. The Agency, therefore, is not able to measure actual loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000 facilities that fall under the NPDES program. As a result, loadings estimates are based upon models.
When the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is issued, the quality and quantity of Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data is expected to improve. This will enable development of improved methods for estimating and validating loading reductions. Error Estimate: At this time we are unable to estimate error due to the lack of actual national level data to compare to estimates based on models. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to evaluate and explore improved methods for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide from all sources. References: Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 [Electronic data base]. (2000). Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management]. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. (1999). Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management]. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pkeyword.cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0 Effluent guidelines development documents are available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide. Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at: http://www.epa.gov/water/soft.html SWP program assessment Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet]. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management]. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System (NIMS.) Data Sources: Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state regulatory agency personnel and by EPAs regional staff. Data are collected and reported once yearly. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NIMS are the units of performance. These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPAs headquarters and regional offices are responsible for compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends. States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda. A generic memorandum would be titled: Request for Annual Update of Data for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System, July 1, 200X through June 30, 200X. Data Quality Reviews: EPAs headquarters and regional offices annually review the data submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf in individual state reports. EPAs headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA regional office. An annual EPA headquarters NIMS Analysis provides detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during annual EPA regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems which might affect the performance measure, biennial reviews by EPAs headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds and, annual reviews by EPAs regional offices of their states revolving funds operations. State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent auditors or by the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits are incorporated into EPA headquarters financial management system. Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NIMS database by typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through data testing performed by EPAs contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been virtually eliminated as a result of EPA headquarters clarification of definitions. These definitions are publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf. There is typically a lag of approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the NIMS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use. Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual performance (relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two years later, have been accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2 percentage points. New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1996. It is updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed. References: State performance data as shown in NIMS are available by state at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28, 2001) addresses the quality of data in NIMS. Not publicly available. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal. Percent of project federal funds expended on time within the anticipated project construction schedule set forth in the Management Control Policy Efficiency
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), managed by the Indian Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE), Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC). This database has been modified to include information on water and wastewater projects in rural Alaska communities and Alaska Native Villages (ANVs). This modified database is utilized to establish funding priorities for all federal funds identified for water and wastewater infrastructure in rural Alaska including the ANV program. Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub-data systems, the Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS). Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for Indian and rural Alaska homes, ANVs and communities. It is updated annually. The identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which follow: Consultation with Tribal members, community members and other Agencies Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs) nurses, State of Alaska IHS or tribal heath staff PWSS Sanitary Surveys Tribal Master Plans for Development Telephone Surveys Feasibility Studies The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data. The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting tool. The PDS supports the annual calculation of the program efficiency measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergo a series of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS and the State of Alaska. Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data undergo a series of highly organized reviews by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district, State of Alaska and IHS area personnel. The data quality review consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports, which identify errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top SDS projects and corresponding community deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed against their budgets. Detailed cost estimates are required for the review. Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS. Error Estimate: The higher-level projects (those with the possibility of funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an organized, effective and efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates within 10% of the actual costs. New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web-based application and therefore allows data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program requirements are identified. PDS has been modified to meet 40CFR31.40 reporting requirements. In 2009 the STARS application will undergo standard ongoing support and updates to maintain database integrity, efficiency, and accuracy. References: Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003. http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for Indian Homes and Communities, May 2003. http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Coastal and Ocean Water Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each sites management plan and measured through on-site monitoring programs.)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are entered into EPAs Annual Commitment System (ACS) database by those EPA Regional offices (Regions) responsible for the management and oversight of dredged material ocean dumping sites.
This performance measure, which is a target in the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan, will be tracked on an annual basis as a management tool for the ocean dumping program. The baseline year for the measure is 2009. Data Source: EPAs Regional offices are responsible for data collection and management. Under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), EPA Regions may designate ocean sites for the disposal of dredged material. The Act requires that each site have a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), which includes, but is not limited to, a baseline assessment of the site, a consideration of anticipated use, a monitoring program, and site management conditions or practices that are necessary for protection of the aquatic environment. Each SMMP is unique to the dump site and is developed with the opportunity for stakeholder input. Based on the requirements of each SMMP, the responsible Regions may conduct monitoring surveys of the dump sites to determine benthic impacts, spatial distribution of dredged material, characterize physical changes to the seafloor resulting from disposal, pH, turbidity, and other water quality indicators. Utilizing sampling results (as necessary), EPA Regions determine if a site is achieving environmentally acceptable conditions. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The required monitoring and environmentally acceptable conditions are reflected in the SMMP for each ocean dumping site, as a result the survey/sampling methodologies and assumptions will be site-specific. However, if a Region utilizes EPAs Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, established procedures for use of the equipment and handling samples on the OSV Bold must be followed. For each survey the Region is required to submit to Headquarters a survey plan that presents types of sampling techniques, including equipment used, and how data are recorded. These data are highly suitable for tracking the performance of this measure, as they are collected for the specific purpose of determining the environmental conditions of the dredged material ocean dump sites. The periodicity of monitoring is determined by the SMMP and is suitable for tracking this measure. QA/QC Procedures: Regions must develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), as prescribed by their regional quality assurance procedures, when collecting data at an ocean dumping site. These QAPPs are also submitted to Headquarters when a Region utilizes the OSV Bold for a sampling survey. The QAPP outlines the procedures for collection methods, use of analytical equipment, analytical methods, quality control, and documentation and records. Data Quality Reviews: Regions must conduct data quality reviews as determined by their quality assurance procedures and included in their QAPPs. Data Limitations: The full extent of data limitations is not available. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Reporting in FY 2007 through FY 2010 did not indicate that any improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support the measure were needed. References: The Annual Commitment System is an internal EPA database that is a component of the Agencys Budget Automation System (BAS). EPAs Oceans and Coastal Protection Division has prepared a template for the Regions to use when preparing survey plans. QAPPs for those Regions responsible for ocean dumping sites may be found at the following internet sites: EPA Region 1 - http://www.epa.gov/ne/lab/qa/pdfs/QAPPProgram.pdf EPA Region 2 - http://www.epa.gov/region2/qa/documents.htm#qag EPA Region 3 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qmps.html EPA Region 4 - http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp.html EPA Region 6 - http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/qa/qatools.htm EPA Region 9 - http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/qaprp_guidance3.pdf EPA Region 10 - http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf FY 2012 Performance Measure: Increase Wetlands
In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, states and tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program
Performance Database: Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program has been no net loss of wetlands. Historically, the Corps collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. RAMS was designed to be an administrative aid in tracking permits, this it lacked many of the fields necessary to adequately track important information regarding wetland losses and gains. Also, the database was modified differently for each of the 38 Corps Districts, making national summaries difficult. Furthermore, the database was also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers. These and other limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in difficulties in drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program. To improve tracking of wetland gains and losses in the Section 404 permit program, in 2007 with financial support from EPA, the Corps deployed a new standardized nationwide permit tracking system known as ORM2 (Operation and maintenance business information link, Regulatory Module). EPAs subsequent FY 2010 launch of a companion system for ORM2 allows EPA staff to 404 regulatory actions track and maintain coordination logs while viewing ORM2 information. EPAs system is Data on Aquatic Resource Tracking for Effective Regulation (DARTER). Data Source: ORM2 is the data source for this performance measure. Corps Regulatory Program staff input data which is then viewable by EPA staff in DARTER.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: ORM2 is the definitive source of data regarding wetland and other aquatic resource impacts authorized pursuant to the Section 404 permit program. ORM2 was designed to provide improved tracking regarding: Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation Type and quantity of mitigation by method (i.e., restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation) Type and quantity of mitigation by mechanism (i.e., mitigation bank, in-lieu fee mitigation, or permittee-responsible mitigation) Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres) Spatial tracking via GIS enhancements for both impact and mitigation sites (planned) Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site (credits) if assessment tool is available and applied Mitigation banks via the inclusion of a comprehensive module for tracking and managing mitigation banks known as the Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS). With EPAs assistance RIBITS has been deployed in approximately 18 Corps Districts.
QA/QC Procedures: After the close of each fiscal year, the Corps begins compiling national impact and mitigation data. As part of the compilation process the Corps carries out a detailed review of the data. Any data anomalies are investigated with the subject Corps District Office responsible for the source data. Following this review and vetting process, national summaries of impact and mitigation data are shared with and vetted through EPA. Beginning in FY 2009, the Corps culled nationwide data from ORM2 to attest no net loss of wetlands, which enabled EPA to report on this performance measure. EPA will continue collaboration to track wetland permitting trends with the Corps to determine whether annual net gains or losses have occurred. Data Quality Reviews: Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NAS determined that available data was insufficient to determine whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net loss of either wetland area or function. The NAS added that available data suggested that the program was not meeting its no net loss goal. Among its suite of recommendations, the NAS noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked in a national database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance measures for data entry. These critical reviews helped create the impetus for the development of ORM2.
Data Limitations: FY 2008 was the first full year in which the Corps 38 District offices used ORM2 to track activities in the Section 404 Permit Program, thus there was a great deal of system debugging, training, and trouble-shooting. Also, while ORM2 has a great deal of functionality, the Corps is phasing in the requirements to utilize all of the ORM2 data entry fields. Overtime, as the system is completely debugged, users become more proficient, and data entry requirements expand, ORM2 will provide increasingly more accurate and robust data regarding wetland gains and loses in the Section 404 Permit program. In addition to these general data limitations, the Corps is currently evaluating solutions to a key mitigation data reporting challenge. Wetland Impacts are tracked in acres. Similarly mitigation provided by permittee-responsible mitigation and some of the mitigation provided by in lieu fee programs and mitigation banks tracks is tracked in acres. However, some mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs may track their mitigation as credits which are usually based on a function or condition assessment protocol and there may not be a one to one relationship between a credit and an acre. For reporting purposes, it would be more efficient if all impacts and mitigation could be reported in acres. The Corps and EPA are exploring ways to convert these credits to acres to facilitate this reporting. However, in light of the large number of different function/condition assessment protocols used nationwide at mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, identifying a simple solution is proving challenging. Error Estimate: Not applicable References: Information regarding ORM2 (Operation and maintenance business information link, Regulatory Molule) can be found at: http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/aqua/vol3-1.pdf Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website: http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW_WELCOME.NAVIGATION_PAG E?tmp_next_page=114145 National Academy of Sciences (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) will maintain chlorophyll a (CHLA) levels at less than or equal to 0.35 ugl-l and light clarity (Kd) levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-l At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) will maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to
0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to 0.235 uM Performance Database: As required by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990, EPA and its partners developed a comprehensive long-term status and trends monitoring program as a critical component of the Water Quality Protection Program for the FKNMS. The comprehensive monitoring program was initiated in 1995 and includes water quality, coral reef and seagrass components. Annual results are reported each year on a fiscal- year basis. Historically, EPA has provided the majority of funding for the three monitoring projects, but other agencies (e.g., NOAA, NPS, SFWMD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and state/local government agencies) have contributed also provide significant funding. In FY11, it is anticipated that EPA provide most of the funding for the three monitoring programs. Data Source: The Water Quality and Seagrass Monitoring Projects are conducted by Florida International Universitys Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project is conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. EPA provides funding via cooperative agreements and the other government agencies provide funds via federal assistance agreements or contracts. Monitoring data are collected each year on an annual or quarterly basis depending on the project. Results of each monitoring project are reported in annual reports. The data for each monitoring project is collected and archived by staff of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute under a cooperative agreement with the EPA. In addition, the principal investigators for each monitoring project have developed Web sites where anyone can go and review the data http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/index.htm (http://ocean.floridamarine.org/fknms_wqpp/) Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The comprehensive monitoring program for the FKNMS was developed by a large group of technically competent and knowledgeable scientists familiar with the aquatic environment of the Florida Keys and the coral reef ecosystem. For each monitoring project, EPA worked closely with recognized experts to develop a detailed scope of work including sampling locations and frequency, parameters, field and analytical methods, quality assurance/quality control, data management, and reporting. The monitoring program was designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,900 square nautical miles of the Sanctuary. In general, monitoring sites were located throughout the FKNMS on a stratified-random basis and were determined to be compatible with EPAs Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program protocol (http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/reports/epa904r01002.html). The overall monitoring program was designed to address the primary objective of the comprehensive long-term monitoring program for the FKNMS - to provide data needed to make unbiased, statistically rigorous statements about the status of and trends in selected water quality conditions and biological communities in the Sanctuary. For the monitoring program, the null hypothesis is that there is no change over time. The field data are tested against the null hypothesis that no change has occurred. All three monitoring projects (water quality,
coral reef and seagrass) have demonstrated the ability to detect change over time and are suitable for determining the health of the coral reef ecosystem of the FKNMS. QA/QC Procedures: The principal investigators for each monitoring project developed and submitted to EPA a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the data generated are accurate and representative of actual conditions and the degree of certainty of the data can be established. The QAPPs were developed in accordance with EPA guidance documents and the principal investigators consulted with the Regional QA/QC Officer and the Project Officer for the monitoring projects. It was required that the QAPP be approved by EPA before any work could begin on a monitoring project. Data Quality Review: Through the QAPP, the principal investigators explicitly commit to incorporating procedures that will reduce random and systematic errors. In addition, the principal investigators document quality assurance procedures and evaluate the quality of the data being generated by the monitoring projects. Further, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary reviews and assesses the monitoring projects and the data they produce on a regular and continuing basis. Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set. Error Estimate: Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project a power analysis was done at the beginning of the project to determine the limit of detectable change for the point count method used to determine the percent stony coral cover within the FKNMS. The estimate of actual performance is accurate to 2.4%. Water Quality Monitoring Project the project collects data from 154 sites within the FKNMS on a quarterly basis. Therefore, error estimates for the 2005 baseline values are mostly due to the large spatial variability and seasonal temporal variability. Because water quality data are not normally distributed, the project uses the median as the measure of central tendency. For chlorophyll a, the interquartile range (IQR) is 0.29 and the median absolute deviation (MAD) is 0.12. The light attenuation kd IQR is 0.12 and the MAD is 0.05. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen has an IQR of 0.50 and a MAD of 0.26. For total phosphorus, the IQR is 0.90 and the MAD is 0.04. Seagrass Monitoring Project benthic plant community structure is measured using the rapid visual assessment technique known as the Braun-Blanquet method. This method is very quick, yet it is robust and highly repeatable, thereby minimizing among-observer differences. The Braun-Blanquet method has proven to be precise enough to detect subtle interannual variations yet robust enough to survive changes in personnel. A summary metric or species composition indicator (CSI) that assesses the relative importance of slow-growing plants to community composition is being computed for the 30 permanent seagrass monitoring sites. During the first 10 years of monitoring, this CSI index had an average of 0.48 + 0.04 (+ one standard error of the mean). The significance of changes in the SCI will be assessed using these distribution parameters. Elemental content (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) of seagrass leaves is determined by cleaning
the leaves of all epiphytes, drying the leaves at low temperature, and grinding to a fine powder. Elemental content is then measured using established methods and calculating on a dry weight basis. Analyses are run in duplicate using independent NIST-traceable for each determination. If the duplicate analyses differ by more than 10%, additional samples are run. A summary elemental content indicator metric or elemental indicator (EI), which is the mean absolute deviation of the N:P ratio of seagrass tissue from 30:1 is computed for the 30 permanent monitoring sites. In 2006, the mean EI was 8.28 + 1.47 (+ one standard error of the mean). The significance of changes in the EI will be assessed using these distribution parameters. New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The database management system for the Water Quality Protection Program of the FKNMS is geographic information based (GIS) and used to record the biological, physical, and chemical results from the comprehensive monitoring projects. The data from the three monitoring projects are collected and archived by the database managers at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The data archives component encompasses both raw and synthesized data. The data integration component incorporates the synthesized data, both tabular and geospatial. These data are integrated into a GIS to facilitate further analysis by scientists and managers. The results data contained within the database integration system are documented with project level metadata as well as attribute or parameter level metadata. Tools are being further developed to allow users to query data by location, date and parameters collected. The overall goal of the database management system is to provide a data integration system that takes into account the varying levels of data produced by the various monitoring projects and the needs of both managers and researchers. References: http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/ www.serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork http://www.serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/ www.fiu.edu/~seagrass http://ocean.floridamarine.org/fknms_wqpp http://research.myfwc.com/features/category_sub.asp?id=2360 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10 parts per billion total phosphorus criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh
Performance Database: As required by the Clean Water Act and Floridas Everglades Forever Act, the oligotrophic Everglades marsh within the Everglades Protection Area must meet the newly adopted 10 parts per billion numeric criterion for total phosphorus. EPA approved the criterion and its application methodology in 2005. A monitoring program to determine whether the criterion is in fact being met throughout the Everglades marsh is necessary to determine whether the water body can be expected to meet its designated use, whether phosphorus concentrations are stable or are increasing, whether
the concentrations in impacted areas are improving, and whether watershed phosphorus control efforts costing in excess of $1 billion are effective. Data Source: Water quality is monitored throughout the Everglades marsh at dozens of long-term monitoring stations. These stations are sampled cooperatively in a joint effort by Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades National Park, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Some of these stations were monitored previously by the United States Geological Survey beginning as long ago as 1953. Results of monitoring are reported in annual reports. The data are collected and are available to the public through a web site. Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) effluent phosphorus monitoring is in place as required by Florida and NPDES permits. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The monitoring program was developed by scientists, with decades of experience regarding Everglades water quality and ecology, from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the EPA. The marsh monitoring program is designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,000 square mile freshwater Everglades. The monitoring program is capable of detecting temporal trends in phosphorus condition throughout the Everglades. The null hypothesis is that there is no change over time. QA/QC Procedures: Field samples are collected by standard sampling protocol and analytical results are from accredited laboratories using standard methods. In addition, a series of ongoing laboratory round-robin exercises are overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Field and lab protocol are also periodically reassessed by a Technical Oversight Committee that includes five Florida and federal agencies. Quality Assurance Project Plans are in place. Data Quality Review: Water is sampled in the field by Department of Interior or South Florida Water Management District technical personnel using established Standard Operating Procedures. Data are subject to ongoing quality review by the interagency Technical Oversight Committee on a regular and continuing basis. Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set. Error Estimate: Annual average total phosphorus concentrations are accurate to within 0.1 part per billion. New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Interagency dialogue and oversight provide ongoing reassessments that evaluate data credibility and completeness. References: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/ http:/www.sfmd.gov
http:/my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2954.19761074&_dad=portal&_schema=POR TAL&navpage=home http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/assessment/index.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/everglades/roundrobin.htm http://wwwalker.net/#Selected%20Publications
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin Restore the acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is closely related to acres protected or restored for the National Estuary Program (NEP) measure. Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported, or of the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality) represent the only indicator of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an important surrogate and a measure of on-the-ground progress made toward EPAs annual performance goal of habitat protection and restoration in the NEP. "Restored and protected" is a general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings, and anadromous fish habitat increases. QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The NEP staff is requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA then confirms that the national total accurately reflects the
information submitted by each program. EPA actions are consistent with data quality and management policies. Data Quality Review: The Regions and HQ QA/QC the annual NEP habitat data. EPA's triennial NEP program evaluations also include a review of the data reported by the NEPs' over the three year period. No audits or quality reviews conducted yet. Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information may be reported inconsistently (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage may be miscalculated or misreported, and acreage may be double counted (same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure of on-theground progress made by the NEPs. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data or Systems: NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects are located in each NEP study area. Not only does this assist both the individual NEP and EPA in obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it provides a basis from which to begin exploring cases where acreage may be double-counted by different agencies. An on-line reporting system NEPORT has been developed for the NEPs use that will assist in tracking habitat projects. EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data fields with those of the National Estuarine Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the Presidents Wetlands Initiative, developed for interagency use. References: Links to NEPORT http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . can be found at:
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is related to acres protected or restored for the National Estuary Program (NEP). Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). However, shellfish bed
classification is not included in the NEP database. EPA Region 10 tracks this measure annually in the Agencys ACS system. Upgrading shellfish bed classifications is included. The National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. With respect to shellfish bed classification the Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) is the entity that determines and tracks the status of shellfish beds. EPA conducts conducted regular a review of the Puget Sound reviews of NEP implementation in spring 2010 to help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved. EPA Regional staff also met with Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) staff in summer 2010 to review, validate, and update the targets for this performance measure. As a result, EPA increased the target for this measure. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of shellfish beds with harvest restrictions lifted is not a direct measure of habitat quality, but it is a measure of improving water quality with respect to fecal coliform contamination. This acreage serves as an important surrogate for water quality and human health protection in Puget Sound. QA/QC Procedures: The Washington Department of Health does the sampling and analysis, which forms the basis of their shellfish bed status determinations. They have established QA/QC procedures. NEP staff utilize the State reported data on areas that have been the subject of restoration efforts. Data Quality Review: The Regions and HQ QA/QC the annual NEP habitat data. EPA's triennial NEP program evaluations also include a review of the data reported by the NEPs' over the three year period. No audits or quality reviews of the primary data have been conducted by EPA.
Data Limitations: Data are limited to the commercial shellfish beds which are monitored by the WDOH. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data or Systems: NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects are located in each NEP study area. An on-line reporting system NEPORT has been developed for the NEPs use that will assist in tracking habitat habitat projects.
References: Links to NEPORT http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .
can
be
found
at:
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve water quality on a watershed basis Percent of time sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 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 BOD and TSS permit limits.)
Performance Database: ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) is used to track this performance measure. Data Source: DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports) provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by the Pacific Island wastewater utilities are the data source. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Permit conditions require each of the wastewater utilities to use EPA approved sampling methods. DMRs are self-reported by the Pacific island utilities to EPA on a quarterly basis for major facilities (greater than 1 million gallons per day of discharge). The main assumption is that the self-reported data are accurate. QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific island utility labs has and follows QA/QC procedures for this data. Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews the DMR reports to make sure they are thoroughly filled out. There are occasional EPA field audits of the utility labs. Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies among personnel in performing sampling and analysis; and (b) incomplete data due to lack of sampling or lack of lab equipment. Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with each of the utilities to improve sampling and analysis of BOD and TSS, and to improve reporting of DMRs. References: N/A
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Increase Wetlands and Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
Number of wetland acres restored and improved under the 5-star, NEP, 319 and great waterbody programs (cumulative) increase wetlands Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas Improve coastal and ocean water
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds has developed a standardized nomenclature for defining habitat protection and restoration activities (http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/gpra_def.htm) and specifying habitat categories (http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/habtype.htm).. The key field used to calculate annual performance is habitat acreage. Results are calculated on a fiscal year basis. For the 5-Star Program: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the 5-Star grantee, maintains a subgrant outcome tracking system that tracks the acres of wetlands enhanced, established, or re-established, miles of riparian buffer restored, and other information such as number of volunteers engaged in restoration activities. NFWF provides to EPA annual documentation of acres of wetlands acreage enhanced, established, or re-established and stream miles buffered and/or restored during the life of the cooperative agreement in accordance with OWOW requirements. For NEPs Program: EPA has an on-line reporting system the National Estuary Program On-line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) that makes it possible for NEPs and EPA to track habitat projects. Also, NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where possible) for each protection and restoration project. These data are then mapped to highlight where projects are located in each NEP study area. Not only does this help each NEP and EPA precisely identify project sites, but it also makes it possible for NEPs and EPA to validate NEPORT data, and highlights where different partners may be double counting acreage. EPA annually aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for all 28 estuaries in the NEP. EPA is confident that the annually-reported data are as accurate as possible. For Section 319 Grants: The Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) is used by grant recipients (State agencies) to supply information about State NPS Management Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which include wetlands and stream restoration and improvement projects. GRTS also provides EPA and other stakeholders greater and more efficient access to data, information, and program accomplishments than would otherwise be available. GRTS provides detailed georeferencing (i.e., National Hydrography Dataset or NHD-- reach addresses) for 319-funded projects, project cost information, load reduction information, and a host of other elements. Data Source: 5-Star data entered by grantee, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the National Association of Counties from annual and final reports from subgrantees into the common grantee managed database. Subgrantees will report the number of acres
of wetlands by habitat protection and restoration activity type from their annual and final reports. NEP documents such as annual work plans, which report on NEP achievements during the previous year, annual progress reports, State of the Bay reports, and implementation tracking materials document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. Each year, the NEPs and Regional Offices validate the habitat data. The NEPs input the data into a database --NEPORT-- that is managed by EPA. EPA annually aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for all 28 estuaries in the NEP. EPA is confident that the annually-reported data are as accurate as possible. Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights habitat loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat type http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/hab_fr.htm. The website visually communicates NEP progress toward protecting and restoring habitat to a wide range of stakeholders and decision makers. For Section 319 grants states enter information for individual projects into GRTS. The basic reporting requirements specified by CWA section 319(h) are grantee performance reports, nonpoint source progress reports, and financial status reports. EPA also requires reporting through the section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS). States are encouraged to attach final project reports completed under their grants to the Project Evaluation field in GRTS. States also enter, if applicable, if the project effects wetlands (an optional field) and indicates the number of acres restored, improved, or protected. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Wetland Acres Restored or Improved measure is calculated by adding together wetlands acres from the restoration and improvement projects reported from each of the relevant programs (NEP, 319, and 5Star) tracking and reporting systems for grants. These databases are as follows: the 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS), NEPs Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT) and Wetlands Programs Five-Star Restoration Grant Database. The "Habitat Acres Restored and Protected" measure encompasses a general term that describes a range of activities and is interpreted broadly to include: creation of habitat, acquisition of sites for the purpose of protection, conservation easements and deed restrictions, increasing submerged aquatic vegetation coverage, increasing the number of permanent shellfish bed openings, and increasing the amount of anadromous fish habitat. There is not necessarily a direct correlation between the number of habitat acres restored and protected and ecosystem health, nor is habitat quantity or quality the only indicator of ecosystem health. EPA has defined and provided examples of protection and restoration activities for purposes of tracking and reporting measures (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by staff in each NEP based on their own reports and on data provided by partner agencies/organizations that directly engage in habitat protection and restoration activities. EPA requests that the NEPs follow EPA
guidance to prepare their reports. EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters staff then validate individual NEP totals. Headquarters staff calculates national totals. EPA actions are consistent with data quality and management policies. State CWA 319 Quality Management Plans (QMPs), are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions. States have continual access and opportunity to review the information in GRTS to ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA procedures). EPA periodically reviews GRTS and reminds states of the critical importance of their completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner. Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews have been conducted. Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: (1) information that may be reported inconsistently across the NEPs, CWA 319, and 5-Star projects because they may interpret the meaning of protection and restoration differently; (2) acreage amounts may be miscalculated or incorrectly reported, and (3) acreage may be double-counted i.e., the same parcel may also be counted more than one partner, or the same parcel may be counted more than once because it has been restored several times over a period of years. Also habitat restored, improved, and protected may not directly correlate to overall improvements in the health of that habitat (particularly in the year of reporting); rather, habitat acreage protected and restored is only one indicator of habitat health and of onthe-ground progress made by the NEPs. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data or Systems: Reporting in FY 2007 through FY 2009 did not indicate that any improvements to any of the databases associated with these measures were needed. References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data submitted by each NEP, is displayed numerically, graphically, and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT). PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/hab_fr.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2002) is available on the Intranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/informationresources/quality/qualitymanage.html USEPA. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories. October 23, 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html). USEPA. Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants. September 27, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html). USEPA. GRTS. Grants Tracking and Reporting System. GRTS Web User Guide, Version 1.6 March 15, 2007. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE lbs/day.
Performance Database: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include: major permittee self-reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR); data on permittee compliance status; data on state and EPA inspection and enforcement response. The states of Connecticut and New York are required, as part of their delegated NPDES permit programs, to periodically monitor and test effluent for appropriate pollutants, including nitrogen, complete DMRs and enter this information into PCS. Data Source: Permittee self-reported DMR data are entered into PCS by state offices, which are delegated to implement the NPDES program. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit. This automated process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted levels. Facilities are designated as being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants. PCS contains additional data obtained through reports and onsite inspections, which are used to determine SNC, including: non-effluent limit violations such as unauthorized bypasses; unpermitted discharges; and pass through of pollutants which cause water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; nonsubmission of DMRs; submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement orders. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached. Nitrogen waste load allocations (WLA) are specified in the December 2000 A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound that was prepared by the states of New York and Connecticut and approved by EPA in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The TMDL nitrogen WLAs are included in the NPDES (state-delegated) permits issued by the states for dischargers to Long Island Sound. QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the design, construction and maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform to EPAs PCS standards for point source data. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures are in place for PCS data entry. State and Regional PCS data entry staff are required to take PCS training courses. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for ensuring timely input, review and certification of PCS information.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in PCS is required by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. SNC data in PCS are reviewed quarterly. Data Limitations: Legal requirements for permittees to self-report data on compliance with effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and accuracy. EPA monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and data entry quality. National trends over the past several years show an average of 94% of DMRs is entered timely and complete. Where data entry problems are observed, OECA works directly with regions and states to improve performance, and in limited circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant resources to help regions and states correct problems. Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, in classification, documentation or mistakes in the processing of data. New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980s and has undergone periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a modernized data system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and analytical approaches. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System NPDES), a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, began in June 2006 when eleven states began using the system; seven other states will be migrated to the new system in August. During phased implementation of ICISNPDES across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate SNC data. Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES SNC data. References: Nitrogen TMDL: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325604&depNav_GID=1654 http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htm#reports PCS information is publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound Percent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting or enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) has developed a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used to calculate annual performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2000 for the National Estuary Program (NEP) (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). The EPA Long Island Sound Office (LISO) requires the states of New York and Connecticut, which are Long Island Sound Study Management Conference partners, to
collect and report acres of habitat restored and protected as required by the NEP. The states use internal project tracking systems to gather, summarize and report restoration and protection data to LISO, which, in turn, enters the data into the OWOW habitat information system. Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made in the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking materials, are used to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA is confident that the data presented are as accurate as possible. The EPA Long Island Sound Office (LISO) reviews the information prior to reporting. In addition, EPA LISO conducts regular reviews of state habitat restoration work to help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported or of the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality) represent the only indicator of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an important surrogate and a measure of on-the-ground progress made toward EPAs annual performance goal of habitat protection and restoration for LIS. EPA has defined and provided examples of protection and restoration activities for purposes of measure tracking and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected" is a general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings, and anadromous fish habitat increases. QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the state and federal staff of the LISS Habitat Restoration Team based on their own reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The LISS staff are requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA actions are consistent with data quality and management policies. Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews have been conducted yet. Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information that may be reported inconsistently (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated or misreported, and acreage that may be double counted (same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure of onthe-ground progress made by the NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data or Systems: The LISS has developed a new data system to report and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This database is publicly available on website at the LISS http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitarestoration/projects/Search.aspx. The database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration projects: Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique, Acres, Miles, Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status , Funding Sources, Project Partners, Project Completed, Completion Date. The site locations are also mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area. An on-line reporting systemNEPORT-- has been developed for the NEPs use that assists in tracking habitat projects. EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data fields with those of the National Estuarine Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the EPAs wetlands net gain goal. References: See V&V for National Estuary Program for PIVOT and NEPORT. Results of Long Island Sound habitat restoration efforts are documented in the biennial reports, Sound Health, and Protection and Progress, and the annual LISS Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Implementation Tracking Report, available at: http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htm#reports. The database of habitat restoration projects is publicly available on the LISS website at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river and stream miles to diadromous fish passage from the 2008 baseline of 124 miles [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: The LISS has developed a new data system to report and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. The database is publically available on the LISS website at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx. The database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration projects: Site Name, Project Title, town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique, Acres, Miles, Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status, Funding Sources, Project Partners, Project Completed, Completion Date. The site locations are also mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area.
Currently, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation track and report fish passage projects and the additional miles of river and stream corridors reopened as a result. The states submit these data to the EPA Long Island Sound Office. Data Source: The Long Island Sound Study has established a Habitat Restoration Team (HRT) comprised of federal, state, and local agency staff and private organizations. Public/Private projects to reopen river and stream corridors to fish passage are tracked by the work group coordinators (staff in the states of Connecticut and New York). In addition, the EPA Long Island Sound Office conducts regular reviews of state habitat restoration work to help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved. Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration annual reports on projects are made available at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitat/index.htm Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Long Island Sound Study goal is to reopen additional miles of riverine migratory corridor. For each project, the location (state, town), stream name, cause of degradation, project description, miles restored, targeted fish species, implementation partners, and project funding are tracked. Miles restored are calculated based on the length of stream that is reopened to fish by eliminating the obstacle. Each fish passage project is field verified. QA/QC Procedures: Stream miles are considered reopened after fish are observed passing through the obstacle. Data Quality Review: Each project report is reviewed by the habitat restoration coordinators, Habitat Restoration Team, and the EPA Long Island Sound Office. Data Limitations: The stream corridor is considered reopened when anadromous fish are observed passing through the obstacle. The data do not assess the success rate of fish passage or the use of the upstream habitat. Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. New/Improved Data Systems: As discussed in the performance database section, the LISS has developed a new data system to report and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. The database is publically available on the LISS website at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx The database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration projects: Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique Acres, Miles, Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status, Funding Sources, Project Partners, Project Completed Date. The site locations are also mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area.
References: Long Island Sound Study, Sound Health 2008 Environmental Indicators: www.longislandsoundstudy.net/indicators/index.htm on Habitat Protection/River Miles Restored and Coastal Habitat Restored. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) 1(see reference #1 below). This program collects and monitors contaminants in Great Lakes fish at alternating locations throughout the Great Lakes Basin; fish are collected at one set of sites during even years and at another set in odd years. It began with the collection of data in Lake Michigan in 1972 and the additional lakes were added in 1976. In FY2012, the database will contain quality reviewed field data from fish collected in 2010 and all quality reviewed analytical data for fish collected between 1972 and 2010. Samples collected in 2010 are expected to be able to be available for reporting in 2012. Data are reported on a calendar year basis. Data Source: GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish monitoring program. The Great Lakes States and Tribes assist with fish collection. Previous cooperating organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected organic contaminants in Great Lakes open water fish. The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program monitors the potential exposure to contaminant concentrations for wildlife. The GLFMP was created to: (1) determine time trends in contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of contaminants on the fishery using fish as biomonitors, and (3) assess potential risk to the wildlife that consume contaminated fish. It includes data from ten 600-700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish in each composite) from each of the lakes. Since sufficient lake trout are not found in Lake Erie, data for 400 500 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used for that Lake. All GLFMP data are independently reviewed for quality consideration prior to loading into the Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA). Included in GLENDA are flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the quality of the data. Each Great Lake has unique environments with distinct growth rates, food webs, and chemical integrity. For this reason, a direct comparison of annual concentrations between each lake and sub-basin is not appropriate. However, a cumulative basin-wide percent long-term trend can be determined on all years data using an exponential decrease function, starting with 2000 data as the baseline. The variability in the data caused by the intra-lake uniqueness of each lake trout (and walleye) community confounds trend
analyses on shorter timeframes. All years of data from all lakes are plotted on the same graph, with each year containing 5 data points. An exponential decrease is then found for the entire data set and the long-term cumulative percent decrease is calculated using the rate constant of the best exponential fit line and the total number of years elapsed since 2000. Cumulative percent decline equals 1-e^[(-rate constant)(# of years elapsed since 2000)]. The year 2000 is selected as the baseline for this measure in the Action Plan to illustrate a more relevant measurable change on an annual basis in the long-term cumulative percent decline. The year 2000 is also more representative of the current environmental condition in the Great Lakes, but does not provide enough statistical significance to determine long-term trends from. The calculated cumulative percent decrease can then be compared to the reduction target to determine if it has been met. GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for reporting and comparison purposes QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place2 (see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. The Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant program is approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The revised draft field sampling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management Plan was approved by the GLNPO QA Officer in July 2008 (http://epa.gov/greatlakes/monitoring/fish/reports/quality.pdf). Data Quality Review: GLNPOs Quality Management System has been evaluated as outstanding in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). Specific highlights relative to this indicator include: QA requirements are systematically planned using the DQO process. Major programs such as the Open Lakes Monitoring (Lake Guardian sampling activities), Open Lakes Organics Monitoring, the Biology Monitoring, the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and the Legacy Act program were exemplary in systematic planning and documenting QA requirements. (4) GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards. Data Limitations: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program data are not well-suited to portray localized changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or even year sites) can be compared to data collected from the same site. In addition, only very general comparisons can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes. A recent review of the odd year Open Lake Trend Monitoring in Lake Erie data indicate an increased variability in the data between the years of 1999 and 2003 because during those years several individual samples (fish) fell outside of the desired size range leading to a higher or lower than average mean sample size for the composite. Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish contaminant program was to detect a 20% change in each measured contaminant concentration between two consecutively sampled periods at each site. Based on changing environmental conditions, the data quality objective has been tentatively revised to have an 80%
probability to detect a 10% change per year, over three to four sampling periods, at the 95% confidence level. An official outside peer review of this new data quality objective and associated data was held on December 11-12, 2007. This peer review assisted in providing a data quality objective and a recommendation to consider dropping the game fish fillet element of the program. New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system with enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA. GLNPO has awarded a new consortium grant for these analyses that allows researchers from three different universities to specialize in their individual areas of analytical expertise and provide more timely data of a higher quality. References: Supporting Program Documentation: All journal publications relevant to the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, final project reports, and quality documentation can be found at the GLFMP website, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html. 1. The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For Interstate Environmental Monitoring. September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004. 2. Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA905R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/ 3. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample Collection Activities, Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_QAPP_082504.pdf 4. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: USEPAs Great Lakes National Program Office will track the cumulative total Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed within the Areas of Concern (AOCs) located entirely within the United States and the AOCs that are shared by both the United States and Canada. Results through September 2012 will be reported in 2012. Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Restoration of U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern will ultimately be measured by the removal of all beneficial use impairments,
leading to de-listing of all of the U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern by 2025. There were once a total of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and 5 shared by both countries. There were thus 31 United States or Binational Areas of Concern; however, with the de-listing of the Oswego River AOC in July of 2006, only 30 United States or Binational Areas of Concern remain. Remedial Action Plans for each of these Areas of Concern address one or up to 14 beneficial use impairments associated with these areas. At the end of Fiscal Year 2006, there was a total identified universe of 261 beneficial use impairments reported in the United States or Binational Areas of Concern. This measure tracks cumulative progress against those beneficial use impairments. An impaired beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following: -restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption -tainting of fish and wildlife flavor -degradation of fish wildlife populations -fish tumors or other deformities -bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems -degradation of benthos -restrictions on dredging activities -eutrophication or undesirable algae -restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems -beach closings -degradation of aesthetics -added costs to agriculture or industry -degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations -loss of fish and wildlife habitat Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html The States work with the local stakeholders in the Areas of Concern to develop delisting criteria for the impaired BUIs. By 2009, all of the Areas of Concern had developed their delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting BUIs. The BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored and can be delisted. After all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be delisted. QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place (see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review: GLNPOs Quality Management System has been given outstanding evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see reference #2) below. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards. Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None. New/Improved Data or Systems: NA References: 1. GLNPO maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments in office files. 2. Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA905R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/. 3. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes Basin Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two different formats. The first is a matrix that shows the annual and cumulative totals of contaminated sediment that were remediated in the Great Lakes basin in the reporting year and from 1997 for each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with sediment remediation. The second format depicts the yearly and cumulative totals on a calendar year basis graphically. These databases are reported approximately one year after the completion of work, thus, results from calendar year 2011 remediation will be reported in FY 2012. Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and Federal project managers across the Great Lakes region, who conduct and coordinate contaminated sediments work, including appropriately characterizing and managing navigational dredging of contaminated sediments. These data are obtained directly from the project manager via an information fact sheet the project manager completes for any site in the Great Lakes basin that has performed any remedial work on contaminated sediment. The project manager also indicates whether an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was used in the collection of data at the site. GLNPO does not accept unsolicited data without adequate assurance that quality system documentation was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: GLNPO began tracking sediment remediation actions in the Great Lakes Basin in 1997. At that time, GLNPOs best guess of the total number of cubic yards that required remediation in the Great Lakes AOCs was 40 million. In 2004, the U.S. Policy Committee tasked the Great Lakes States with establishing a more comprehensive list of sites requiring remediation in the entire Great Lakes Basin (AOCs and non-AOCs), using best professional judgment to estimate the sediment volumes to be remediated. Using this list of estimated sediment remediation
needs created by Great Lakes States in 2004, and sediment remediation estimates reported by Project Managers for calendar years 1997 through 2004, GLNPO estimated the 1997 baseline, or universe, for contaminated sediments requiring remediation to be 46.5 million cubic yards. The data collected to track sediment remediation in the Great Lakes show the amount of sediment remediated (removed, capped, undergoing natural recovery, or other) for that year, the amount of sediment remediated in prior years, and the amount of sediment remaining to be addressed for a particular site. This format is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for individual sites. GLNPO sums the volume estimates as provided by the individual project managers, but then rounds the totals. For reporting purposes, the yearly volume total is rounded to the nearest one thousand cubic yards and the cumulative volume total is rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards. QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project managers to provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during remediation of contaminated sediment. This information is used to decide if the data provided by the project manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an approved QAPP was not used, sediment data would not likely be reported by GLNPO, unless GLNPO finds that alternative information is available that provides sufficient quality documentation for the project and associated data. This approach allows GLNPO to use best professional judgment and flexibility in reporting data from any cases where there was not a QAPP, but (a) the remedial action is noteworthy and (b) the project was conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best practices and operating procedures. The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of sediment remediated at individual sites as provided by the project managers. The individual site project managers are responsible for completing the data request forms, reviewing draft figures to verify that the GLNPO project manager transferred the data correctly, and providing any updated or improved estimates. It is GLNPOs responsibility to determine if the data are usable based upon the information sheet provided by the project managers. GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass and volume estimates due to the variability in how to calculate them. GLNPO ensures that the estimates provided make sense for the site, and that all estimates are reported in the same units. GLNPO management and Sediment Team members review the data, in the graphic and matrix formats, prior to reporting. GLNPOs Sediment Team works closely with partners and has confidence in those who provide data for the summary statistics. This familiarity with partners and general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to detect mistakes or questionable data. Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by individual project managers, GLNPOs Sediment Team, and management prior to being released. Data quality review procedures are outlined in the QAPP referenced below. GLNPOs Quality Management System has been given outstanding evaluations in previous peer and management reviews. (See reference # 5 below). Specific highlights
from this review relative to this indicator include: Across GLNPO, assessment of the quality of existing data and documentation of the quality of existing data for intended use is a standard practice. This is commendable as the Agency is still attempting to define requirements for usability existing data. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards. Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes Basin. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional information. Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be viewed as qualitative data since a specific error estimate is not able to be calculated. New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in place. References: 1. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support. Unpublished in Great Lakes National Program Office files, June 2008. 2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Sediment Remediation Matrix. Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files. 3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Sediment Remediation Graphics. Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files. 4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets. Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files 5. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf. 6. Indicator 3: Sediment Contamination. Unpublished in Great Lakes National Program Office files. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Cost per cubic yard of contaminated sediments remediated (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation volumes and costs are compiled for all Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) projects. As all GLLA projects are managed by GLNPO, project volumes and costs are generally available within 2-3
months of project completion. This database is updated with cost and volume numbers at the completion of each GLLA sediment clean-up project. Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data for all the GLLA projects. At the completion of each project a hydrographic survey is conducted that provides accurate volumes for dredged/remediated sediments at all GLLA projects. This information is collected using an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All GLLA projects require a QAPP prior to conducting work at the site. GLNPO does not accept data without adequate assurance that a QAPP was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased. Following the completion of a project, a final report is developed that includes information on dredged/remediated sediment volumes. Also, at the close of each project a final accounting is conducted to provide accurate final cost estimates. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This measure allows comparison of the actual cost of remediating Great Lakes contaminated sediments (pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act) to a threshold cost of $200 per cubic yard. The target is achieved when the actual cost of contaminated sediment remediation (cumulative) pursuant to the Legacy Act is less than or equal to $200 per cubic yard. The program does not anticipate that actual costs per cubic yard would decrease each year, particularly since project costs are expected to increase as they become more complicated and disposal costs increase in future years. The estimated sediment remediation cost target of $200 per cubic yard has been determined using best professional judgment. Reference points include a 2004 effort by the U.S. Great Lakes Policy Committee and a January 2007 paper on Environmental Dredging Costs analyzing 64 completed environmental dredging projects. Targets and results will be reported on a calendar year basis. The program will use total funding as the basis of this measure, but will also track federal and non-federal dollars. Final project costs and the quantity of cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be calculated using cumulative numbers. Data are collected to track the amount of sediment remediated and project cost. Projects are not included in the database until they are completed; partial project information is not reported for this measure. QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a QA Manager who is responsible for approval of the QAPP for all GLLA projects. A QAPP is required for each GLLA project and an ongoing draft of a Quality Management Plan for the GLLA is used as an overall quality management guide. Part of this site-specific QAPP includes information on the hydrographic surveys used to determine volume estimates for each project. EPA contractors oftentimes accompany the surveying crew to ensure all procedures are followed. This information is typically made available approximately 2-3 months following project completion.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by individual project managers, GLNPOs Sediment Team, and management prior to being released. GLNPOs Quality Management System has been given outstanding evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see Reference #4 below). GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards. Data Limitations: The data generated from this efficiency measure should be used as an indicator of the general trend in the costs of sediment remediation under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. Error Estimate: A specific error estimate is not available. New/Improved Data or Systems: The recent GLNPO Quality Management Review of GLNPO from July of 2006 highlighted the following improvements: Management of the Great Lakes Legacy program is exemplary. Ensuring conformance with EPAs quality requirements was evident in the creative approach to planning and overseeing quality throughout the life cycle of the project. The draft 2005 Quality Implementation and Management Plan is comprehensive. QA plans reviewed were detailed and appropriately approved. Post project meetings with EPA, state partners and local advisory councils to review project with focus on detailing lessons learned is a best practice. Data Quality Assessment to determine opportunities for improvement is a critical component of the QA Project Plan. The project officers are to be commended for the documented life cycle management for the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program. (4) References: 1. Estimates of Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Needs. U.S. Great Lakes Policy Committee. January 11, 2005. Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files. 2. Estes, T.J. 2007. Environmental Dredging Project Costs--The Mystery. The Mystique, The Muddle. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. 3. Tuchman, M and Alexander, M. 2007. Remediation of the Black Lagoon, Trenton, Michigan, Great Lakes Legacy Program. Draft Report. 4. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf. FY 2012 Performance Measure:
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative). Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: USEPAs Great Lakes National Program Office will track the cumulative number of management actions (including sediment remediation and habitat restoration) that take place to achieve beneficial use impairment (BUI) targets at the Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). Results through September 2012 will be reported in 2012. Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the relevant community groups at the AOCs, other interested groups, the US Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Restoration of U.S. or Binational AOCs will ultimately be measured by the removal of all BUIs, leading to de-listing of all of the U.S. or Binational AOCs by 2025. There were once a total of 43 Great Lakes AOCs: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and 5 shared by both countries. There were thus 31 United States or Binational AOCs; however, with the de-listing of the Oswego River AOC in July of 2006, 30 United States or Binational AOCs remain. Remedial Action Plans (RAPS) for each of these AOCs address one or up to 14 BUIs associated with these areas. This measure tracks the number of reasonable and realistic management actions that are believed to be necessary to show cumulative progress to remove those BUIs. Implementation of all management actions necessary for delisting is deemed to have occurred at the time those actions have commenced. An impaired beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following: -restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption -tainting of fish and wildlife flavor -degradation of fish wildlife populations -fish tumors or other deformities -bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems -degradation of benthos -restrictions on dredging activities -eutrophication or undesirable algae -restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems -beach closings -degradation of aesthetics -added costs to agriculture or industry -degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations -loss of fish and wildlife habitat Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
The States work with the local stakeholders in the AOCs to develop delisting criteria for the impaired BUIs. The BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored and can be delisted. By 2009, all of the National and Binational AOCs had developed their delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting BUIs. Along with these targets, the respective AOCs and the States have developed, or are developing a Stage 2 RAP or an equivalent document that outlines the reasonable and realistic management actions that could be taken to delist the relevant BUIs and, hence, the AOC. After all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be delisted. Reasonable and realistic management actions refer to the set of local, state and federal actions that are believed to be taken to remove the impairment. These actions may not result in the immediate delisting of a set of BUIs but these actions are expected to remove the contaminant threat that will allow environmental conditions to improve over time which will lead to eventual delisting of the AOC. QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place (see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review: GLNPOs Quality Management System has been given outstanding evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see reference #2) below. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards. Data Limitations: None known. Error Estimate: None. New/Improved Data or Systems: NA References: 1. GLNPO maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments in office files. 2. Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA905R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/ 3. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf. 4. Compilation of Stage 1 and 2 Remedial Action Plans and Delisting Targets for Areas of Concern for 25 National 5 Binational AOCs. Various approval dates and documents are located at the respective local, state and federal office. FY 2012 Performance Measure:
Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS). GLANSIS functions as a Great Lakes specific node of the USGS Nonidigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) national database. Information entered for GLANSIS automatically appears in NAS. GLANSIS provides targeted access to the information especially collection records for established Great Lakes nonindigenous species in the NAS Database. Data Source: Verified observations of new species by Great Lakes surveillance and researchers agencies and institutions, as subsequently subjected to review as described in QA/QC procedures (below). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Great Lakes have a long history of aquatic nonindigenous species (ANS) introductions both intentional and unintentional. A number of ongoing federal programs are working to reduce the rate of introductions. The increased effort to address invasive species through GLRI funding will reduce the rate of introductions. During the ten-year period prior to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2000-2009), thirteen new invasive species were discovered within the Great Lakes. This is a baseline rate of invasion of 1.3 species per year. Changes in rate will be assessed by extending this cumulative average into the time period of the GLRI (2000-present). This methodology assumes that the detection of invasive species in the environment correlates with actual invasion rates. It is recognized that there can be lag time in discovery (discussed in more detail under error estimate). This performance measure also assumes that rate of detection is directly reflective of the GLRI effort. Because the Great lakes ecosystem receives the input of a number of vectors that introduce invasive species -- including, live organisms in commerce, canals/waterways, ballast water, and recreational and resource users activities -- the results of the GLRI effort cannot be measured independently from the suite of other ongoing programs at work in the Great Lakes. This performance measure is suitable for providing a basic pulse toward the long-term goal of establishing a no-tolerance policy for new introductions. Invasive species programs are in the early stages of development and some regulatory and programmatic gaps remain. QA/QC Procedures: The list of aquatic nonindigenous species found via GLANSIS is subject to constant revision. Based on these criteria: Geographic criterion: Only species which are established in the Great Lakes basin below the ordinary high water mark -- including connecting channels, wetlands and waters ordinarily attached to the Lakes -- are included in the GLANSIS database. Species which have invaded inland lakes within the Great Lakes basin but not meeting the above geographic criterion are not included in the database.
Aquatic criterion: GLANSIS includes only aquatic species. USDA wetland indicator status is used as a guideline for determining whether wetland plants should be included in the list - OBL, FACW and FAC wetland plants are included in this list as aquatic; FACU and UPL plants are not. Nonindigenous criterion: The species included in GLANSIS are those which are considered nonindigenous within the Great Lakes basin according to the following definitions and criteria (based on Ricciardi 2006): the species appeared suddenly and had not been recorded in the basin previously; it subsequently spreads within the basin; its distribution in the basin is restricted compared with native species; its global distribution is anomalously disjunct (i.e. contains widely scattered and isolated populations); its global distribution is associated with human vectors of dispersal; the basin is isolated from regions possessing the most genetically and morphologically similar species. Cryptogenic species are those species that cannot be verified as either native or introduced (after Carlton, 1996). Species that have been identified as cryptogenic are generally not listed, but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or in the main GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier. Species which have expanded their ranges within the basin (e.g., those native to Lake Ontario which have invaded Lake Superior) are not systematically included in the main GLANSIS list but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or in the main GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier. The only species presently included in GLANSIS that violates the criterion of no previous evolutionary history in the Great Lakes basin is the sea lamprey. Note: Although widely used, the term 'invasive' is vague and subject to widely inconsistent usage. Biologically it is often related to the relative ability of a species to spread and establish in new areas, while legislatively and politically it is used to characterize a nonindigenous species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, February 1999). Thus, the term 'invasive' has multiple meanings and requires a subjective judgment. We avoid using the term 'invasive', but may use the word 'invader', in the context that a nonindigenous species that has successfully established a reproducing population is an 'invader'. 'Exotic' is a commonly used synonym for 'nonindigenous'. Established criterion: A nonindigenous species is considered established if it has a reproducing population within the basin, as inferred from multiple discoveries of adult and juvenile life stages over at least two consecutive years. Given that successful establishment may require multiple introductions, species are excluded if their records of discoveries are based on only one or a few non-reproducing individuals whose occurrence may reflect merely transient species or unsuccessful invasions.
Data Quality Review: Data management or this performance measure is the responsibility of NOAA, who implements quality review procedures in accordance with their policies. Data Limitations: The number of Great Lakes aquatic nonindigenous species documented in GLANSIS is to be interpreted as a minimum. Identification depends on discovery and verification, which is, in turn, dependent on sampling effort. Error Estimate: The GLRI effort will increase surveillance of the Great Lakes for invasive species. Enhanced monitoring will potentially result in the discovery of organisms that were established prior to GLRI but were not detected by lower levels of sampling. This problem of lag time is well known in ecology, but limited studies have been performed in the Great Lakes. Recent publications (Grigorovich 2008, Trebitz 2009) have documented how increased sampling in Duluth Harbor discovered previously undocumented species. It is unknown when they were first introduced and would not have been discovered except for the intense sampling design. In this case, they will be reported as "discovered" in 2006, which is the year of sampling. It is expected that similar cases will occur as increase sampling is done in other high-risk harbors in the Great Lakes. The problem of lag time will decrease once comprehensive prevention programs are in place and operating over time. This will to reduce the uncertainty due to lag-time and make the rate of discovery statistic more likely to reflect the actual rate of invasion. New/Improved Data or Systems: NA References: 1. Bryan, M.B, D. Zalinski, B. Filcek, S. Libants, W. Li, and K.T. Scribner. 2005. Patterns of invasion and colonization of the sea lamprey. Molecular Ecology 14:37573773 2. Carlton J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-55 3. Lawrie, A. H. 1970. The sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:766-775. 4. Mills EL, Leach JH, Carlton JT, Secor CL. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 154. 5. Ricciardi A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an invasional meltdown occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513-2525. 6. Ricciardi A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Divers. Distrib. 12, 425433.
7. Smith, B. R., and J. J. Tibbles. 1980. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936-78. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(11):1780-1801. 8. Bailey, R.M., and G.R. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes basin.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. National Research Council Canada vol:38 iss:12 pgs:1539-1561 9. Daniels, R. A. 2001. Untested assumptions: the role of canals in the dispersal of sea lamprey, alewife, and other fishes in the eastern United States. Env. Biol. of Fishes. vol:60 pgs:309-329 10. Mandrak, N. E., and E. J. Crossman. 1992. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes into Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:2247-2259. 11. Smith, S. H. 1995. Early changes in the fish community of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report 60, Ann Arbor.
12.
Grigorovich , I.A. 2008. The Quagga Mussel Invades the Lake Superior Basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 34:342350
13. Trebitz A.S. et al (2009) Exploiting habitat and gear patterns for efficient detection of rare and non-native benthos and fish in Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. Aquatic
Invasions, Volume 4, Issue 4: 651-667
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level. (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database. Data Source: As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements, Federal Agencies are required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The cumulative total number acres will be calculated by simple summation using the GLRI Accountability System database (GLAS). QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program. Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: Statistics developed through the use of the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) rely on the inputted data of Federal agencies and grant recipients. There may be errors in classification, georeferencing, input accuracy, as well as data omissions. Statistics from the GLAS system reflect a point in time. Although data will be assessed on a project by project basis for accuracy, a degree of error is to be expected. This innovative system for tracking Great Lakes-wide activities will be refined over time if systematic errors are detected through project assessments. New/Improved Data or Systems: NA FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions. (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database. Data Source: As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements, Federal Agencies are required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The cumulative total number plans developed and exercises conduced will be calculated by simple summation using the GLRI Accountability System database (GLAS). QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program. Data Limitations: None known. Error Estimate: Error Estimate: Statistics developed through the use of the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) rely on the inputted data of Federal agencies and grant recipients. There may be errors in classification, georeferencing, input accuracy, as well as data omissions. Statistics from the GLAS system reflect a point in time. Although data will be assessed on a project by project basis for accuracy, a degree of error is to be expected. This innovative system for tracking Great Lakes-wide activities will be refined over time if systematic errors are detected through project assessments. New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Five year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries draining targeted watersheds. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes Loadings information will be incorporated into the standard
Performance Database: USGS database, NWIS.
Data Source: Various State, Federal, and local agencies collect soluble reactive phosphorus or functionally equivalent dissolved phosphorus data across the Great Lakes region. Water-quality data are stored in various databases: STORET (EPA data base), NWIS (USGS data base), or those of individual State and local agencies. Note: not all State and local agencies incorporate their data into Federal databases. Note: not all agencies collect soluble reactive phosphorus data, some collect only total phosphorus data. Agencies monitoring the rivers of interest collect their data in accordance with approved standard procedures. Streamflow data for the rivers of interest are collected by the USGS. All streamflow data are stored in the standard USGS database, NWIS. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Water-quality data and streamflow data will be collected in accordance with approved standard procedures of the USEPA or USGS. These data will then be used to compute annual loads of soluble reactive phosphorus in each river. Loads will be computed by means of one of two different approaches: a rating curve/regression approach method such as Estimate (Cohn, et al. 1989) or Fluxmaster (Schwarz et al. 2006); or the Beales ratio estimator approach (Beale, 1962). Other general assumptions include: 1. Dissolved phosphorus is similar to soluble reactive phosphorus and it may be used if soluble reactive phosphorus is not monitored in each river. 2. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations collected represent conditions over the entire ranges of flows experienced in each year. 3. Annual load estimation approaches, with their inherent errors, can be used to describe small changes in 5-year average loads. 4. Loads computed for a five-year period represent the true average of hydrologic conditions that typically have an 11 to 13 year cycle resulting from interannual changes in hydrology. QA/QC Procedures: Streamflow will be collected by the USGS and will follow all standard QA/QC procedures outlined in U.S. Geological Survey by Rantz (1982) and Mueller and Wagner (2009). Water-quality data will be collected by Federal, State, and local agencies following their specified protocols in accordance with standard USEPA approved protocols. Each agency will follow specified field and laboratory QA/QC procedures consisting of blanks, replicates, and spikes. Additionally, data analyses must be performed by laboratories that have gone through a recognized laboratory evaluation/accreditation process including participation in ongoing blind testing programs to provide performance data. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program.
Data-Quality Review: Annual load data will be reviewed by individual project managers and published in annual reports. Specific data-quality review procedures depend on who is going to compute the loads and how the loads are computed. Data Limitations: Annual loads represent an integration of current and historical land use practices and climatic conditions during each year. Therefore, changes in the five year average loads may not be caused by changes in practices applied in the watershed. Error Estimate: Stream flow and water-quality data are incorporated into load computation programs. The load computation program will be used to construct 95% confidence limits on each annual load. It is assumed that these errors incorporate all sampling and estimation errors. New/Improved Data or Systems: None. References: 1. Beale, E.M.L. 1962. Some uses of computers in operational research. Industrielle Organisation 31:51-52. 2. Cohn, T.A., L.L DeLong, E.J. Gilroy, R.M. Hirsch, and D.E Wells. 1989. Estimating Constituent Loads. Water Resources Research, 25(5), pp. 937-942. 3. Rantz, S.E. 1982. Measurement and computation of streamflow; Volume 1, measurement of stage and discharge; Volume 2, computation of discharge, US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper vol. 2175, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.. 4. Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2009, Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 3A-22, 72 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/tm3a22) 5. Schwarz, G.E., Hoos, A.B., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, R.A., 2006, SPARROWMOD: user documentation for the SPARROW surface water-quality model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, section B, Surface water, chapter 3 (6B3).
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide loading. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services National Conservation Planning Database and Performance Results System.
Data Source: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides financial and technical assistance to private landowners and producers throughout the United States through one-on-one assistance at the farm level. The results of that assistance are documented at the field office level using the NRCS National Conservation Planning Database (NCP). The Performance Results System (PRS) reports performance in various ways based on established performance measure business definitions. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Natural Resources Conservation Service staff and conservation partners enter geo-located conservation planning and application information into the NCP daily. These data are the result of landowner/producer planning decisions and in-field certification of applied conservation practices. Certification occurs only after an applied practice meets NRCS standards and specifications. Conservation planning is the process through which decision-makers, land owners or producers, voluntarily agree to a recommended series of conservation practices or systems designed to address the natural resource concern, such as sheet and rill or gully erosion, surface or subsurface nutrient loading or animal agriculture. Other concerns, such as wildlife habitat and sustainable agriculture, may also be addressed. Conservation planning and application documentation warehoused in the NCP are datestamped, geo-referenced and linked to an employee ID, enabling detailed qualityassurance reviews. Periodic in field reviews (spot checks) are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported field data. QA/QC Procedures: Conservation planning and application is reported through the Performance Results System (PRS) using data stored in the NCP. Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entry. Each performance record must adhere to a set of quality assurance requirements during the upload process to be credited towards Agency performance. Conservation planning and application documentation is entered into the NCP by field office personnel. Field staffs are trained and skilled in conservation planning and application suited to the local resource conditions. The information used to develop conservation plans is obtained from on-site resource evaluation, observation, and measurement. Practices applied according to the conservation plan are certified as meeting NRCS standards and specifications. These standards are specific to the practice and ensure the application will address the identified resource concern. Quality Assurance processes are in place at the field, area, state and national level to ensure data entry into the NCP is accurate. Detailed QA/QC is performed on all data entries quarterly. Data Quality Review: Beginning FY 2009 quarterly detailed QA/QC based field level queries were performed on all entered data. As a result, confidence in entered data is good. Data entry error checking and automated (real time) QA/QC is in development to improve the QA/QC process, capture potential errors at the point of data entry, and increase staff field time. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program. Data Limitations: Conservation planning and application performance is year and program specific. A series of integrated conservation practices may be applied to the
same land unit using one or more available programs over a series of years. In addition, a land unit or farm operation may be replanned due to a significant change in the operation or change in owner/operator. For these reasons the cumulative acreage planned or applied over multiple years may not reflect unique acres. Error Estimate: Initial QA/QC data queries at the national level have shown less than a five percent error rate. A specific error estimate is not available. New/Improved Data or Systems: Data entry error checking and automated (real time) QA/QC is in development to improve the QA/QC process, capture potential errors at the point of data entry, and increase staff field time. FY 2012 Performance Measure: % of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered species selfsustaining in the wild. (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Fisheries Information System (FIS), a component of the Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (see reference below). Data on aquatic taxa are compiled annually to meet performance reporting and budgetary requirements to the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. Data Source: The Services Fisheries Program is the principal source of data for the FIS. Cooperating organizations include other federal agencies, states, Tribes, and nongovernmental partners that assist with population assessment and monitoring. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The FIS Populations Module provides information on what is known about populations of aquatic species (i.e., status, trend, geographic location, management plans, etc.) and has broad scientific utility. Population data are updated annually in FIS to reflect most recent population and habitat assessment information, and are reported on an annual basis (September of the fiscal year) to the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress in the Services Operational Plan. QA/QC Procedures: Population data are collected by sources identified above and entered into the web-based FIS program by Service field office staff. Regional data are compiled and submitted to headquarters program staff for review and approval. Data Quality Review: The Service has approved data quality management practices in place. Data in FIS are open for examination by internal and external audit. The Fisheries Program received an Effective assessment rating as a result of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in 2006. The Fisheries Program continues to implement recommendations as identified in the PART Improvement Plan and complies with agency quality standards. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program.
Data Limitations: Outcome-level performance measures as documented through the FIS Populations Module are critical connections between field-based conservation action and regional and national-level funding and accountability. Completeness and accuracy of information in the module is dependent on Service biologists entering the data. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: The FIS modules are continually being reviewed and updated to reflect new scientific information and changing reporting needs. The online sytem will eventually provide public access to the population information. References: Environmental Conservation Online System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do, http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do 1. Fisheries Information System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, Arlington, VA. 2006 http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/pdfs/factsheets/FIS.pdf 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Assessment Rating Tool Results, Fisheries Program 2006. http://www.fws.gov/Planning/Documents/PART/Fisheries.pdf FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of species delisted due to recovery. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Threatened and Endanger Species System (TESS) and Recovery Online Activity Reporting system (ROAR), both components of the Services Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (see reference below). Databases provide current reports of all federally listed animals and plants, as well as recovery plan information (i.e., plan access, action status, etc.) Data Source: The Services Endangered Species Program is the principal source of data. Cooperating organizations include other federal agencies, states, Tribes, and nongovernmental partners that assist implementation of recovery actions. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Before a plant or animal species can receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, it must first be placed on the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. To delist a species, the Service is legally required to determine that threats have been eliminated or controlled, based on several factors including population sizes and trends and the stability of habitat quality and quantity.
The number of species delisted are reported annyally in ECOS (September of the fiscal year) and to the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress in the Services Operational Plan. The numbers of species delisted reported as a cumulative metric. Delisting determinations are based on several complex factors (see reference), including annual and cumulative conservation and recovery actions reported in the ECOS system. QA/QC Procedures: The Services listing program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list or delist a species, depending on the degree of threat it faces. (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/listing.pdf) The Service also maintains a list of plant and animals native to the United States that are candidates or proposed for possible addition to the Federal list. All of the Services actions, from proposals to listings to removals (delisting) are announced through the Federal Register (http://www.fws.gov/endangered /factsheets/delisting.pdf). Data Limitations: Outcome-level performance measures as documented through the TESS and ROAR modules in ECOS are critical connections between field-based conservation action and regional and national-level funding and accountability. Completeness and accuracy of information in the modules are dependent on Service biologists entering the data. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: None References: Environmental Conservation Outline System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do.http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do Threatened and Endangered Species System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ Recovery Online Activity Reporting System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, https://ecos.fws.gov/roar/pub/ConfigureRecActionReport.do?path=ROAR%20Custo m%20Queries.Public%20Actions%20AdHoc Listing a Species, Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program, July 2009 http://www.fws.gov/endangered /factsheets/listing.pdf Delisting a Species, Section of the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program, July 2009 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Assessment Rating Tool Results, Endangered Species Program 2005.
http://www.fws.gov/Planning/Documents/PART/Endangered%20Species.pdf
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced. (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: EPAs Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will track the cumulative total of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010. Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Each agency mentioned above will provide information about cumulative wetlands and wetland-associated upland acres protected, restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and contractors. Information will be input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Accountability Database (GLAS). GLNPO will compile and distill information into a yearly GLRI report. QA/QC Procedures GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program. Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agencys staff, grant and contract reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by project managers. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability System References
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced. (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: EPAs Great Lakes National Program Office will track the cumulative total of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010. Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability Each agency mentioned above will provide information about cumulative coastal, upland, and island habitats acres protected, restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and contractors. Information will be input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Accountability Database (GLAS). GLNPO will compile and distill information into a yearly GLRI report. QA/QC Procedures GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. Data Quality Review Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through GLNPOs Quality Program. Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agencys staff, grant and contract reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by project managers. Error Estimate: None New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability System References
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic systems Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Performance Database: USEPAs Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will collect and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance results as part of annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and as online reporting of GLNPOs monitoring program, <http://epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/index.html> . Extensive databases for the indicator components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus concentrations, contaminated sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational agreement with Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who provide data to the USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of scientists and natural resource managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program to determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands. Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and generally reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The document, State of the Great Lakes 2009 - A Technical Report presents detailed indicator reports prepared by primary authors, including listings of data sources. Depending on the indicators, data sources may include U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research reports and published scientific literature. Information from the following indicators is used to evaluate the Index components: [1] Coastal Wetlands group of indicators: Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs Coastal Wetland Bird Community Diversity and Abundance Coastal Wetland Area by Type Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health [2] Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings [3] Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in SOLEC. Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation is collected by USEPAGLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the contaminated sediment index component of this Index.) [4] Benthic Health group of indicators: Hexagenia Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp. [5] Contaminants in Sport Fish [6] Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures[7] Drinking Water Quality [8] Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of Concern (AOC) sediment contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Authors use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of the ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when available. . To calculate the Index, the data for each indicator are compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric, 1 to 5, rating system. Each of the index components, other than the AOC sediment contamination component, is included in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was developed through an extensive multi-agency process to satisfy the overall criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible. Information on the selection process is in the document, Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4. QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place1(see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators are collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than USEPA. Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to assure high quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to document procedures for data assessment and review for the indicators reports prepared for the State of the Great Lakes 2005 report. See State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP. Contaminated sediment remediation information is collected in conformance with GLNPOs Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP2 (see reference #2 below). Data Quality Review: GLNPOs Quality Management System has been given outstanding evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2 below). GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards. An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by an international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national indicator and reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several recommendations were made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports. Many of the recommendations have been implemented, and others are being considered for feasibility. The final report by the review panel is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report in the SOLEC 2004 section. A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes stakeholders in 2004. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others were added. The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the indicators relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues. The final report from the review is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder Review of the Great Lakes Indicators in the SOLEC 2004 section. Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index. The data are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination, benthic health, and air toxics deposition. The data associated with other components of the index (coastal wetlands, AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking water quality) are more qualitative. Some data are distributed among several sources, and without an extensive trend line. Limitations for each of the index components are included in the formal indicator descriptions in the document, The Great Lakes Indicator Suite: Changes and Progress 2004. The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional information. Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified. Each unit of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the assessment of one of the component indicators would result in a change of the index of that magnitude. The degree of environmental change required to affect an indicator assessment, however, may be significantly large. New/Improved Data or Systems: Data continue to be collected by various agencies, including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes monitoring programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data collection and reporting. Documentation regarding SOLEC is available on the Internet and from GLNPO4 (see reference # 4 below). References: 1. Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA905R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/ 2. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support. Unpublished in Great Lakes National Program Office files, June 2008. 3. GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files. 4. a. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP. Unpublished. Prepared as part of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
b. Canada and the United States. State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-66234798-6, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-11/35-2003E, and U.S. c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD and online at <www.binational.net>. d. Canada and the United States. Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En164-1/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago. Available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html e. Canada and the United States. State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. En161-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available online at <http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html> f. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4. Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000. Available online at <www.binational.net>. g. Forst, Christina, Paul Bertram and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2004. The Great Lakes Indicator Suite: Changes and Progress at SOLEC 2004. Available online at http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC%202004/Tagged%20PDFs/Changes_and_ Progress_Paper_(FULL).pdf h. Canada and the United States. State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario (Cat. No. En161-3/2007E) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-07-002) 2007. Available online at http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf. i. Canada and the United States. State of the Great Lakes 2009, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario (Cat. No. En161-3/1-2009E-PDF) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA-905-R-09-031) 2009. Available online at http://binational.net/solec/sogl2009_e.html. All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development processes, conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html . The documents are sorted by SOLEC year and include the State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following calendar year. FY 2012 Performance Measures:Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model. Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model. Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model. Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to implement agricultural BMPs (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Implementation of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution reduction actions throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, will be measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model and expressed as % of goal achieved. The nitrogen goal is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) draft allocation of 203.14 million pounds per year 6 (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a TMDL draft allocation of 12.52 million pounds per year1 (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). Achieving the Bay TMDL nitrogen and phosphorus allocations is necessary for attaining tidal water quality standards for clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen. The Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 5.3 Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated wastewater discharge loads (generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to Chesapeake Bay tidal waters. The Phase 5.3 Watershed Model is also employed to integrate the nonpoint source practice implementation data (submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and programs) and simulate changes in delivered nitrogen and phosphorus loads from nonpoint sources. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the effectiveness of practices implemented and converts the numerous practices, with various pollution reduction efficiencies depending on type and location in the watershed to a common currency of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction. Implementation of sediment pollution reduction actions throughout the Bay watershed, will be measured through the phase 5.3 watershed, model and expressed as % of goal achieved. The sediment goal is a TMDL allocation of 6.45 billion pounds per year (based on average hydrology simulations). Achieving the Bay TMDL sediment allocation is necessary for attaining tidal water quality standards for clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation. The phase 5.3 watershed model is employed to integrate the nonpoint source practice implementation data (submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and programs) and simulate changes in delivered sediment loads from nonpoint sources. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the
The TMDL allocations will be finalized December 31, 2010. The EPA Region 3 Administrator has provided the following draft allocations to the state secretaries for use in developing Watershed Implementation Plans: 203.14 million pounds of nitrogen; 12.52 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.1-6.7 billion pounds of sediment.
6
effectiveness of practices implemented and converts the numerous practices, with various pollution reduction efficiencies depending on type and location in the watershed to a common currency of sediment reduction. Data will be reported for calendar years 2009 and 2010 in March 2011 and are expected on an annual basis after 2010. Data will be from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC. The FY 2012 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the 2011 data collection. We expect to receive the results of the 2011 data collection in March 2012. The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure the data will be available from the Bay Tracking and Accountability System (BayTAS), which will be finalized by 2011. For more information about the BayTAS, refer to http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/45645_07-2010_Presentation_4_10929.pdf. Data Source: Annual jurisdictional submissions of both monitored and estimated wastewater effluent concentrations and flows approved by each jurisdiction as well as nonpoint source practice data tracked by jurisdictions and reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program office. Data will be provided via Bay TA S. Custodians of Source Data: Wastewater: Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Chesapeake Bay Program Office Nonpoint Source practices and Watershed Model information: Jeff Sweeney, Nonpoint Source Data Manager, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Program Office Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A wealth of both general and technical documents about the watershed model can be found on the Bay Programs web site at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169 and on the Chesapeake Community Modeling website at http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/index.php. The Chesapeake Bay Program phase 5.3 watershed model is the tool used to transform calculated wastewater discharge loads (generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to nutrient loads delivered to Chesapeake Bay tidal waters, upon which the measure is based. The phase 5.3 watershed model is also employed to integrate nonpoint source practice implementation data submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and programs to changes in delivered nutrient and sediment loads as well as to assimilate the impacts of both wastewater and nonpoint source controls and practices.
The watershed model allows scientists to simulate changes in physical, chemical, and biological processes in a large and complex ecosystem due to changes in human and animal populations, land uses, or pollution management, so that technically sound environmental decisions can be made. Monitoring data provides observations in the past or the present, at discrete times, and at isolated locations while modeling scenarios can be used to represent the environment under different management regimes in different temporal and spatial scales. The model simulations represent what-if management scenarios, providing comparisons among historic and current watershed conditions and a future condition that would restore water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay. So that the comparisons are relevant, reported nonpoint source loads from the watershed model are estimates of what would occur in an average hydrology year with a single years watershed conditions (i.e., land uses, animal manure and chemical fertilizer inputs, human population, nonpoint source controls/practices, septic, and atmospheric deposition). Wastewater loads reflect measured discharges from tracked waste treatment and industrial facilities, using the model to account for changes in nutrients as the pollutants move downstream. QA/QC Procedures: Procedures for compiling and managing wastewater discharge data at the Chesapeake Bay Program office are documented in the following EPAapproved Quality Assurance Project Plan: Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data Chesapeake Bay Program on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net). Procedures for acquiring and managing nonpoint source data at the Chesapeake Bay Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan: Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Nonpoint Source Data Chesapeake Bay Program on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net). Jurisdictions providing wastewater effluent data and nonpoint source controls and practices data to the Bay Program office have supplied documentation of their quality assurance and quality control policies, procedures, and specifications in the form of Quality Assurance Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. Jurisdictional documentation can be obtained by contacting the Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net). Data Quality Reviews: Data and methods used in the watershed model as well as the simulation itself and loading outputs are continually under external and internal review. Internal review mostly involves the Bay Program Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and its workgroups; the Modeling Team; and special task groups established particularly for peer review. Scopes and purposes of these groups and their extensive considerations of the
watershed model as a planning tool can be found at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/wq_git_info.aspx?menuitem=47174, and http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_msc_info.aspx. An external review of the Bay Programs phase 5 watershed model hydrologic calibration was completed in September 2008 and can be found at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_51626.pdf. In February, 2008, an external panel assembled by the Chesapeake Bay Programs Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the Chesapeake Bay phase 5 watershed model assessing (1) work to date, (2) the model's suitability for making management decisions at the Bay Watershed and local scales, and (3) potential enhancements to improve the predictive ability of the next generation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed models. A report of the review, with specific recommendations, can be found at the STAC site http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacpubs.html Another external review of Bay Program modeling efforts Modeling in the Chesapeake Bay Program: 2010 and Beyond completed January, 2006 is published by STAC at http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/ModBay2010Report.pdf In June, 2005, another external review of the watershed model addressed the following broad questions: 1) Does the current phase of the model use the most appropriate protocols for simulation of watershed processes and management impacts, based on the current state of the art in the HSPF model development?, and 2) Looking forward to the future refinement of the model, where should the Bay Program look to increase the utility of the watershed model? Details of this review and responses can be found at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/Watershed_Model_Peer_Revie w.pdf. Data Limitations: None. Error Estimate: There may be errors in classification, georeferencing, and documentation, mistakes in the processing of data or data omissions. New/Improved Data or Systems: The phase 5 watershed model has increased spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of management practices. The phase 5 watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and federal agencies. Contact Gary Shenk at gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169. References: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model web site at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169. Chesapeake Community Modeling website at http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/index.php.
FY 2012 Per for mance Measur es: Sustain and Restor e the US-mexico bor der envir onmental health Number of additional homes pr ovided safe dr inking water in the Mexican bor der ar ea that lacked access to dr inking water in 2003 Number of additional homes pr ovided adequate wastewater sanitation in the Mexican bor der ar ea that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003 Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) r emoved (M lb/yr ) fr om the U.S.- Mexico bor der ar ea since 2003.
Per for mance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is based on construction completion of certified projects, which is tracked and reported quarterly by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB). Data fields are: population served by, and homes connected to, potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems and, applicable design specifications,water quality and flow data for removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD). Data Sour ce: Data sources include U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census and Mexican population figures from CONAGUA using Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia y Informatica (INEGI) data to establish the baseline. Data on population served and homes connected by certified water/wastewater projects are estimated based on project planning and design documents, tracked and reported by BECC and NADB and reflected in EPA project completion schedules for certified projects. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Overarching population figures are provided by the nationally designated census agencies. Homes connected and population served are tracked and reported in conjunction with construction progress. Population served may include assumptions of average household size. Projections of BOD removal are based on actual average daily flows at wastewater treatment plants, when available, or incorporate per-capita averages typical of the region. Actual influent and effluent water quality data are used when available and are otherwise based on accepted engineering averages. QA/QC Pr ocedur es: BECC and NADB are responsible for field verification of project information and progress. EPA Regions are responsible for evaluation of reports from BECC and NADBon drinking water and wastewater sanitation projects. Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border projects (BECC and NADB), review various planning and construction related documents and conduct project oversight visits of projects to confirm information accuracy. EPA Headquarters compiles, reviews and tracks information provided by the EPA Regions.
Data Quality Reviews: Regional representatives hold quarterly meetings with the BECC and NADBand conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the accuracy of information reported. Data Limitations: None. Er r or Estimate: None. New/Impr oved Data or Systems: None. Refer ences: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia y Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990). Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002). GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Assess and Cleanup Brownfields Brownfields properties assessed Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties. Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse (program assessment measure) Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars Efficiency Measure
Performance Database: The Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) tracks the performance information for the above measures. Key fields related to performance measures include, but are not limited to: Property Acreage Assessment Completion Date Cleanup Required Cleanup Completion Date Institutional Controls Required Institutional Controls in Place/Date Engineering Controls Required Engineering Controls in Place/date Funding Leveraged Jobs Leveraged
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will be available for the FY 2011 PAR. Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm) prepared by assessment, cleanup, revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program cooperative agreement award recipients. Information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) is collected from EPA Regions. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Cooperative agreement recipients report performance data in quarterly reports and property profile forms. Data are reviewed by Regional EPA grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Given the reporting cycle and the data entry/QA period, there is typically a several month data lag for ACRES data. Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields RLF Grantees, Regional TBAs, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees all contribute towards these performance measures. "Number of Brownfields properties assessed" is an aggregate of assessments completed with Assessment Grant funding, Regional TBA funding, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program funding. Number of Brownfields properties cleaned up is an aggregate of properties cleaned up by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees. "Number of Acres Made Ready for Reuse" is an aggregate of acreage assessed that does not require cleanup and acreage cleaned up as reported by Assessment Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, Cleanup Grantees, RLF Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees for which any required institutional controls are in place. Number of cleanup and redevelopment jobs leveraged is the aggregate of jobs leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees. Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties is the aggregate of funds leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees. QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are reviewed by EPA Regional grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of performance measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with detailed data trends analysis. Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews. Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees. Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program has updated, launched and phased-in an online reporting form in FY 2009 to improve data collection and to expand the community of grantees completing the form. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Investing in Partnership, Possibility and People: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields Program, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, November 2005, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Assessment Pilots/Grants, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots/Grants, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Job Training Pilots/Grants, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Cleanup Grants, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled Waste Generation and Recycling
Performance Database: Data are provided by EPA and the Department of Commerce. Data Source: National estimates for municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling are developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the Department of Commerce and described in the EPA report titled Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. The Department of Commerce collects materials production and consumption data from various industries. Additional Agency performance data include: total pounds recycled in a year attributable to EPA FTE and contract funds as reported in EPAs Annual Commitment System (ACS), recycling achievements in EPAs recycling partnership programs, as well as the total cost to the Agency including annual recycling dollars, and FTE for HQ and the Regions.
Methods and Assumptions: Data on domestic production of materials and products are compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources are used, where available; but in several instances more detailed information on production of goods by end-use is available from trade associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for each product and/or material. Data on average product lifetimes are used to adjust the data series. These estimates and calculations result in material-bymaterial and product-by product estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards. EPAs FY 2012 measure focuses on the total pounds of recycling that EPA influences in the United States. EPA helps to increase the amount of materials recycled through its educational materials, technical support, direct assistance, and through recycling partnership programs. EPA influences national recycling based on its investment, over many years, in the development and implementation of voluntary programs, as well as information tools, to motivate State and local government, business, manufacturers, and citizens to reduce the municipal solid waste generated and increase recycling. The level of national recycling is published biennially in the report Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. The current report describes the municipal solid waste stream based on data collected yearly from 1960 through 2008. Many State and local governments, industry and citizen groups use EPA materials to develop their recycling programs. The Agency also has a significant impact on national recycling rates through its participation in major conferences, national and trade press efforts, and convening summits and focus groups. Additionally, EPA meets with national organizations such as the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, National Recycling Coalition, and Solid Waste Association of North America to promote recycling. The second component of the FY 2012 measure is comprised of EPAs annual commitments as tracked in the ACS database. In addition to efforts in support of the national recycling measure, the Agency will track and report accomplishments based on results achieved from grants, FTE-only opportunities, work assignments (if applicable), and EPA Region-specific partners. The final component of the FY 2012 measure is partnership attribution. EPAs WasteWise program provides program design assistance, implementation assistance, networking opportunities, helpline and listserve support, and recognition opportunities to partners enrolled in the program. The cumulative effect and investment in voluntary partnerships contribute to the increase in the national recycling rate. EPA currently claims 25% of recycling and source reduction achievement reported by partners. As part of their enrollment in the WasteWise program, partners submit a baseline waste reduction to use as a point of comparison to measure EPAs influence.
The FY 2012 MSW measure focuses on EPA costs, both extramural dollars and FTE. By focusing on the Agencys specific contributions to recycling, this will more accurately represent EPAs efficiency. Suitability: The report, including the baseline numbers, annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted by solid waste management practitioners. QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of Commerces internal procedures and systems. The report prepared by the Agency, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, is reviewed by a number of experts for accuracy and soundness. EPAs budget information and partnership programs data are subject to EPAs QA/QC procedures. Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a series of models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of municipal solid waste generated or recycled. In addition, the measure is contingent upon collection of accurate and up-to-date information from the recycling partnership programs. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: The measure represents EPAs accomplishments in promoting recycling. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf (accessed July 29, 2010). Waste News. "Municipal Recycling Survey". Crain Communications, Inc. 2009. Available annually from wasterecyclingnews.com. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com (accessed July 29, 2010).. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters Show How. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-530-
F-99-017, October 1999. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/downloads/f99017.pdf (accessed July 29, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Diversion and Costs for Select Drop-Off Recycling Programs. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-R-95109, June 1995. http://www.epa.gov/nscep (accessed July 29, 2010).
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls. Minimize releases of hazardous waste and petroleum products
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPAs RCRA program. Data Source: Data are mainly entered by the states and can be entered directly into RCRAInfo, although some choose to use a different program and then translate the information into RCRAInfo. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in Regional and state files. Methods and Assumptions: RCRAInfo, the national database which supports EPAs RCRA program, contains information on entities (generically referred to as handlers) engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe. Suitability: States and EPAs Regional offices generate the data and manage data quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of data. QA/QC Procedures: Even with the increasing emphasis on data quality, with roughly 10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more than one unit), we hear of data problems with some facilities every year, particularly with the older inactive facilities. When we hear of these issues, we work with the EPA Regional offices to see that they get resolved. It may be necessary to make a few adjustments as data issues are identified. Determination of whether or not the facility has approved controls in place is based primarily on the legal and operating status codes for each unit. Each year since 1999, in discussions with Regional offices and states, EPA has highlighted the need to keep the data that support the GPRA permitting goal current. RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this information and is a focal point for planning from the local to national level. Accomplishment of updated controls is based on the permit expiration date code and
other related codes. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. The most recent version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), has many added components that will help the user identify errors in the system (Example: data gap report). Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPAs Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites. This nonsensitive information is supplied from RCRAInfo to Envirofacts. Data Quality Reviews: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPAs Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their hazardous waste programs. Those recommendations coincided with ongoing internal efforts to improve the definitions of data collected, and ensure that data collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current national database, has evolved in part as a response to this report. The Permitting and Corrective Action Program Area Analysis was the primary vehicle for the improvements made in the December 2008 release (V4). Data Limitations: The authorized states have ownership of their data and EPA has to rely on them to make changes. The data that determine if a facility has met its permit requirements are prioritized in update efforts. Basic site data may become out-of-date because RCRA does not mandate the notification of all information changes. Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by their ID numbers and those should not change even during ownership changes (RCRA Subtitle C EPA Identification Number, Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance, March 21, 2005). The baselines are composed of facilities that can have multiple units. These units may consolidate, split or undergo other activities that cause the number of units to change. We aim to have a static baseline for the total facilities tracked for GPRA, but there may be occasions where we would need to make minor baseline modifications. The larger permitting universe is carried over from one Strategic Plan to the next with minor changes (for instance, facilities referred to Superfund are removed, or facilities never regulated are removed; facilities that applied for a permit within the last strategic cycle are added). This universe is composed of facilities that were subject to permits as of 10-11997 and subsequent years. EPA plans to update the list of units that need updated controls after the end of each Strategic Plan cycle. Those facilities that need updated controls are a smaller set within the larger GPRA permitting universe tracked for strategic and annual goals. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently ORCR does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: New data quality tools, tracking, and reporting capabilities were added with V4 of RCRAInfo, deployed in December 2008. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste
handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste by large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for Federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and states have the option to use commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. RCRAInfo website with documentation and data http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/index.html (accessed July 22, 2010). U.S. Government Accountability Office. Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited. AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permitting and Corrective Action Program Area Analysis. WIN/INFORMED Executive Steering Committee, July 28, 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Subtitle C EPA Identification Number, Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance. March 21, 2005 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with both release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous years target Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to five percent (5%) fewer than the prior years target
Performance Database: Designated state agencies and EPA regions individually maintain records for reporting state and tribal UST program accomplishments, and record their individual state and regional tribal performance measures into the programs oracle web-based system (LUST4). Data Source: The data suppliers are the states and territories who are the direct implementers of the program in their respective jurisdictions and the regions who provide assistance to the tribes. Each EPA regional office manages its own state and tribal assistance agreements. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A QA/QC Procedures: EPA/OUST will oversee the use of the QA/QC checklist, incorporated into the LUST4 oracle web-based system. Regions complete the QA/QC checklist, sign it electronically and submit it to EPA/OUST. The QA/QC checklist will be incorporated into the web-based system.
Data Quality Review: EPAs regional grants project officers and program managers provide first-level data quality reviews and oversight of the recipients program performance measure results. EPA/OUST reviews, comments and approves each record. Data Limitations: For the semi-annual activity report, percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: LUST4 oracle web-based system accessed through EPAs portal. References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2010 as of September 30, 2010, dated November 2010; http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_10_34.pdf (accessed December 22, 2010) FY 2012 Performance Measure:
Increase in the percentage of coal combustion product ash that is beneficially used instead of disposed Waste Generation and Recycling
Performance Database: Data to support this measure are provided by the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). EPA does not maintain a database for ash utilization. Data Source: The ACAA conducts an annual voluntary survey on coal combustion products (CCP) generation by the utility industry and beneficial use practices by related industries. Responders typically represent approximately 50-70% of the electricity generating capacity of the United States; the responses to the 2008 survey were 68% of the total US generating capacity. The ACAA survey also draws information from the Department of Energys Energy Information Agency (EIA) Forms 923 and 860 as well as other publicly available trade association data. Methods and Assumptions: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires extrapolation and integration with several sources of data. ACAA uses EIA Forms 860 and 923 to quantify total electricity generation and coal consumption which correlate with byproduct generation. Form 923 also provides information about the generation and disposition of byproducts, whether for disposal or beneficial use. ACAA augments the beneficial use data with its own survey data. EPA does not do any QA/QC of the data prior to publication. Overall, the data are considered to be of good quality on a national basis due to the combination of the mandatory DOE data and the ACAA survey data. By contrast, EPAs Toxics Release Information data does not track end-use and does not require reporting of materials by their utilization. Suitability: The coal combustion product recycling rate is defined as tons of CCPs recycled divided by tons of CCPs generated nationally by coal-fired electric utilities. For
the purposes of this performance measure, EPA considers beneficial use to include all CCP categories collected by the ACAA except for mining applications (minefill). Categories aggregated for the numerator include concrete/concrete products/grout, blended cement/raw feed for clinker, flowable fill, asphalt, snow and ice control, blasting/grout/roofing granules, gypsum panel products, waste stabilization/solidification, agriculture, aggregate and miscellaneous/other. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for the generation and use of CCPSs. These data are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of beneficial use programs and activities. EPA does not claim to be solely responsible for annual changes to beneficial use rates as other exogenous factors contribute to improvements in re-use (e.g., market conditions, NGO activity, etc.) QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers reported on EIA Forms 860 and 923 are provided by the Department of Energys internal procedures and systems. The ACAA provides its own QA/QC check by comparing the data from its own survey with the DOE data, thereby assuring a high level of accuracy at the national level. Data on utilization within specific categories are also reviewed by CCP industry experts for accuracy within categories of beneficial use, such as cement, concrete and wallboard. The ACAA does not provide any formal opportunity for the EPA to conduct QA/QC checks prior to publication, although some discussion and analysis of the preliminary data usually takes place. Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: The ACAA annual survey data are considered to be of good to excellent quality on the national level due to the combination of the mandatory DOE data and the ACAA survey data. While the ACAA survey is voluntary and covers only a portion of the industry, the DOE data enable accurate extrapolation based on well characterized electricity generating capacity. Data limitations are associated with some States and regions which may be under-represented in the survey. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: The current DOE Form 923 replaced the Form 767 in 2007, which necessitated adjustments in completing the ACAA survey. The ACAA survey data are now considered consistent with past years. In 2009, ACAA began including mine reclamation data from ARIPPA, thereby substantially increasing the size of the sample. Counterbalancing this change, however, is the fact that EPA subtracts out these and other mine reclamation data for its own beneficial use reporting purposes. No new data sources or collection practices are contemplated at this time. References: American Coal Ash Association. 2008 CCP Production and Use Survey Report. http://www.acaa-usa.org/ (accessed July 28, 2010).
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of facilities with new or updated controls per million dollars of program cost Efficiency
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPAs RCRA program and provides information on facilities under control. Costs by the permittee are estimated through the annual cost estimates contained in the Information Collection Requests (ICR) supporting statements relevant to the RCRA Base Program. ICRs are contained in the Federal Docket Management System. Base program appropriation information is maintained in the Budget Automation System (BAS). Data Source: The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) develops ICRs and ensures they have active ICRs approved by the OMB for all of their RCRA permitting and base program information collection activities. BAS automates EPA's budget processes, including planning, budgeting, execution, and reporting. Budget data is entered at a general level by offices and regions or by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). Methods and Assumptions: Numerator Facilities with approved or updated controls as described above; facilities under control is an outcome based measure as permits or similar mechanisms are not issued until facilities have met standards or permit conditions that are based on human health or environmental standards. Examples include sites cleaned up to a protective level; any groundwater releases controlled so no further attenuation is occurring; any remaining waste safely removed or capped (isolated); and long term controls in place to protect people and the environment at the site, if any contamination remains. An updated control, such as a permit renewal, indicates that the facility has upgraded its operations to ensure continued safe operation, minimizing the potential for releases and accidents. Denominator The denominator is the sum of two costs. The first is permitting costs based on Information Collection Requests for the base RCRA program. The costs will take into account recent rulemakings which impact program expenditures The second program cost in the denominator is the input of a three year rolling average appropriation for Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. Corrective action programs costs will not be included but will be addressed in a separate efficiency measure. A rolling average of appropriations is more appropriate since some of the facility controls depend upon past resources. Issuance time for a permit, for example, can exceed one year with public hearings and appeals. The cumulative number of facilities with controls in place is appropriate (rather than a single years increment) because the appropriations are used to
maintain facilities that already have controls in place (e.g. inspections and permit renewals) as well as to extend the number of facilities with controls. Suitability: EPAs BAS is the primary source for budget formulation data and is considered definitive for all Agency users. RCRAInfo is also considered to be a definitive source of RCRA facility information, and much of the data contained in RCRAInfo is available nowhere else. The data are considered accurate at the regional and national levels. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of the ICR costs is based on internal and external review of the data. BAS data undergoes quality assurance and data quality review through the Chief Financial Officer. Data Quality Reviews: N/A. Data Limitations: The data sources for the program costs identified in the denominator of the measure include all of the RCRA base program appropriations (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D program implementation) and not just costs for permitting. Accordingly, the measure cannot be compared with other similar government programs. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently ORCR does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to improve the data or methodology have been identified. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). http://www.regulations.gov (accessed December 22, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Budget Automation System. Internal agency operating system on EPA intranet, (accessed December 22, 2009). FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan Waste Generation and Recycling
Performance Database: EPA Regions have internal data systems which are appropriate for the size of the data set. As of October 2009, a nationwide total of 94 tribal integrated waste management plans have been counted in EPAs Annual Commitment System. Data Source: EPA Regional offices enter data into their internal data systems. Methods and Assumptions: Regional data systems reflect EPA Regional offices evaluations of tribal integrated waste management plans and do not require any other data
elements or sources. The data systems are considered to be appropriate for the minimal complexity and small size of the data set. Suitability: The data are reviewed by EPA for data quality and periodic adjustments are made during these reviews. The data are considered to be accurate on a regional and national scale. QA/QC: The internal EPA data set housing the specific solid waste management plans for each tribe is managed by each regional office and is under the control of each region. Also, because the data are very small in size on a region by region basis, it can be managed efficiently by each regional office and is considered to be accurate. Data Quality Reviews: N/A. Data Limitations: EPA Regions have ownership of this data. limitations. Error Estimate: N/A. New/Improved Data or Systems: During FY 2011, EPA will be compiling the regional data into a spreadsheet for national tracking purposes. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Five Elements of a Tribal Integrated Waste Management Plan. Memorandum from Matt Hale, Director, Office of Solid Waste. http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/E7661F3537 91AD71852573780050876E/$file/14776.pdf (accessed July 14, 2010). FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded dumps in Indian Country or other tribal lands Waste Generation and Recycling There are no other
Performance Database: Indian Health Services Web Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (w/STARS) database. This database is a subset of the Operation and Maintenance Data System (OMDS). Data Source: EPAs Regional offices, in collaboration with IHS, report the performance data continually to the w/STARS database. The database is restricted to personnel who have specific passwords. Methods and Assumptions: The w/STARS database contains information regarding the location, composition, use status, proximity to population, and other related dump data. Reports generated for EPA from the database focus on the status of the open dumps.
Suitability: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IHS for data quality. The data are considered to be accurate on a national scale. QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control relate to internal procedures for the IHS w/STARS reporting process. Access to the data system is restricted to password holders. Data generated by tribal government staff is verified and then entered by EPA or IHS staff. Data Quality Review: N/A. Data Limitations: The w/STARS database contains data pertaining to the open dumps located on the lands of the 572 federal recognized tribes. EPA is aware that new open dumps may be created on these lands. While EPA has access to the database, IHS has ownership of the database. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA Regional offices and IHS staff are in the process of a significant data collection effort to update the universe of known open dumps. The initial data collection was completed in December 2009. During the past several years, IHS, in collaboration with EPA, customized the w/STARS database to better meet EPA needs and requirements. This effort is currently ongoing. References: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Indian Health Service. w/STARS data are available from the IHS website, http://www.ihs.gov (accessed July 14, 2010). FY 2012 Performance Measure: Conduct 560 Risk Management Plan audits and inspections Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database for the number of risk management plan (RMP) audits. Data Source: OSWER's Office of Emergency Management implements the Risk Management Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r). Facilities are required to prepare Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and submit them to EPA. In turn, EPA Headquarters (HQ) provides appropriate data to each Region and delegated State so that they have the RMP data for their geographical area. The Regions and delegated States conduct audits. About ten States have received delegation to operate the RMP program. These delegated States report audit numbers to the appropriate EPA Regional office so it can maintain composite information on RMP audits.
Methods and Assumptions: Regions enter data into the Agencys Annual Commitment System. HQ prepares an annual report. Data are count data and not open to interpretation. Suitability: The subobjectives goal is to reduce chemical risks at facilities and in communities. Under the authority of section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions require facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute, or store certain chemicals to develop a Risk Management Program, prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP), and submit the RMP to EPA. The purpose of this performance measure is to ensure that facilities that are required to have risk management plans do indeed have plans and are available in case of an incident. QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPAs Regional offices, and reviewed at the time of Regional data entry. Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to identify potential errors. Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters personnel. Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data provided by state programs and the EPA Regional offices. Error Estimate: Not calculated. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A Reference: N/A GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Emergency Preparedness and Response Percent of all SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance Percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) in BAS is the database for the number of inspections/exercises at SPCC and FRP facilities. Using data submitted directly by Regional staff as well as data in ACS, Office of Emergency Management (OEM) tracks in a spreadsheet national information about Regional activities at SPCC and FRP facilities. EPA will also be using its in-house SPCC/FRP Oil Database to pull data related to inspected facilities to assist measurement tracking. Data Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at FRP and SPCC facilities are provided by Regional staff through the programs in-house SPCC/FRP Oil Database.
Methods and Assumptions: The spill/exercise data are entered by Regional staff experienced in data entry. In every case, direct data (rather than surrogates open to interpretation) are entered. The assumption for the oil programs compliance measures is that the universe will consist of all facilities that were found to be non-compliant during the course of the year. Each year thereafter, this number and the number of facilities that were brought into compliance will be determined on a cumulative basis, and the percentage calculated accordingly. Suitability: For the new Strategic Plan, EPA is proposing a focus on bringing SPCC and FRP facilities into compliance. This will necessitate national consistency in targeting inspections as well as the process to bring non-compliant facilities into compliance. QA/QC Procedures: Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to identify potential errors. Data Quality Reviews: EPA regularly reviews recent data, comparing them to data gathered in the past at similar times of year and in the same Regions. Any questionable data are verified by direct contact with the Regional staff responsible for providing the data. Data Limitations: Due to the nature of tracking inspections, there should not be any data limitations. Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions should be relatively free of error. New/Improved Data or Systems: There are plans in place to develop an Oracle-based, online Oil Database which will create a nationally consistent programmatic database. References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill FY 2012 Performance Measure: Emergency Preparedness and Response Score on Core NAR evaluation
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from each of the 10 Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters are tabulated and stored using standard software (e.g., Word, Excel). Data Source: The Core National Approach to Response (NAR) measures EPAs readiness for day-to-day removal activities as well as national readiness for multiple significant events. Beginning in 2011, these two aspects of Core NAR will be scored separately. Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, EPA special teams and HQ offices. The process will include interviews with personnel and managers in each program office.
While EPA works to improve its preparedness to chemical, biological, and radiological incidents, improvement in the homeland security readiness measure is expected to gradually improve. The FY 2012 Core NAR HS target is to improve homeland security readiness by 5 points from the FY 2011 baseline performance. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To ensure that the goals of the NAR are being met, EPA has developed a Core NAR evaluation. (The National Approach to Response is an Agency wide mechanism to address effective evaluation of resources.) The Core NAR evaluation criteria measure the Agencys readiness to respond to multiple, nationally significant events. EPA Headquarters, Regions, and Special Teams are evaluated during this process. The evaluation team consists of managers and staff from Headquarters, including contractor support. Once all of the evaluations are complete, a national score will be calculated based on average scores. QA/QC Procedures: To be developed Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods, Assumptions and Suitability) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will be conducted after the data have been analyzed to ensure that the scores are consistent with the data and program information. There currently is no specific database that has been developed to collect, store, and manage the data. Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database system to collect and manage the data. Standard software packages (word processing, spreadsheets) are used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop the accompanying readiness scores. There is also the possibility of subjective interpretation of data. Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be small for the following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and reviewed extensively by Headquarters and EPAs Regional managers and staff; the data will be collected by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across all reviews plus an important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be developed by a team looking across all ten Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters, allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring better consistency of data analysis and identification of data quality gaps. New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated system to manage the data. References: None. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Number of Superfund remedial site assessments completed Clean-up of Contaminated Land
Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control Clean-up of Contaminated Land Number of Superfund sites with groundwater migration under control Clean-up of Contaminated Land Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed Cleanup of Contaminated Land Number of Superfund sites Ready for Anticipated Use Sitewide. Clean-up of Contaminated Land Number of Superfund PRP removal completions overseen, including voluntary, AOC and UAO actions Emergency Preparedness and Response Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually Emergency Preparedness and Response Number of Superfund Remedial Action Project Completions at Superfund NPL sites Clean-up of Contaminated Land
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System (CERCLIS) is used by the Agency to track, store, and report Superfund site information. The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) may also be operational in FY 2012. Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPAs Regional offices enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis. The Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) is EPA's core financial management system. Methods and Assumptions: Except for financial information, each performance measure is a specific variable entered into CERCLIS following specific coding guidance and corresponding supporting site-specific documentation. IFMS contains records of all financial transactions (e.g., personnel, contracts, grants, other) of Superfund appropriation resources, as distinguished by U.S. Treasury schedule codes. The Site/Project field of the IFMS account number that is assigned to every financial transaction identifies site-specific obligations. Total annual obligations include current and prior year appropriated resources, excluding Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Science and Technology transfers. Site-specific obligation data are derived using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the IFMS account number. Projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as described in the Record of Decision. They are typically defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g., discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). A given remedy may contain multiple actions or projects depending on the nature of the remedy selected Suitability: The Superfund Program's performance measures for FY 2012 are used to demonstrate program progress and reflect major site cleanup milestones from start (Assessment completion) to finish (Number of Sites Ready for Anticipated Use). Each
measure marks a significant step in ensuring human health and environment protection at Superfund sites. OMB has accepted these measures for monitoring program performance on an annual basis. QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to data users including Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, data owners, and data entry personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides (QRG), which are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed instructions on data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; 6) a historical lockout feature in CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a Change Log report, 7) the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Quality Management Plan; and 8) Regional Data Entry Control Plans. Specific direction for these controls is contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM). CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive; 2) the OSWER Quality Management Plan; 3) EPA IT standards; 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained; and 5) EPA IT security policies. In addition, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs. Data Quality Reviews: Three audits, two by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by Government Accountability Office (GAO), assessed the validity of the data in CERCLIS. The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, concluded that the Agency has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the information that is reported, and Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA provides regarding construction completions. The GAO report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimated that the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September 30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. Another OIG audit, Information Technology Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002, evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into CERCLIS. The report provided 11 recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS data quality. EPA has either implemented or continues to implement these recommendations.
The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal process, to verify data that supports the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual financial statements and recommends several corrective actions. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicates that corrective actions will be taken. Data Limitations: The OIG audit, Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002 identified some weaknesses. The Agency disagreed with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided 11 recommendations on improving data quality with which EPA concurred and either implemented or is implementing. The development and implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data continues. This process includes delineating data quality objectives for GPRA targets, program measures, and regional data. The Agency has begun reporting compliance with current data quality objectives. Error Estimate: The GAOs report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. The OIG report, Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not adequately supported. New/Improved Data or Systems: As a result of a modernization effort completed in 2004, CERCLIS has standards for data quality and each EPA Regions CERCLIS Data Entry Control Plan, which identifies policies and procedures for data entry, and is reviewed annually. The Data Entry Control plans are key to ensuring comprehensive information entry into CERCLIS. EPA Headquarters has developed data quality audit reports and SOPs, which address timeliness, completeness, and accuracy, and has provided these reports to the Regions. Information developed and gathered in the modernization effort is a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS. This redesign is necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the Agencys mandated Enterprise Architecture. The first steps in this effort involved the migration of all 10 Regional databases and the Headquarters database into one single national database at the National Computing Center in RTP and the migration of Superfund Document Management System (SDMS) to RTP to improve efficiency and storage capacity. During this process SDMS was linked to CERCLIS which enabled users to easily transition between programmatic accomplishments as reported in CERCLIS and the actual document that defines and describes the accomplishments. EPA Headquarters is now scoping the requirements for an integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system, called the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS began in FY 2007 and will continue through FY 2013.
SEMS will provide a common platform for major Superfund systems and future IT development. It will be constructed in part using EPA IT enterprise architecture principles and components. SEMS will provide a Superfund Program user gateway to various IT systems and information collections. In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new CERCLIS Five-Year Review Module was released June 2006. In addition, a new CERCLIS Reuse/Acreage Module was released in June 2007 to support two new performance measures. During FY 2009, CERCLIS data fields are being reviewed with the development of SEMS in mind. The enforcement module will be trimmed during FY 2010 to facilitate the data conversion which will be necessary to fully implement SEMS. References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Performance and Accountability Reports, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/index.htm (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Accomplishment and Performance Measures, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomplishments.htm (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office Performance measures, http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/measures.htm (accessed December 30, 2009)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, E1SGF7_05_0102_8100030, http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, No. 2002-P-00016, http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Government Accountability Office, Superfund Information on the Status of Sites, GAO/RCED-98-241, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Superfund Program Implementation Manuals (SPIM), http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/guidance.htm (accessed July 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Respose, OSWER Quality Management Plan, http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf (accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA System Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5, http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA IT Standards, http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPAs Information Quality Guidelines, http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines (accessed December 30, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA IM/IT Policies, http://intranet.epa.gov/oeiintra/imitpolicy/policies.htm (accessed July 30, 2009). FY 2012 Performance Measures: Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control Clean-up of Contaminated Land Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control Clean-up of Contaminated Land Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed Clean-up of Contaminated Land Number of final remedy components constructed at RCRA corrective action facilities per federal, state and private sector costs. Efficiency
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPAs RCRA program and all four corrective action performance measures. Data Source: States and regions enter all data. With respect to meeting the human exposures to toxins controlled and releases to groundwater controlled, a yes, no, or insufficient information entry is made in the database. A separate entry is made in the database to indicate the date of remedy construction. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in the Regional and state files. EPAs Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a continual basis. For the efficiency measure, federal and state costs are assembled from their respective budgets. Private sector costs are derived from Environmental Business Journal data. Methods and Assumptions: RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as handlers) engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. Within RCRAInfo, the Corrective Action Module tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require, corrective actions, including information related to the four measures outlined above. Performance measures are used to summarize and report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at all RCRA Corrective Action Programs
facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA Corrective Action Programs progress in dealing with immediate threats to human health and groundwater resources. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of simple questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination. These questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999). Lead regulators for the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination, but facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the current environmental conditions. The remedy construction measure tracks the RCRA Corrective Action Programs progress in moving sites towards final cleanup. Like with the environmental indicators determination, the lead regulators for the facility select the remedy and determine when the facility has completed construction of that remedy. Construction completions are collected on both an area-wide and site-wide basis for sake of the efficiency measure. Suitability: States and regions generate the data and manage data quality related to timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are correctly reflected by the data). EPA has provided guidance and training to states and regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations. Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPAs Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities. QA/QC Procedures: Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces structural controls that ensure that high-priority national components of the data are properly entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of systems changes and user needs. The latest version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), was released in December 2008 and has many added components that will help the user identify errors in the system. Data Quality Reviews: GAOs 1995 Report on EPAs Hazardous Waste Information System (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html) reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincided with ongoing internal efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. EPAs Quality Staff of the Office of Environmental Information conducted a quality systems audit in December 2003. The audit found the corrective action program satisfactory. Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified for the performance measures. As discussed above, the performance measure determinations are made by the
authorized states and EPA Regions based on a series of standard questions and entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA Corrective Action sites are monitored on a facility-byfacility basis and the QA/QC procedures identified above are in place to ensure data validity. For the efficiency measure, private sector costs are not publicly available. Estimates of these costs are derived from Environmental Business Journal data. Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conversation and Recovery (ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and on the waste management practices of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables. References: U.S. Government Accounting Office Report to Congress. Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library System, June 1996. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html (accessed July 22, 2010). FY 2012 Performance Measures: Clean-up of Contaminated Land Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration. Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian country.
Performance Database: Designated state agencies and EPA regions individually maintain records for reporting state and tribal LUST program accomplishments and record their individual state and tribal performance measures in the programs oracle web-based system (LUST4).. Data Source: The data suppliers are the states and territories who are the direct implementers of the program in their respective jurisdictions and the regions who provide assistance to the Tribes. Each EPA regional office manages their own state and tribal assistance agreements. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated and where the state has determined that no further
actions are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment, includes sites where post-closure monitoring is not necessary as long as site specific (e.g., risk based) cleanup goals have been met. Site characterization, monitoring plans and sitespecific cleanup goals must be established and cleanup goals must be attained for sites being remediated by natural attenuation to be counted in this category. (See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/PMDefinitions.pdf.) QA/QC Procedures: EPA/OUST will oversee the use of the QA/QC checklist, which is incorporated into the LUST4 oracle web-based system. Regions complete the QA/QC checklist, sign it electronically and submit it to EPA/OUST for review, comment and approval of each record. Data Quality Review: EPAs regional grants project officers and regional program managers provide first-level data quality reviews and oversight of their recipients program performance measure results. EPA/OUST provides second-level data quality reviews of all data. Data Limitations: Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: Web-based Oracle system accessed through EPAs portal. References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2010 as of September 30, 2010, dated November 2010; http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_10_34.pdf (accessed on December 22,2010)
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 4 FY 2012 Performance Measures: No Sub-objective Percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country Percent of tribes with an environmental program
Performance Database: EPAs American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has a suite of secure Internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and program implementation in Indian country as well as other AIEO business functions. One application, the Tribal Program Management System (TPMS), tracks progress in achieving the performance targets under Goal 3 Objective 4 of EPAs 2011-2015 Strategic Plan Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian
Country and other EPA metrics. EPA staff use TPMS to establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and to record actual program performance for overall national program management. The system serves as the performance database for all of the strategic targets, annual performance measures and program assessment measures. Data Source: Data for the TPMS are input on an ongoing basis by Regional tribal programs and EPA headquarters. The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the TPMS can be found in the files of the Regional Project Officers overseeing the particular programs. For example, documents that verify water quality monitoring activities by a particular tribe will be found in the files of the Regional Water 106 Project Officer for the tribe. The performance measure, Percent of tribes implementing Federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country tracks the number of Treatment in a manner similar to a State (TAS) program approvals or primacies and execution of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs). The measure is based on a count of tribes, and a given tribe may have more than one TAS program, and may have DITCAs as well. Because of the tribes with multiple qualifying programs, the total number of TAS designations plus DITCAs in Indian country is higher than the number of tribes with regulatory environmental programs as reported for this measure. The data are reported by the Regions at mid-year and at the end of the year. The performance measure, Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country, reports the number of active Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for monitoring activities that have been approved by Regional Quality Assurance Officers. All ongoing environmental monitoring programs are required to have active QAPPs, which are used as a surrogate for the monitoring activities that occur in Indian country. However, tribes often have more than one QAPP, so the count of total QAPPs is always higher than the performance measure which counts the tribes that have QAPPs. Regional tribal program liaisons obtain information from Regional Quality Assurance Officers and input data into the TPMS. The data are updated and reported on during mid-year and at the end of each fiscal year. The performance measure, Percent of tribes with an environmental program, counts tribes that have an EPA-funded environmental office and / or coordinator staffed in the most current year and that also demonstrate environmental program activities by having completed at least one of the following indicators: completed a Tier III Tribal Environmental Agreement (TEA) that specifies actions by EPA and the Tribe, and includes monitoring, as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal government and EPA; established environmental laws, codes, ordinances or regulations as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal government; completed solid and / or hazardous waste implementation activities; or
a completed inter-governmental environmental agreement (e.g., State-Tribal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Federal-Tribal MOA).
The environmental program measure thus requires two steps, the establishment of an environmental office and the completion of an indicator activity. EPA Regional project officers managing tribes with an environmental program, input data, classified by tribe, into the TPMS, to derive a national cumulative total. Data are input at mid-year, and again at the end of the year. Methods and Assumptions: TPMS contains all the information for reporting on AIEO performance measures and program assessment measures. The information is entered into standard query fields in the data system. Thus, there is no allowance for differences in reporting across EPAs Regional offices, and national reports can be assembled in a common framework. The assumption is that the authorized person who enters the data is knowledgeable about the performance status of the tribe. Suitability: These measures represent progression toward the goal of improving human health and the environment in Indian country by helping tribes plan, develop and establish environmental protection programs. QA/QC Procedures: The procedures for collecting and reporting on the Goal 3 Objective 4 performance measures require that program managers certify the accuracy of the data submitted by the regions to AIEO. This certification procedure is consistent with EPA Information Quality Guidelines (See http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html for more information.) Data Quality Reviews: Each Regional Administrator, who has tribal activity, is the EPA official who certifies information in TPMS prior to submission to AIEO. However, in some cases the Regional Administrator may wish to delegate the signatory authority to another official such as the Regional Indian Coordinator. This procedure generally follows guidance provided in EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (See http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html for more information.) Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPAs Regional Project Officers on an ongoing basis, there may be a time lag between when a tribal program status has been achieved and when the data are entered into the TPMS. Even though the Regional Project Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the end of the reporting cycle the TPMS will be locked down, with the locked dataset reported for the fiscal year. EPAs Regional Administrator certifies the accuracy of the locked information. Error Estimate: For the TPMS, errors could occur by mis-entering data or neglecting to enter data. However, the data from each region will be certified as accurate at the end of each reporting cycle; error is estimated to be low, about 1-2 percent. New/Improved Data or Systems: The TPMS is designed to improve data quality of AIEOs performance. TPMS tracks AIEO performance measures in the Agency Strategic
Plans 2006-2011, 2009-2014, and 2011-2015. Thus, although measures and data parameters change with time, TPMS provides a continuous record of tribal environmental activities from 2006 to the present time. References: Tribal Program Management System: https://iiaspub.epa.gov/TATS/ OCFO Information Quality http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1 FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed.
Guidelines:
Performance Database: EPA will measure the number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed. EDSP decisions for a chemical can range from determining potential to interact with the Estrogen (E) Androgen (A), or Thyroid (T) hormone systems to otherwise determining whether further endocrine related testing is necessary. These decisions will take into consideration Tier 1 screening battery data, other scientifically relevant information (OSRI), and/or the regulatory status of a chemical, as applicable. The decisions will be counted once EPA announces them via updates to the Assay Status Table on the EDSP website. This performance measure is best used in conjunction with another EDSP annual performance measure (Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued). Measuring the number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued will, together with additional chemical specific information, help set performance targets for the number of chemicals for which EDSP decisions have been completed. Data Source: EPA has created and is maintaining an on-line database for tracking the status of the initial pesticide chemicals to be screened in the EDSP (see Highlights box at http://www.epa.gov/endo). The database includes for each chemical: the date a test order was issued, to whom the test order was issued, the due date for completing and submitting the data, and the recipients response to the order. In addition, the database will include information on EDSP decisions. EPA anticipates expanding this database to include chemicals other than pesticides. Methods and Assumptions: EDSP decisions for a particular chemical (in Tier 1) can be organized into two broad categories: (1) regulatory actions and (2) determinations regarding potential to interact with E, A, or T. In both cases, the decisions will determine whether further endocrine related testing is necessary for that chemical.
There are several regulatory actions that will remove a chemical from further consideration for endocrine related testing in the EDSP. These include, for example, cancellation of pesticide registrations, ceasing sales of the chemical for use in pesticide products, and discontinuing the manufacture and import of the chemical. These actions may be voluntary on the part of a Tier 1 test order recipient or the result of an EPA regulatory determination. In either case, when such regulatory decisions have been completed for a chemical in Tier 1 of the EDSP, that chemical will be counted for this measure. EPA will be developing broad criteria that will include guidance on the Weight of Evidence (WoE) analysis that will lead to decisions about whether chemicals have the potential to interact with E, A, or T. These criteria will help define what constitutes completion of a decision based on Tier 1 screening battery data and OSRI as applicable. Once decisions regarding a chemicals potential to interact with E, A, or T have been completed, that chemical will be counted for this measure. Suitability: Beginning in FY 2012, EPA anticipates that an increasing proportion of the resources allocated to the EDSP will be used for EDSP decisions as submissions of Tier 1 screening battery data are expected to begin in FY 2012. As a result, a measure based on the number of chemicals for which EDSP decisions have been completed captures an important shift in resource utilization for the program. QA/QC Procedures: The number of chemicals for which EDSP decisions have been completed can be checked against supporting records documenting the decisions. Data Quality Review: Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy before submitting. In addition, since the data will correspond to the on-line reporting on the status of chemicals in the EDSP, the public and other interested parties will be able to easily determine the accuracy of the reported results. Data Limitations: In general, it is anticipated that the EDSP decisions will vary from chemical to chemical with respect to complexity and timing. Therefore, careful analysis will be needed in setting performance targets each year. It is anticipated that annual performance targets will be established by considering (to the extent practicable) the number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued, the identity of the chemicals, the number of Tier 1 test order recipients, any other available chemical specific information and EPA resources available to complete data evaluations. However, several factors remain unpredictable and will impact the schedule for completing EDSP decisions. These include, for example, the number of pesticide cancellations and other regulatory actions that may remove a chemical from commerce and/or discontinue manufacture and import (voluntary and enforced), unforeseen laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen technical problems with completing the Tier 1 assays for a particular chemical. Each of these factors can move the timeline for completing an EDSP decision for a particular chemical beyond the fiscal year in which the decision was originally anticipated.
Error Estimate: Decisions are based solely on EPA actions once data are received, thus minimal error is anticipated with this estimate. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: EPA EDSP Website (http://www.epa.gov/endo)
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued.
Performance Database: EPA will measure the number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued. For the purpose of this measure, completing the issuance of Tier 1 test orders for a particular chemical will be defined as completing the initial issuance of orders to the order recipients initially identified by EPA. Subsequent issuance of orders to recipients who were not initially identified by EPA or to recipients who became subject to EDSP requirements after the initial issuance of test orders (referred to as catch up orders) will not be considered in this measure. Consistent with EPA plans to integrate the EDSP Tier 1 test orders into the pesticide registration review process, issuance of test orders for additional chemicals (including industrial chemicals that are water contaminants) is expected to continue in FY 2011 and beyond. The results from this performance measure, together with additional chemical specific information, will help set performance targets for another EDSP measure: the number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed. Data Source: EPA has created and is maintaining an on-line database for tracking the status of the initial pesticide chemicals to be screened in the EDSP (see Highlights box at http://www.epa.gov/endo). The database includes for each chemical: the date a test order was issued, to whom the test order was issued, the due date for completing and submitting the data, the recipients response to the order and other information. As noted above, the date the initial test orders are issued for a chemical will mark the completion of that chemical for purposes of this measure. Methods and Assumptions: Issuance of EDSP Tier 1 test orders follows the policies and procedures that are described in detail in the Federal Register at 74FR17560. These existing policies and procedures are being adapted to address the additional chemicals (including water contaminants) for which the issuance of test orders is anticipated to begin in FY 2011. EPA completes a comprehensive analysis using several databases to identify companies that are potential order recipients for each chemical. However, given the dynamic nature of chemical markets, some companies may be missed in EPAs analysis or companies may enter new markets subjecting them to the EDSP requirements for a chemical after the initial test orders for that chemical have been issued. EPAs policies and procedures allow for catch up orders to address these situations. Given
that the time horizon for catch up orders is 15 years after the initial test orders are issued for a chemical, for purposes of this measure, a chemical will be counted as completed after initial test orders are issued. Annual performance targets for this measure will be subject to obtaining an approved Information Collection Request and the EPA resources available for issuing EDSP Tier 1 test orders. Suitability: With EPA plans to integrate EDSP Tier 1 test orders into the pesticide registration review process and as EPA develops subsequent lists of chemicals, EPA anticipates that an increasing proportion of the EDSP resources will be used for the issuance of Tier 1 test orders. Therefore, a measure based on the number of Tier 1 test orders issued captures performance of activities on which the program will be spending a larger proportion of its future resources. QA/QC Procedures: The number of chemicals for which Tier 1 test orders have been issued can be checked against order related documentation. Data Quality Review: Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy before submitting. In addition, since the data generated for this measure will correspond to the on-line reporting on the status of chemicals in the EDSP, the public and other interested parties will be able to easily determine the accuracy of the reported results. Data Limitations: Annual performance targets may be influenced by a number of factors including OCSPPs identification of manufacturers of chemicals and the corresponding issuance of Information Collection Requests. Therefore, careful analysis will be needed in setting performance targets each year. Error Estimate: Issuance of test orders is based largely on EPA actions, thus minimal error is anticipated with this estimate. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: EPA EDSP Website (http://www.epa.gov/endo)
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached
Performance Database: EPA will measure the number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached. For the purpose of this measure, reaching a validation decision for a particular assay will be defined as deciding that the assay should be considered validated or, alternatively, deciding that the assay should not be considered validated but that additional EPA validation efforts for the assay should be discontinued. The decision will be included in the measure once EPA provides a written
statement on its website announcing an assay as validated. The latter decision could result from a number of scenarios including encountering insoluble technical problems, discovering that substantial additional research will be required, or discovering a new technology that shows more promise for development into a validated assay. Data Source: EPA maintains an Assay Status Table on its EDSP website at http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm. This status table includes information from each step in the validation process. EPA plans to continue updating this table with relevant information for the validation of Tier 2 tests and potential additional or replacement assays for Tier 1 screening. Methods and Assumptions: EPA anticipates continuing EDSP assay validation efforts in three areas: Tier 2 tests, potential replacement assays for existing Tier 1 screening, and potential assays for additional endocrine modes beyond estrogen, androgen, and thyroid (e.g., hormones important for metabolism and weight regulation). As efforts in these three areas progress, the number of validation decisions will be counted for this measure. The completion of the validation of an assay can take several years. There are several steps within the validation process including: preparation of detailed review papers, performance of prevalidation studies, validation by multiple labs, and peer reviews. A decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay could occur during any of these steps. However, a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs after all the steps are successfully completed. In either case, the decision would be counted for this measure. Suitability: The measure is a program output which, when finalized, helps to ensure that EPA meets The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requirement that EPA use validated assays to screen chemicals for their potential to affect the endocrine system. The measure represents a significant objective of this program (i.e., ensuring that validated assays are available for screening chemicals for potential endocrine effects). In addition, the measure will capture EPAs efforts to replace outdated assays with updated, more efficient screens that have been validated and to expand screening beyond estrogen, androgen and thyroid disruption. QA/QC Procedures: The number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached can be checked against supporting documents that are generated during the various steps of validation. Data Quality Review: Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy before submitting. In addition, since the data will correspond to the on-line reporting in the Assay Status Table on the EDSP website, the public and other interested parties will be able to easily determine the accuracy of the reported results. Data Limitations: It is anticipated that annual performance targets for this measure will include a mix of positive decisions (accepting an assay as validated) and negative decisions (discontinuing validation efforts for an assay). Setting numerical targets for these decisions for assays that will complete all steps in the validation process during the
upcoming year should be relatively straight forward. However, since negative decisions could occur during any of the steps in the validation process, it will be more difficult to estimate the number of negative decisions for assays that are not anticipated to complete all the validation steps in the upcoming year. Therefore, careful analysis will be needed in setting annual performance targets. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: EPA EDSP Website (http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm)
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Ecosystems from Chemical Risks Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future data will be compiled from future reports. Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001. USGS is currently developing sampling in its second cycle (cycle II) from 2002-2012, Data are available to the public on USGS-NAWQA website from the (http://water.usge.gov/nawqa). USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 20132022. Future data will be available from USGS as it is made available on public websites. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for measuring exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability to reduce exposure from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction in water concentrations of pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water column concentration is a major indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk management, risk mitigation and risk communication actions. It will illuminate program progress in meeting the Agencys strategic pesticide and water quality goals. The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the long-term results of its risk management decisions based on trends in pesticide concentrations. Monitoring plans call for bi-yearly sampling in 8 urban watersheds; and
sampling every four years in a second set of 9 urban watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the size of the watershed and the extent of pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is seasonally weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 20132022. The pesticides diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl were selected for measurement because of recent registration activity that is expected to reduce exceedences of aquatic life benchmarks. QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome measure is based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/ and http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html). Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is preeminent in the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA program has been collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and aquifers across the Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review (http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php). Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be characterized during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the NAWQA 2011 Cycle II Study Report. EPA will request that USGS add additional insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line information for newer products that have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the synthetic pyrethroids). Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of pyrethoids occurrence is bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring strategy. Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and associated variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html). New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems. References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001. The NAWQA 2011 Cycle II Study Report does not exist at this time the sampling is in progress, thus there is no citation at this time. USGS has not published their sampling plan. There will be a USGS report in the 2011 timeframe.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Ecosystsms from Chemical Risks
Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for two pesticides of concern (azinphosmethyl and chlorpyrifos.)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future data will be compiled from future reports. Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001. USGS is currently developing sampling in its second cycle (cycle II) from 2002-2012. Data are available to the public on the USGS-NAWQA website from the (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/). USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2013 2022. Future data will be available from USGS as it is made available on public websites. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for measuring exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability to reduce exposure from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction in water concentrations of pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water column concentration is a major indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk management, risk mitigation and risk communication actions. It will illuminate program progress in meeting the Agencys strategic pesticide and water quality goals. The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the long-term results of its risk management decisions based on trends in pesticide concentrations. Monitoring plans call for yearly monitoring in 8 agricultural watersheds; bi-yearly sampling in 3 agricultural dominated watersheds; and sampling every four years in a second set of 25 agricultural watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the size of the watershed and the extent of pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is seasonally weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2013 2022. Azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos were selected for this measure because EPA anticipates ongoing registration activity will have a direct effect on reducing exceedences of aquatic life benchmarks. QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome measure is based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/ and http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is preeminent in the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA program has been collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and aquifers across the Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review (http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php). Data Limitations: These data continue to be evaluated and data limitations will be characterized during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the NAWQA 2011 Cycle II Study Report. EPA has requested that USGS add additional insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line information for newer products that have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the synthetic pyrethroids). Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of pyrethoids occurrence in bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring strategy. Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and associated variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html). New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems. References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001. The NAWQA 2011 Cycle II Study Report does not exist at this time the sampling is in progress, thus there is no citation at this time.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Reduce the number of moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphates and carbamate insecticides in the general population.
Performance Database: The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) maintains a national database of exposure incidents called the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which is a compilation of data collected by AAPCCs national network of 61 poison controls centers (PCCs). NPDS establishes standards in data collection and definitions, which helps ensure that PCCs collect uniform data collection. Incident data that is collected uniformly through NPDS includes date of PCC call, age and gender of exposed individual, location of exposure, route of exposure, suspected substance, medical severity, initial symptom assessment, and treatment received. The incident data maintained in AAPCCs NPDS includes pesticide-related exposure incidents that may occur throughout the U.S. population, including all age groups and exposures occurring in both residential and occupational settings. Summary data on
pesticide-related incident data is reported on annual basis in AAPCCs Annual Report, including the number of incidents by age, reason for exposure, level of medical treatment, and medical severity. Data Source: NPDS is a comprehensive source of surveillance data on poisonings in the United States. NPDS is a uniform database of 61 PCCs, which are members of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed throughout the United States. The database was established in 1985 and now includes information on more than 36 million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more than 4 million cases, including more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4 million informational calls. NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards, develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations, recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of new drugs. 7 Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis and treatment of poisonings. Calls are routed from a single, nationally-available phone number to the PCC generally in closest proximity to the caller. Since the service is provided on a national scale, even though PCCs may not be located in every state, aggregate PCC data is generally considered to be nationally representative. The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified Specialists in Poison Information (SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses. SPIs are required to complete detailed electronic medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic medical records include general demographic information, including age, gender, location of exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred, including suspected substance, reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site, symptoms, and medical outcome. To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined categories None, Minor, Moderate, Major, or Death. Additionally, the records may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summary data on pesticide-related exposure incidents are publically available through AAPCCs Annual Report. The reduction in poisoning incidents is expected to result from mitigation measures made during the reregistration, from greater availability of lower risk alternative products resulting from
Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology (2007) 45, 815917.
the Agencys reduce risk registration process, from the continued implementation of worker protection enforcement and training. Carbamates and organophosphates were selected for measurement because EPA anticipates recent registration activity will have a direct effect on reducing exposure in the general population. QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard Operating Procedures, keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality assurance program. In addition, EPA staff screen each case before analyzing the data set. Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality assurance of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case before entering into its database. Data Limitations: In general, PCCs provide medical management services through their response hotline and do not perform active surveillance of pesticide exposure incidents as part of NPDS. Due to this limitation, NPDS may be subject to reporting bias because of underreporting and differences in utilization rates among difference segments of the U.S. population. Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the data. However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time. References: American Association of Poison Control Centers (2009). 2008 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS): 26th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology, 47:911-1084.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general population. Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in children.
Performance Database: The two performance measures will utilize pesticide biomonitoring data (e.g., measurement of pesticide metabolite in NHANES urine samples) on organophosphate and pyrethroid metabolites that are collected through the Centers for Disease and Preventions (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES was selected as the performance database for the three
measures because it is an ongoing program that is statistically designed to be nationally representative of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population. Data Source: NHANES is a survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. 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 U.S. CDCs National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is responsible for the conduct of the survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish results from the survey, generally in CDCs Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals. In recent years, CDC has published a national exposure report based on the data from the NHANES. The most current National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released December 2009, and is available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Performance results will be updated as NHANES data are published either in the official CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles or as the data becomes available. The NHANES survey contains detailed interview questions covering areas related to demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related subjects. It also includes an extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements, and laboratory tests. NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams. Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an analysis. NHANES measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits. Methods and Assumptions: Both performance measures will be based on levels of six non-specific organophosphate dialkyl phosphate metabolites, chlorpyrifos-specific metabolite 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol, and the non-specific pyrethroid 3phenoxybenzoic acid metabolite. The measure focused on the general U.S. population will focus on all age groups included in NHANES and the measure focused on children will focus on children less than six years old. Baselines for each of the two performance measures will be established using existing NHANES biomonitoring data on organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. During each fiscal year, performance will then be evaluated by comparing subsequent NHANES biomonitoring data with established baselines. Data lags may prevent performance results from being determined for every reporting year. Suitability: Both measures support the long-term goal of reducing the risk and ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution at the source by enabling EPA to better assess progress in reducing exposure to targeted chemicals, as reflected in concentration levels among the general population and key subpopulations. The second measure focuses on exposure to such chemicals among children. Analytes for organophosphate
and pyrethroid were selected for this measure because EPA anticipates recent registration activity will have a direct effect on reducing exposure in the general population.
QA/QC Procedures: CDC/NCEH and CDC/NCHS are responsible for QA/QC of laboratory analysis and NHANES datasets that are made publically available through CDC/NCEHs website. Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm. In addition to CDCs QA/QC procedures, EPA will also evaluate the integrity of the NHANES public datasets and reconcile any potential issues with CDC. Data Quality Reviews: The measure will utilize NHANES data. NHANES is a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Public Health Service, and has the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. NCHS is one of the Federal statistical agencies belonging to the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). The ICSP, which is led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is composed of the heads of the Nation's 10 principal statistical agencies plus the heads of the statistical units of four non-statistical agencies. The ICSP coordinates statistical work across organizations, enabling the exchange of information about organization programs and activities, and provides advice and counsel to OMB on statistical activities. The statistical activities of these agencies are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing or analysis of information for statistical purposes. Within this framework, NCHS functions as the Federal agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of the Nation's vital and health statistics. Its mission is to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to improve the health of the American people. To carry out its mission, NCHS conducts a wide range of annual, periodic, and longitudinal sample surveys and administers the national vital statistics systems. As the Nation's principal health statistics agency, NCHS leads the way with accurate, relevant, and timely data. To assure the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of its statistical products, NCHS assumes responsibility for determining sources of data, measurement methods, methods of data collection and processing while minimizing respondent burden; employing appropriate methods of analysis, and ensuring the public availability of the data and documentation of the methods used to obtain the data. Within the constraints of resource availability, NCHS continually works to improve its data systems to provide information necessary for the formulation of sound public policy. As appropriate, NCHS seeks advice on its statistical program as a whole, including the setting of statistical priorities and on the statistical methodologies it uses. NCHS strives to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality of individual responses. Three web links to background on data quality are below:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/quality.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/lab_b_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22 quality%20control%20NHANES%22 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22q uality%20NHANES%22 Data Limitations: NHANES is a voluntary survey and selected persons may refuse to participate. In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam. There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations because some participants only complete one step of the survey. Participants may answer the questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood sample. Seasonal changes in blood levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design nor can differences between geographic regions be discerned since this data is not made publically available due to data confidentiality concerns. Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design, appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and associated measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate approaches are addressed in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm. New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling schedule, scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of national exposure reports by CDC. References: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health (2010). National Report on Human Exposures to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due date) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
Performance Database: The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 established .pesticide registration service fees for registration actions. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2), effective October 1, 2007, reauthorized the PRIA for five more years until 2012. The PRIA 2 legislation increased the number of actions covered by fees, modified the payment process and application inprocessing. The category of action, the amount of pesticide registration service fee, and the corresponding decision review periods by year are prescribed in these statutes. Their goal is to create a more predictable evaluation process for affected pesticide decisions, and couple the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. They
also promote shorter decision review periods for reduced-risk applications. PRISM (Pesticide Registration Information System) consolidates various pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and track regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a pesticides registration. All registration actions received under the PRIA and PRIA 2 are entered and tracked in PRISM. In addition to being entered into PRISM, Section 18 actions are also tracked in a separate database which is used to populate a searchable web page linked to the main Office of Pesticide Programs web page. S18 timeliness was reported on a FY basis for the first time in FY 2005. Timeliness for Section 18 requests submitted in one FY and carried over to the next FY are included in this measure under the decision year. Withdrawn requests are excluded from measurement. Data Source: PRISM, Section 18 database Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which represent the programs statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. In addition, under PRIA and PRIA 2 , there are specific timelines, based on the type of registration action, by which the Agency must make a decision. These laws do allow the decision due date under PRIA to be negotiated to a later date, after consultation with and agreement by the submitter of the application. The timeliness measure represents the Agencys effectiveness in meeting these PRIA timelines. QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standards. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan (Nov. 2006) in ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied. Data Quality Review: The Agency employs continuous monitoring of the status of PRIA decisions. Numerous internal Agency meeting continue to monitor workload and compliance with PRIA due dates. Throughout the pesticide registration program, weekly meetings are held to review the status of pending decisions, due date extensions, and refunds; to identify potential issues and target their resolution; to resolve fee category questions; and to coordinate schedules with science support organizations. Senior managers review justifications and make final decisions to extend of negotiate a PRIA due date and whether or not to issue a PRIA Determination to Not Grant a registration. On a bi-monthly basis, progress in meeting PRIA due dates and the short term pending workload are evaluated across all involved organizations and periodically shared with stakeholder groups. EPA will also review the publicly available Section 18 database periodically to ensure data quality. Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: Reports developed in Business Objects (using PRISM as the data source) allow senior management to more effectively track the workload (e.g., pending actions with upcoming PRIA due dates, actions for which the PRIA date appears to have passed etc.) and ensure that PRIA or negotiated due dates are met. References: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/; FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) 2003; Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) 2007
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Number of Product Reregistration Decisions Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Number of pesticide Registration Review dockets opened Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Number of pesticide Registration Review final work plans completed Protect Ecosystems from Chemical Risks
Performance Database: OPPs Reevaluation process includes Product Reregistration and Registration Review. The Product Reregistration process is scheduled to be completed in 2014, while the Registration Review process will be in full operation at that time. Major milestones are tracked in the Pesticide Registration Information System (PRISM). PRISM is maintained by EPA and tracks regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a pesticides registration review. Actions are entered in PRISM as they occur and reported on a fiscal year basis. In addition manual counts are maintained by the office. Data Source: EPAs Pesticides Program, PRISM, and Manual Systems. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which represent the programs statutory requirements to ensure that approved pesticides remain safe for human health and the environment. While program outputs do not directly measure risk reduction, they do reflect progress made toward reducing risk. In 1988, Congress amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requiring EPA to evaluate all pesticides registered prior to November 1984 to assure that they meet current safety standard and are supported with high quality data. The review of all the active ingredients (AIs) was completed in October 2008. Over the next five years, registrants will be required to submit product specific data and new product labels to comply with the decisions on the AIs. OPPs review and approval (or cancellation) process of each individual product label is referred to as Product Reregistration. Product Reregistration is scheduled for completion in 2014. The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 directed EPA to establish a Registration Review program with the goal of reviewing all registered pesticides, AIs and products, on a 15-year cycle to ensure that they continue to meet the standards of registration. EPA issued the final rule in 2006 and began implementing the program in 2007. Under the rule, EPA posts registration review schedules and these will provide a baseline for expected AI case dockets that will be opened for the next three year cycle and for decisions expected over the next several years. The first step of Registration Review is to open a public docket for each pesticide case entering the process to show the public what the Agency knows about the AI and seek comment. When comments are evaluated and data needs are finalized, OPP posts a Final Work Plan (FWP) for each AI case. Although the docket openings and the FWPs are tracked, both steps require notable resources to complete. QA/QC Procedures: All registrations must be based on sound science and meet the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. In addition, OPP management reviews and signs new documents before being placed in the docket or posted on EPAs website. Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision document. Data Limitations: None known. Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data. New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA recently constructed a module in PRISM tracking major Registration Review milestones. This module enhances tracking capabilities and is an important management tool. References: EPA Website: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ (Registration Review: A Periodic Look at Old Pesticides).
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, GfK Kynetec, Inc. data, for this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY and calendar basis. Data Source: Primary source is GfK Kynetec, Inc. (a private sector research database). The database contains agricultural pesticide usage information by pesticide, year, crop use, acreage and sector. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk
pesticides include those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to nontarget organisms; reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies or make such strategies more available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus reduced-risk). EPAs statistical and economics staff review data from the GfK Kynetec, Inc. database. Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the variability. GfK Kynetec, Inc. sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website. More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities (known disproportionality refers to a non proportional sample, which means individual respondents have different weights) and ensure consistency with USDA and state acreage estimates. QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. The GfK Kynetec, Inc. data are subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented at their websites. In ensuring the quality of the data, EPAs pesticide program adheres to its Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved November, 2006. The main customers for the GfK Kynetec, Inc. pesticide usage data are the pesticide registrants. Since those registrants know about sales of their own products, they have an easy way to judge the quality of the provided data. If they considered the quality of the data to be poor, they would not continue to purchase the data. Data Quality Review: The GfK Kynetec, Inc. data are subject to extensive internal quality review, documented at the website. EPAs statistical and economics staff review data from GfK Kynetec, Inc. Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the variability. For some crops and states, comparisons are also made with a more limited pesticide usage database from the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Data Limitations: GfK Kynetec, Inc. data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed information, the Agency must obtain approval from the company. There is a data lag of approximately 12-18 months, due to the collection of data on a calendar year (CY) basis, time required for GfK Kynetec, Inc. to process data, lead time for EPA to purchase and obtain data, plus the time it takes to review and analyze the data within the offices workload. Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of sampling. This measure is compiled by aggregating information for many crops and pesticides. While considerable uncertainty may exist for a single pesticide on a single
crop, pesticide usage data at such a highly aggregated level are considered quite accurate. GfK Kynetec, Inc. sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website. More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are weighted and multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities and ensure consistency with USDA and state acreage estimates. New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are not known in any detail at this time. References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report; http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; GfK Kynetec, Inc. http://www.gfk.com/gfk-kynetec/; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percent reduction of childrens exposure to rodenticides
Performance Database: The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) maintains a national database of exposure incidents called the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which is a compilation of data collected by AAPCCs national network of 61 poison controls centers (PCCs). NPDS establishes standards in data collection and definitions, which helps ensure that PCCs collect uniform data collection. Incident data that is collected uniformly through NPDS includes date of PCC call, age and gender of exposed individual, location of exposure, route of exposure, suspected substance, medical severity, initial symptom assessment, and treatment received. The incident data maintained in AAPCCs NPDS includes pesticide-related exposure incidents that may occur throughout the U.S. population, including all age groups and exposures occurring in both residential and occupational settings. Summary data on pesticide-related incident data is reported on annual basis in AAPCCs Annual Report, including the number of incidents by age, reason for exposure, level of medical treatment, and medical severity. Data Source: NPDS is a comprehensive source of surveillance data on poisonings in the United States. NPDS is a uniform database of 61 PCCs, which are members of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed throughout the United States. The database was established in 1985 and now includes information on more than 36 million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more than 4 million cases, including more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4 million informational calls.
NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards, develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations, recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of new drugs. 8 Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis and treatment of poisonings. Calls are routed from a single, nationally-available phone number to the PCC generally in closest proximity to the caller. Since the service is provided on a national scale, even though PCCs may not be located in every state, aggregate PCC data is generally considered to be nationally representative. The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified Specialists in Poison Information (SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses. SPIs are required to complete detailed electronic medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic medical records include general demographic information, including age, gender, location of exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred, including suspected substance, reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site, symptoms, and medical outcome. To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined categories None, Minor, Moderate, Major, or Death. Additionally, the records may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summary data on pesticide-related exposure incidents are publically available through AAPCCs Annual Report. The reduction in poisoning incidents is expected to result from mitigation measures made during the reregistration, from greater availability of lower risk alternative products resulting from the Agencys reduce risk registration process, from the continued implementation of worker protection enforcement and training. QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard Operating Procedures, keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality assurance program. In addition, EPA staff screen each case before analyzing the data set. Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality assurance of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case before entering into its database.
8
Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology (2007) 45, 815917.
Data Limitations: In general, PCCs provide medical management services through their response hotline and do not perform active surveillance of pesticide exposure incidents as part of NPDS. Due to this limitation, NPDS may be subject to reporting bias because of underreporting and differences in utilization rates among difference segments of the U.S. population. Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the data. However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time. References: American Association of Poison Control Centers (2009). 2008 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS): 26th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology, 47:911-1084. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percent of registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk is obtained prior to consultation with DOC and DOI.
Performance Database: Ecological risk assessments and effects determinations will be prepared to support a registration review case. Those assessments and effects determinations which contain a determination that the pesticides use may affect one or more listed species will be counted as those with identified endangered species concerns. Mitigation of risk is achieved when a change is committed to be or is actually made in the registration of a pesticide product that eliminates or reduces the risk to a listed species of concern. Data Source: The data necessary to track progress towards the targets for this measure are currently being collected by OPP using internal tracking numbers. The sources from which this information is obtained will be the ecological risk assessments and effects determinations prepared to support a registration review case. The data will be collected annually beginning in 2012 with a baseline of 0% for each reporting year as percentages are not cumulative. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Mitigation, in the form of changes made to the registration of a pesticide product, is a critical mechanism for ensuring protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications. Mitigation agreed to by the registrants prior to consultation with the Services provides protection for listed species earlier than if we waited to complete consultation with the Services, to address identified risks. Furthermore, mitigation at this stage may conserve resources for both the Agency and the Services as the resulting consultation process may be streamlined. The Services refer to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This measure is calculated as follows: [The number of registration review chemicals for which the assessment and effects determinations identifies endangered species concerns and for which mitigation of risk is obtained prior to consultation with the Services within a given reporting year] [The total number of registration review chemicals for which the assessment and effects determination identifies endangered species concerns within the same reporting year] x 100. Target(s): For 2012, the target is to achieve any mitigation for 5% of the registration review chemicals, relative to the number of registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns. This percentage is expected to increase steadily as the pipeline grows and the program develops.
Targets will be reported annually (i.e., the 2012 goal reflects mitigation achieved in 2012 for registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns). The baseline is 0% for each reporting period. That is, the percentages are not cumulative but rather, the percentage for that reporting period.
Through this measure the Agency will provide an outcome oriented measure for Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. QA/QC Procedures: Assessments from which the numbers are derived all go through an internal review process and are vetted through the registration review process and are subject to public comment. Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews for the assessments themselves are ongoing through the QA/QC methodology described above. Staff and management of OPP will perform the data quality reviews. Data Limitations: N/A Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will use existing data and data systems. References: Endangered Species Protection Program website: http://www.epa.gov/espp. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment
Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS),
Management Information Tracking System (MITS), Pre-manufacture Notice (PMN) Lotus Notes, PMN CBI Local Area Network (LAN), 8(e) database for new chemicals called ISIS, and the Focus database. The following information from these databases will be used collectively in applying this measure: CBITS: Tracking information on Pre- PMNs received; MITS: Captures NCP regulatory dispositions and maintains NCP workflow for new chemicals; PMN Lotus Notes: Records PMN review and decision, assessment reports on chemicals submitted for review. New workflow system for new chemicals submitted since August 2008. PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports on chemicals submitted for review before August 2008. In addition, the information developed for each PMN is kept in hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC); ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e). TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors notify EPA immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished chemical information that reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA 8(e) substantial risk information notices most often contain toxicity data but may also contain information on exposure, environmental persistence, or actions being taken to reduce human health and environmental risks. It is an important information-gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism; Focus Database: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including decisions on whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.
Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant information received over the 12-month fiscal year. Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is responsible for the implementation of the TSCA. The Office will compare data submitted under TSCA Section 8(e) with previously submitted new chemical review data (submitted under TSCA Section 5 and contained in the PMN). This comparison will determine the number of instances in which EPAs current PMN review practices would have failed to prevent the introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between the 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data will be evaluated by applying the methods and steps outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies signify an unreasonable risk. Methods and Assumptions: EPAs methods for implementing this measure involve determining whether EPAs current PMN review practices would have failed to prevent the introduction of chemicals or microorganisms into commerce that pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment, based on comparisons of 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data. The unreasonable risk determination is based on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks identified by EPA, (2) limitations on risk that result from specific safeguards applied, and (3) the benefits to industry and the public expected to be provided by the new chemical substance. In considering risk, EPA looks at anticipated environmental effects, distribution and fate of the chemical substance in the environment, patterns of use, expected degree of exposure, the use of protective equipment and engineering controls, and other factors that affect or mitigate risk. The following are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the 8(e) data with the previously-submitted new chemical review data: 1. Match all 8(e) submissions in the 8(e) database with associated TSCA Section 5 notices. TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day advance notice (via a pre-manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent to manufacture and/or import a new chemical. The PMN includes information such as specific chemistry identity, use, anticipated production volume, exposure and release information, and existing available test data. The information is reviewed through the New Chemicals Program to determine whether action is needed to prohibit or limit manufacturing, processing, or use of a chemical. 2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions based on the PMN review phase. For example, were the 8(e) submissions received: a) before the PMN notice was received by EPA, b) during the PMN review process, or c) after the PMN review was completed? 3. Review of 8(e) data focusing on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was completed. 4. Compare hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with the associated 8(e) submission. 5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination. 6. Revise risk assessment to determine if there was an unreasonable risk based on established risk assessment and risk management guidelines and whether current PMN Review practices would have detected and prevented that risk. Suitability: The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and therefore suitable for measurement purposes. This measure supports the New Chemical Programs goal to ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment. This measure provides a suitable year to year comparison against this goal because supporting data and analysis are conducted on an annual basis, directly linking to this long-term goal. QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan (Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it ensures the standards and procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the former National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Council (NPPTAC), comprised of external experts who offered advice, information and recommendations to OPPT, provided comments on this measure. Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPAs review which result from differences in the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for example, OPPT cannot evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard copy and may have to be requested from the Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process. Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from statistical samples and, therefore, there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will review all 8(e) submissions received in the year with corresponding previously submitted new chemical review data, and not a sample of such submissions. New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing the integrated, electronic Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review. References: OPPT New Chemicals Program http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) Substantial Risk Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances; June 2003. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Reduction in the cost of managing PreManufacture Notice (PMNs) submissions through the Focus meetings as a percentage of baseline year cost. (Efficiency)
Performance Databases: EPA will rely on two principal databases for purposes of implementing this measure: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS): CBITS allows users to access basic identifying and status information on each hard copy PMN submission to EPA, track receipt of each hard copy submission as well as requests for copies of submissions or information therein, and to obtain data on the number of hard copy submissions and requests for copies per fiscal year. CBITS is being phased out in favor of the MTS database.
Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database: This is a new system that enables its users to receive, process, and store electronic submissions of PMNs and accommodates searches and retrievals of PMNs by EPA or contractor staff. The system also provides data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing scanned documents. Currently, the system is designed to accommodate partially electronic, CD and paper submissions, but when fully deployed in more advanced form, it is expected to be a true workflow system that will eliminate all remaining manual sorting, processing and scanning elements. CBITS functions will be merged into MTS. The development and deployment of the full MTS workflow system is assumed to occur after FY 2012.
Data Sources: The sources of data for this performance measure are the PMN submissions themselves, including any attachments, and any statistical information on the submissions that can be accessed through the two databases. No external data sources play a direct role in the calculation of measurement results. Methods and Assumptions: Performance is determined through the following steps: (1) establish the baseline year (FY 2009) and develop baseline information on the average time per submission required to conduct PMN processing and searches in that year; (2) convert baseline average time per submission to baseline average cost per submission by multiplying the average time by cost factors for contractor and EPA staff work; (3) set appropriate targets for fiscal years following the baseline year, reflecting assumed increases in electronic reporting use; (4) conduct actual measurements of cost per submission for fiscal years beginning with FY 2010, after the option of electronic submissions, processing and searches becomes available; and (5) calculate the percent reduction from the baseline year in cost per submission. These steps can be summarized individually as follows: (1) Develop baseline data: FY 2009 baseline data for average time per submission were obtained for each of two submeasures that comprise the basis for the efficiency measure described here. Those submeasures are: (a) average time associated with sorting and processing PMN submissions by the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC) and (b) average time associated with enabling searchesand retrievals of PMNs by EPA staff involved in the PMN review process. The time estimates are based on actual simulations involving both EPA and contractor personnel. Since the baseline year preceded introduction of electronic reporting, all baseline estimates reflect paper submissions. (2) Convert baseline average time to baseline average cost: In general, average times are converted to average costs by multiplying the time involved in specific tasks with the applicable EPA or contractor staff labor rates. As an example, for the submeasure that describes the search and retrieval tasks performed by EPA staff, the estimated average time per submission is converted to estimated average cost by taking the standard hourly rate for a biologist at grade 14, step 1; dividing
that rate by 60 to express the hourly rate in minutes; and multiplying the result by the estimated average time in minutes. For tasks performed by contractor staff, labor rates are obtained from actual experience under the applicable contract provisions. Combining EPA and contractor staff costs yields the baseline average cost per submission. Similar calculations are performed for the submeasure that describes the sorting and processing tasks captured in this measure. (3) Set targets for fiscal years: The gradual expansion of electronic reporting and scanning is the main factor driving the targeted improvement in the measure. Target setting is based on what is considered reasonable and achievable. Targets are derived from the expected proportion of PMN submissions that are transmitted electronically, the estimated time required for processing and searching such materials, and the estimated contractor and EPA staff cost per unit of time. (4) Conduct measurements: The final step in the measurement process is to perform actual measurement for specific fiscal years. This is done by consulting the databases described above to determine the number of submissions and the number of searches that are electronic and the number that are non-electronic and then multiplying those numbers by the appropriate baseline average cost per submission, which differs for contractor and EPA staff tasks. The products are then summed to arrive at the total cost of managing PMN submissions for the fiscal year, and this figure is divided by the number of PMN submissions to obtain the total cost per submission for that year. The percent reduction is calculated by determining the difference between the baseline cost per submission and the total cost per submission for the relevant year, and then dividing the result by the baseline cost per submission. There are a number of facts and assumptions underlying the preceding methodology: (a) baseline PMN submissions and searches are all conducted non-electronically; (b) possible increases in contractor and EPA staff costs are disregarded in order to control for inflation; (c) for both submeasures the average costs for processing and for searching are proportional to the average times; and (d) the percentage of submissions provided in paper, CD and electronic (CDX) forms changes over FY 2010-2012 in accordance with an assumed progression Suitability: The measure is suitable and appropriate because it captures, using reasonable assumptions, the expected and actual cost savings stemming from automation of the new chemical submission and review process. This represents EPAs progress toward its goal of improving program efficiency. All data meet the QMP requirements and outcomes are reviewed by OPPT senior management. QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan (Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Review: Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight. Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the information relied upon in developing or reporting these measures. Error Estimate: Not applicable. The measures do not require inferences from statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. New/Improved Data or Systems: As mentioned above, the development and deployment of the new Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database will enable users to track electronic submissions and handling of PMN information. The system provides data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing scanned documents. Non-electronic submission data will also appear in the system. References: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/pmnforms.htm FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks
Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals
Performance Database: EPA uses a reporting spreadsheet called HPV HC Tracking Data to track the number of completed Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports. The spreadsheet is located on the OPPT secure share drive. This information is supplemented and aligned twice a year with an international database of chemicals sponsored internationally through Screening Information Data Sets (SIDs) Initial Assessment Meetings. Hazard characterizations are made publicly available through OPPTs High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS). Data Source: The Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are completed by EPA staff based on submissions from chemical sponsors, and are completed for both U.S. HPVs and international SIDS chemicals. Each screening level hazard characterization document represents a thorough review by qualified EPA personnel of the information provided by the submitter. Once a report is completed, as determined by senior scientist and management review, the spreadsheet is updated with the chemical name and date of completion. Methods and Assumptions: This measure analyzes and supplements data received through HPV challenge. An assessment of adequacy is made for HPV chemicals defined as approximately 2,450 chemicals (1400 US Sponsored chemicals, 850 International sponsored chemicals, and 200 Original Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIARs)). The measure is a count of completed reports which are then posted on EPAs website.
Data Source: The Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are completed by EPA staff based on submissions from chemical sponsors, and are completed for both U.S. HPVs and international SIDS chemicals. Each screening level hazard characterization document represents a thorough review by qualified EPA personnel of the information provided by the submitter. Once a report is completed, as determined by senior scientist and management review, the spreadsheet is updated with the chemical name and date of completion. Methods and Assumptions: This measure analyzes and supplements data received through HPV challenge. An assessment of adequacy is made for HPV chemicals defined as approximately 2,450 chemicals (1400 US Sponsored chemicals, 850 International sponsored chemicals, and 200 Original Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIARs)).The measure is a count of completed reports which are then posted on EPAs website. References: GAO-05-458: Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPAs Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, June 2005; GAO-06-1032T: Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of EPAs Chemical Review Program, August 2006; GAO-09-271: High Risk Series-An update. Transforming EPAs Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals, January 2009.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Reduction in concentration of PFOA in serum in the general population.
Performance Database: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as the primary database in the United States for national statistics on blood levels of certain chemicals of concern among the general population and selected subpopulation groups. NHANES is a probability sample of the non-institutionalized population of the United States. Data are collected on a calendar year basis and are currently released to the public in two-year sets. For these performance measures, NHANES has been recognized as the definitive source. The NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the measures. Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. 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 U.S. CDCs National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is responsible for the conduct of the survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish results from the survey, generally in CDCs Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals. In recent years, CDC has published a national exposure report based on the data from the NHANES. The most current National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. More recent performance results were published in
a March 2009 Pediatrics journal article, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/e376. Performance results will be updated as new peer reviewed NHANES data are published either in the official CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles as the data becomes available. The NHANES survey contains detailed interview questions covering areas related to demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related subjects. It also includes an extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements, and laboratory tests. NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams. Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an analysis. NHANES measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits. Methods and Assumptions: Data for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) presented in CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update (July 2010) will be used to determine baseline concentrations for each chemical, metabolite, or congener. The baseline years (corresponding to the NHANES sampling period) chosen for PFOA were 2005-2006. Each fiscal year, the most recent biomonitoring data on these chemicals available from CDC (geometric means) will be compared to the baseline concentrations. The percent for which the concentration decreased or remained unchanged between the baseline year and the latest measurements will be calculated. The result of these calculations is then compared to the target set for the year in which performance is being measured. Data lags may prevent performance results from being determined for every reporting year. Suitability: Both measures support the long-term goal of reducing the risk and ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution at the source by enabling EPA to better assess progress in reducing exposure to targeted chemicals, as reflected in concentration levels among the general population and key subpopulations. The second measure focuses on exposure to such chemicals among children. These measures reflect the Agencys priority of ensuring that harder to reach vulnerable populations are protected from adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals of concern. QA/QC Procedures: Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm. Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to collect data to promote data quality and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review. Additional information on the interview and examination process can be found at the NHANES web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
Data Limitations: NHANES is a voluntary survey and selected persons may refuse to participate. In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam. There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations because some participants only complete one step of the survey. Participants may answer the questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood sample. Special weighting techniques are used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal changes in blood levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design. Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design, appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and associated measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate approaches are addressed in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm. New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling schedule, scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of national exposure reports by CDC. References: 1) The NHANES Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; 2) the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) article with the most recent estimate of the number of children with elevated blood lead levels, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4) NHANES Analytical Guidelines,http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL. 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.
Performance Database: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as the primary database in the United States for national blood lead statistics. NHANES is a probability sample of the non-institutionalized population of the United States. Data are collected on a calendar year basis, and are currently released to the public in two year sets. Blood lead levels are measured for participants who are at least one year old. The survey collects information on the age of the participant at the time of the survey. Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. 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 U.S. CDCs National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is responsible for the conduct of the survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish results from the survey, generally in CDCs Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals. In recent years, CDC has published a National Exposure report based on the data from the NHANES. The most current National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. More recent performance results were published in a March 2009 Pediatrics journal article. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/e376 Performance results will be updated as new peer reviewed NHANES data is published either in the official CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles as the data become available. Methods and Assumptions: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also includes an extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements, and laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental interest include: metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, phthalates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their metabolites, dioxins/furans, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that it links laboratoryderived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams. For this performance measure, NHANES has been recognized as the definitive source. Estimates of the number of children 1-5 years with an elevated blood lead level based on NHANES have been published by CDC (See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an analysis. The NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the two performance measures and are nationally recognized as the best source of this data. This data source measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits. Suitability: The first measure supports the long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by the year 2010 and continuing to maintain the elimination of childhood lead poisoning over time. The second measure examines the disparities of blood lead levels in low-income children compared to non low-income children and uses this measure to track progress towards EPAs long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach vulnerable populations. QA/QC Procedures: Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to collect data to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review. Additional information on the interview and examination process can be found at the NHANES web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Data Limitations: NHANES is a voluntary survey and selected persons may refuse to participate. In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam. There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations because some participants only complete one step of the survey. Participants may answer the questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood sample. Special weighting techniques are used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal changes in blood lead levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design. Because NHANES is a sample survey, there may be no children with elevated blood lead levels in the sample, but still some children with elevated blood lead levels in the population. Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design, appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and associated measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate approaches are addressed in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm. New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling schedule, scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of National Exposure reports by CDC. References: 1) the NHANES Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; 2) the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) article with the most recent estimate of the number of children with elevated blood lead levels, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4) NHANES Analytical Guidelines,http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes20032004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process Efficiency Cumulative number of certified Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Firms
Performance Database: The National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD) in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) maintains the Federal Lead-Based
Paint Program (FLPP) database. Records are maintained for both the abatement and Renovation Repair and Painting programs in States where the program is directly implemented by EPA. Processing abatement applications: The FLPP electronic database contains applications for certification by individuals and firms and applications for accreditation by training providers in states and tribal lands administered by the Federal lead abatement program. The database provides a record of all applications for certification or accreditation for Federally-managed lead programs and the actions on those applications including final decisions and the multiple steps in the process used for measurement. The database is augmented by hard copy records of the original applications. EPA uses an Oracle Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable performance data. RRP Firms: The FLPP database was recently expanded to also track the certification of firms for Renovation Repair and Painting where EPA directly implements the program. EPA uses an Oracle Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable performance data. Data Source: Processing Abatement applications: The FLPP database is available internally to EPA Headquarters, the federal program contractors and Regional lead program staff who process the applications or oversee the processing. The database is maintained on EPA servers at the National Computer Center (NCC) located in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. Access to the database is granted by the Lead, Heavy Metals, and Inorganics Branch (LHMIB) in NPCD. Overall maintenance of the database and periodic improvements are handled by a contractor, currently HeiTech Corporation, located in Landover, Maryland. Data entry of application data is conducted by a second contractor, currently Optimus Corporation, located in Silver Spring, Maryland. Optimus Corporation maintains the file of the original applications. Each EPA Regional office maintains a file of copies of the original applications for that region. RRP firms: As of October, 2009 firms apply for certification through EPA. However, as States become authorized to administer their own RRP programs, States will be responsible for the authorization of firms in their state. EPA will collect data on the numbers of firms certified in each authorized state as part of the Agencys oversight of authorized programs through semi-annual reports from grantees. Methods and Assumptions: Processing abatement applications- Each complete application for certification or accreditation in Federally-managed states and tribal lands is processed (approximately 3000 per year). Certification is issued if all criteria are met. Some applications may be returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant. For the applications that are fully processed, the length of time for EPA processing can be determined from date fields in the FLPP database. Accordingly, a census of all the fully processed applications for certification is periodically conducted, and the percentage of applications that took more than the prescribed number of days (e.g., 20) of EPA effort to process is computed based on this census. The census is conducted every six months, and the annual percentage calculated appropriately from the six month percentages. The data
used to estimate this performance measure directly reflect all information that has been recorded pertaining to certification applications and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management. RRP firms: The above methods and assumptions apply to the lead abatement program. On March 31, 2008, EPA issued a new rule (Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rule or RRP rule) aimed at protecting children from lead-based paint hazards. The rule requires contractors and construction professionals that work in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities to follow lead-safe work practice standards to reduce potential exposure to dangerous levels of lead for children in places they frequent. In April, 2009, training providers may begin applying to EPA for accreditation to provide renovator or dust sampling technician training. Persons seeking certification as renovators or dust sampling technicians may take accredited training as soon as it is available. In October, 2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations. Beginning in April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule. For 2011, EPA will be reviewing and adjusting performance measures for both the abatement program and the RRP program as appropriate. Suitability: Processing abatement applications: This measure tracks EPA Headquarters and Regional effort in processing lead-based paint certification and refund applications for the abatement program. This measure reflects an integral part of the Lead Program and ensures proper training for lead-based professionals. Data are available mid-year and end-of-year and enable the program to demonstrate program efficiencies and enhance accountability. RRP firms: This measure tracks total impact of the RRP regulation via establishment of a cadre of certified firms available for Remodeling work throughout the country. In October, 2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations. Beginning in April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule. QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan (Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort. In addition, NPCD has an approved Quality Management Plan in place, dated July 2008. Applications and instructions for applying for certification and accreditation are documented and available at the Web site http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm. Documentation for the FLPP database is maintained internally at EPA and is available upon request.
Data Quality Reviews: The FLPP database is an internal EPA database, maintained for the purpose of processing and tracking applications. The database is interactive, and operational usage in processing applications by Headquarters and the Regional offices provides ongoing internal quality reviews. Further, EPA periodically checks contractors data entry quality. Data Limitations: Processing abatement applications: Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant are not captured in the database queries and are out of scope for this performance measure. While the report is based on a census, it generates some duplicative data, which must be removed manually. Efforts are made to remove all duplicative data, while preserving valid data. However, because this is a non-automated process, a small amount of human error is possible. Some variability occurs due to unique conditions that vary by Region. Some Regions consistently process applications in less time than others. This variability may be due to factors such as badge printing capabilities and economies of scale. Efforts are currently being made to automate this report. RRP firms: Data are estimates from firm certification applications received either directly by EPA or through EPA authorized State programs and reported to EPA Regional offices. Error Estimate: Processing abatement applications: There is little or no sampling error in this performance measure, because it is based on a census of all applicable records. RRP firms: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and therefore error estimates are not available. New/Improved Data or Systems: The FLPP database is currently undergoing improvements to track individual certifications and training provider accreditations for the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) program. As additional states report RRP firms data to EPA Regional offices, we will consider automating this process through the addition of the Regional Annual Commitment System (ACS) measure. This may not be needed until 2012 or future years. References: 1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division, June 2008; 2) FLPP database documentation; 3) URL for Applications and Instructions, http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Ensure Transparency of Chemical Health and Safety Information

Percentage of CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenges as appropriate as they are submitted. Percentage of historical CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate.
Performance Databases: None Data Sources: Data are provided by EPA Headquarters Staff. Historical data used to identify CBI H&S Data will come from staff and contractor maintained internal databases. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This performance measure supports EPAs strategic measure through 2015 to make all health and safety studies available to the public for chemicals in commerce, to the extent allowed by law. For pesticides, EPA will continue to make risk assessments and supporting information available through its long standing Public Participation Process. The baseline assumes that between January 21, 2010 and the enactment of TSCA, 21,994 CBI cases with TSCA health and safety information were submitted for chemicals potentially in commerce. In recent years, hundreds of such cases have been submitted annually. To achieve this measure, EPA must complete the following actions for new and historical submissions by the end of 2015: 1) determine if a challenge to the CBI claim is warranted; 2) execute the challenge; and 3) where legally defensible, declassify the information claimed as CBI. OPPT will maintain a CBI declassification tracking system. It will include the records identified for review, date of receipt, review status, claim validation, letter or call sent, 2.204(d)(2) Action, declassification status. For chemicals in 8(e) fillings the system will also track if the chemical name has process or portion of mixture information and if it is claimed as research and development (R&D) or as a Pesticide. Health and safety (H&S) information differs greatly in complexity and consequently the declassification may occur rapidly in some areas but take longer than others to reach attainment. QA/QC Procedures: EPA staff will ensure the number of H&S studies reviewed is equal to or less than the total number of H&S studies received. Data Quality Review: Same as QA/QC procedures. Data Limitations: Some archived data may have been lost or damaged. The DTS database does not differentiate between types of CBI claims, so some studies tracked in the DTS system may, in theory, already be public. It may be difficult or impossible to contact the original submitter for old submissions as the submitter may be deceased; the company may no longer exist; the company may have changed names; or the company or submitter may have no record of having submitted such H&S information.
Some submissions may be redundant due to overlap in processing. Other limitations expected.
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during data entry. New/Improved Data or Systems: Data elements used to track the de-classification studies will consist of new process-specific elements input by reviewers and elements traditionally associated with studies that were input to OPPT databases. The declassification tracking system is currently under construction. References: None. GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2 FY 2012 Performance Measures: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants Gallons of water conserved by P2 program participants Business, institutional and government cost reduced from P2 practices by P2 program participants Metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset by P2 program participants Energy savings per dollar invested in the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) program. (Efficiency)
Suitability: The five annual outcome measures have corresponding long term goals identified in EPAs draft 2010-2015 Strategic Plan and are suitable for year-to-year comparisons due to the programs ability to show annual progress towards reaching these long term goals. The efficiency measure relates portions of the associated outcomes with associated program costs, providing suitable indicators of program management effectiveness. The annual rate of results for the annual outcome measures is calculated by adding new annual results and recurring annual results to get the sum. New results are ones that appear for the first time from a particular activity. Recurring results are those that reappear in subsequent years from the same particular activity. Based on 2008 feedback from the Science Advisory Board, 9,10 the P2 Program determined it is appropriate to count recurring results for a pre-defined amount of time (not indefinitely). As covered in the Recurring Result Duration subheading below, each component of the P2 Program has determined an appropriate and reasonable timeframe to count the recurring benefits
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.nsf/3F4214C1239651BC852574AD003FC2F0/$File/Charge +for+Pollution+Prevention+Program+Measures+9-3-08+Meeting.pdf 10 http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F6A39F03493E4EA38525750C0074E448/$File/EPA-SAB09-005-unsigned.pdf
9
of its program interventions and adheres to these time durations. These timeframes are inclusive of first year results. Components of the Agencys Pollution Prevention Program that report an annual rate of results are: Green Chemistry (GC); Design for the Environment (DfE); Green Engineering (GE); P2 Technical Assistance; Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx); Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP); and Green Suppliers Network (GSN)/Energy, the Economy, and the Environment (E3). Each operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with program partners and beneficiaries to prevent pollution and extend the life of resources, from a lifecycle perspective, in the daily operations of program beneficiaries. Program beneficiaries include government agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Performance Database: Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic metrics database (matrix) that allows organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on alternative feedstocks, processes, and safer chemicals. The database was designed to store and retrieve information on the qualitative and quantitative environmental benefits and economic benefits that alternative green chemistry technologies offer. The database was also designed to track the quantity of hazardous substances eliminated as well as water and energy saved through implementation of alternative technologies. Green chemistry technology nominations are received up to December 31 of the year proceeding the reporting year, and it normally takes 6-12 months to enter new technologies into the database. Design for the Environment (DfE ): DfE has a spreadsheet for all of its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant Alternatives, the Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI), and Auto Refinishing. The spreadsheet content varies by project, and generally includes measures comparing baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as information on partner adoption and/or market share of safer alternatives. For example, the DfE Formulator Program tracks the move to safer chemicals (such as pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and conversely pounds of safer ingredients), and reductions in water and greenhouse gas emissions, where available. Green Engineering (GE): GE will be developing an electronic database to keep track of environmental benefits of GE projects including pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced, gallons of water conserved, dollars saved, and metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions eliminated. P2 Technical Assistance: EPA has developed a second-generation P2 grants database, P2 Grants Plus, to organize storage and retrieval of predictive and actual data submitted to EPA on P2 grant results. The database also stores and retrieves data on planned and actual measurement methodologies. The earlier database, GranTrack, stored and retrieved primarily output results from P2 grants, whereas P2 Grants Plus tracks quantified outcome results year-over-year on a single spreadsheet per grant, and date stamps all
modifications for version control. Regional staff access to the database may be as early as Winter 2010, grantee access for data entry may be available in 2011, and public readonly access for grant results may come in 2012. In the interim, Regions are using a standardized spreadsheet to track, manage, and report results from P2 and Source Reduction grants. End-of-year grant data are available to the public on EPAs P2 website Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx): P2Rx is comprised of 8 regional P2 Information Centers which supply information products and training for local and state technical assistance providers and businesses. P2Rx centers train and help states and localities to enter their grant and non-grant P2 results data in the centers database modules. These modules feed the data into a central National P2 Results System database. Over 30 state-level P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data. Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and Energy, Economy, and the Environment (E3)): EPA has the benefit of NISTs Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database, which the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) uses to collect NIST and EPA performance metrics for the MEP/GSN/E3 programs. MEP headquarters enters data into the CRM on economic and environmental potential outcomes from technical assistance providers conducting facility reviews. These data include the value of environmental impact savings identified, energy and water conservation opportunities identified, water and air release reduction opportunities identified, hazardous waste reduction opportunities identified, toxic/hazardous chemical use reduction opportunities identified, as well as, any actual results achieved in these areas. Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP): Results for Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) come from the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting information from FEC partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator (EEBC) to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. Manufacturers of EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered products to the Green Electronics Council (GEC). The EPP team obtains this data from the GEC, runs these sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. FY 2010 data will be collected for the FEC in January 2011 and for EPEAT in April 2011. Data Sources: GC: Industry and academia sponsors submit nominations annually to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the annual Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in the nomination packages. Qualitative and quantitative benefit information is pulled from the nominations and entered in the metrics database.
DfE: The source of DfEs evaluation information varies by the project. For example, in DfEs Formulator Recognition Program, partners provide proprietary information on the production volume of their improved formulations. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g., Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information from sources such as industry associations and materials/equipment suppliers. For SDSI greenhouse gases (GHGs), industry partners will provide data on the amount of GHG emissions reduced through partner activities. GE: Data come from sources and partners including the regions, academia and industry. For example, for the GE activities related to the pharmaceutical industry, data will be supplied by individual companies or sites and other partners from the regions and academia. A pilot project with Region 2 and pharmaceutical operating facilities and members of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association will apply GE practices and measure their process changes through a GlaxoSmithKline/North Carolina State University (GSK-NCSU) model. P2 Technical Assistance: The sources of regional data are P2 Grant and Source Reduction grant reports, follow-up conversations with grantees and sub-grantees, occasional site visits, and reports from program partners engaged in non-grant regional projects. P2Rx: Sources of output data are P2Rx center grant reports submitted to EPA. These reports include results from Center web-based customer satisfaction surveys, pre and post testing of training audiences, follow-up services, and longer-term case studies. Sources of outcome measure data are the States that enter data into the P2 Results System database. GSN/E3: The source of P2-related data is the technical assistance provider reviewing the facility. This professional provides an estimate of the potential reductions and savings achievable at the facility being reviewed. This person is usually an environmental expert from the state environmental agency or its designee. The NIST MEP Center representative enters this estimated data into the CRM database. Under the terms of their Department of Commerce (DOC) grants, MEP Centers follow DOC data collection requirements. EPP: For FEC, the data source is federal partners. For EPEAT, the data source is manufacturers of EPEAT registered electronic products. Energy savings per dollar invested in FEC are calculated by comparing energy savings data to FEC program resource data that are housed in a central OPPT finance database. Methods and Assumptions: GC: The information from the nominations is collected and tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems. The performance data, while collected by individual centers, is acceptable performance measurement for the program, as it addresses the specific measures and reflects an aggregated and quality reviewed dataset.
DfE: Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and industrial processes. For the DfEs Formulator Recognition Program, partner-provided data on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total reductions of hazardous chemicals achieved through the Program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture Flame Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern provides the measure for reduction. DfEs Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the methods/assumptions for each projects measures. For SDSI GHGs, partner-provided data on GHG emissions reductions will be aggregated to determine the total reduction in GHG emissions achieved through the Program. GE: The information (e.g. solvent stream data) will be supplied by individual companies or sites and/or other partners from the regions or academia. The GlaxoSmithKlines North Carolina State University (GSK/NCSU) models will utilize input information from pilot companies to calculate environmental benefits. The pilot companies, in collaboration with the GSK/NCSU model developers and the GE Program will also collectively review these materials for any information that could be used as business case studies and other resource materials. P2 Technical Assistance: Regions will be using the new Greenhouse Gas Reductions Calculator, revised P2 Cost Savings Calculator, and new Gallons-to-Pounds Converter tools designed by the P2 Program for regional use. Regions and grantees attended 2009 and 2010 training webinars on the tools. Assumptions used to convert commodity and other units into environmental benefits and cost savings are described in the tools themselves. The GHG tool was reviewed by an expert panel in 2009. These tools help calculate outcome results and can be named as a grantees planned and actual measurement methodology in the P2 Grants Plus database. The Program assumes that grantees and Regions enter accurate data in the calculator tools. P2Rx: The P2 Program applies a 10% methodology to State-reported non-grant P2 results. It is assumed that P2 Program-sponsored training, information products, and source reduction methodologies comprise a resource that enhances overall state P2 results, above and beyond the scope of specific grant projects. After consulting with States, EPA settled on 10% of non-grant results as a reasonable amount to attribute to the extended sphere of national P2 Program influence. The Program assumes that States accurately report their non-grant P2 results data to the P2Rx centers, and that the centers accurately report these data to the Program. GSN/E3: The program assumes that partner facilities report actual data accurately to NIST MEP headquarters, that MEP and State technical assistance providers make accurate estimates of potential P2 results if projects are implemented, and that NIST MEP headquarters accurately aggregates the data before sharing them with EPA. The program assumes that many partner facilities will choose not to submit any actual P2 outcome data to maintain confidentiality and that facility partners will not accept NIST MEP headquarters sharing any non-aggregated potential or actual P2 data with EPA.
To accommodate facility preferences for confidentiality, the Program uses an implementation-rate methodology to calculate and report results. Based on actual results reported in the Michigan multiple-facility projects, the Program assumes the following GSN P2-cost savings implementation rates, assuming energy-related savings occur at a higher rate and represent a larger share of total savings (2010, 30%; 2011, 32%; 2012, 34%; 2013, 36%, 2014, 38%; and, 2015, 40%). Also based on the Michigan project, the Program assumes the following GSN energy-based (MTCO2e) implementation rates (2010, 35%; 2011, 37%; 2012, 39%; 2013, 41%; 2014, 43%; and 2015, 45%) and the following implementation rates for other environmental projects, taking into account the economy (2010, 15%; 2011, 17%; 2012, 19%; 2013, 21%; 2014, 23%, and 2015, 25%). The implementation rates for E3 projects are assumed to be higher for energy-based recommendations because of more highly leveraged resources for implementation and the higher visibility of E3. Implementation rates used for E3 energy-based recommendations (related to MTCO2e) are as follows: 2010, 50%; 2011, 52%; 2012, 54%; 2013, 56%; 2015, 58%; and, 2015, 60%. Implementation rates used for E3 cost savings are as follows: 2010, 41%; 2011, 44%; 2012, 47%; 2013, 49%; 2014, 52%; and, 2015, 55%. Implementation rates used for E3 other environmental projects are as follows: 2010, 15%; 2011, 20%; 2012, 25%; 2013, 30% 2014, 35%; and 2015, 40%. EPP: For FEC, the Program assumes that partners report accurate data. However, FEC data undergo thorough internal technical review before they are run through the EEBC calculator. For EPEAT, the Program assumes that manufacturers report accurate annual sales data, and that the GEC accurately reports this data to the EPEAT Program. The assumptions needed for the EEBC to translate environmental attributes and activities into environmental benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the EEBC (e.g., the average lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.) The assumptions were reviewed when the EEBC underwent the original peer review process, and were reviewed and updated during the development of version 2.0 of the EEBC. For the efficiency measure, EPA uses a methodology of comparing energy savings to program investment levels. Recurring Result Durations: EPP: EPP counts benefit estimates that encompass the purchase, use, and disposal of green electronics products over a five year product lifecycle. As additional electronics products are explored, benefits will be counted according to respective product life-cycles. Efficiency measurements are calculated by comparing energy savings to program investment levels. GC: Benefits are captured from innovative green chemistry technologies and related processes. Because of the relatively slow innovation rate and long life-span of technologies once adopted, the Green Chemistry Program generally counts results over a 10 year timeframe. However, in cases where new public information becomes available, benefits for award-winning technologies are updated. For example, if a technology is withdrawn from the market, that quantity is no longer counted. Similarly, if news of an increased benefit because of increased market penetration becomes available, the magnitude of the benefit is increased to reflect that change.
GE: Green Engineering is promoting implementation of solvent reuse and recovery practices in pharmaceutical companies. These actions result in both environmental and economical benefits and will be recurring as facilities will not revert back to former, less economical practices. These results will be counted for eight years until these practices become standard operating practice. DfE: DfE has many different projects that generate results. The largest of these, the Formulator Program, is set up to recognize safer products through application of the DfE label. Partner companies sign a three-year partnership agreement so these results will be counted over three years. The DfE Automotive Refinishing Partnership collaborates with the Regions on training and compliance assistance workshops that help businesses and schools implement best practices to reduce air toxics in the workplace and community. Changes are counted over a five year period to account for the time it takes to provide training and equipment, improve performance, and standardize new processes. DfEs Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership and Lead-Free Solder LCA will count results for seven years. This period was chosen to be consistent with the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) recovery period for similar product types 11. DfEs SDSI GHG will count recurring results for three years. The period was chosen because SDSI GHG Champions will also have DfE Formulator Program recognition, where results are counted for three years. P2 Technical Assistance: Regions count recurring results from grant-based and direct project-based P2 technology and practice changes because these changes are expected to be observed for multiple years. The Program is using an average lifetime of equipment, process, or practice changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved. The Program has conducted preliminary bench-marking to ascertain the range of standard expected lifetimes of the technologies and practices adopted as a result of Regional action. The range is wide, and documentation of results varies depending on the nature of the grant activity. As a result, the Program is using a conservative four year period for an average duration of these technology and practice changes. P2Rx: P2Rx is counting recurring results and is also using an average lifetime of equipment, process, or practice changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved. Due to the aggregated nature of results reported in the P2 Results Data System, and the relative lack of transparency concerning the underlying activities reported in this system, the Program is taking the most conservative approach and counting results for two years. GSN/E3: EPA counts recurring results from GSN and E3 facility implementation of equipment and process changes that are expected to be observed for multiple years. EPA is using an average lifetime of equipment or process change as a factor to apply to all GSN and E3 results achieved. Preliminary bench-marking indicates that a six-year period is an appropriate average lifetime for GSN technology and process changes. In
11
Couper, J.R., Process Engineering Economics.2003, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 423. (see page 180)
the future, EPA may be able to access case-specific data efficiently to determine specific depreciation rates for equipment and process changes installed. QA/QC Procedures: All OPPT programs operate under the Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as well as under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) (Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, November 2008), and the programs will ensure that those standards and procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use only. Data Quality Review: OPPT responded to OIG recommendations in their January 2009 report Measuring and Reporting Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need Improvement, which found the program deserving of its initial Moderately Effectively program assessment rating. Recommendations included developing additional and refining existing measures, establishing more comprehensive QA/QC procedures, and addressing improvement opportunities GC: Data undergo a technical screening review by the Agency before being uploaded to the database to determine if the data adequately support the environmental benefits described in the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards application. Subsequent to Agency screening, nominations are reviewed by an external independent panel of technical experts from academia, industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated into the database. The panel is convened by the Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society, primarily for judging nominations submitted to the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program and selecting winning technologies. Quantitative benefits are periodically reviewed to be sure they were accurately captured from the nominations. DfE: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being added to the spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the environmental benefits described. GE: Data will be reviewed by the partners including industry, academia, and the regions. Data will also be reviewed by GE HQ and Regional staff to ensure transparency, reasonableness and accuracy. For the pharmaceutical project, data will be internally reviewed by companies and may also be reviewed by model developers. It is an essential goal and foundation for this project that this information is transparent, verifiable and within the public domain. P2 Technical Assistance: Data undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and Headquarters staff before being entered into the aggregate reporting spreadsheet or, prospectively, the P2 Grants Plus database. Data for projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff are reviewed by Regional personnel. Standard operating procedures are being reviewed for additional QA/QC steps. The program works with the Regional offices to develop consistent QA procedures, which can be applied at the beginning of the
grant and throughout the life of the grant. For instance, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)-lite guidance was developed and is now in use in several Regional offices. P2Rx: The P2Rx centers follow quality assurance project plans for their grants and have established standard operating procedures for development of web site statistics and information products. Standard Operations and Procedures are on this web site: http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfm Data entered into the National P2 Results system undergo technical screening review by P2Rx centers and EPA Headquarters staff. The users guide for the P2 Results system is posted on the Internet: http://www.p2rx.org/measurement/info/FINAL_user_guide.pdf GSN/E3: Data are collected and verified under NIST MEPs QA/QC plan, which guides the NIST MEP Centers as grantees to the Department of Commerce. Environmental data are collected under the QA/QC requirements of the state environmental agency participating in GSN and E3 reviews. States utilize these data for their own purposes as well. EPP: The EEBC underwent internal and external review during their development phases. The EEBC was also reviewed and beta-tested during the development of version 2.0. For FEC, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how to report data. Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA staff when they are submitted. For EPEAT, manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products sign a Memorandum of Understanding in which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide. Data Limitations: GC: Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program are in the public domain. As a result, nominees are often reluctant to include proprietary information on cost differences or other quantitative benefits. Because the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge is a voluntary, public program, it cannot routinely accept or process CBI. If the program stakeholders feel they need additional information during the judging for the awards program, they can and do ask EPA to request additional information from the nominee. EPA will then ask the company to share confidential information with CBI-cleared OPPT staff in order for EPA to conduct the verification. Often technologies are nominated before or soon after they become commercially available. Implemented benefits (those that have occurred due to the adoption of the nominated technology) are counted separately from potential benefits that may occur upon future adoption of the technology. DfE: Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or technologies are claimed CBI by the developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial pollution prevention practices on a wider scale. GE: There may be instances in which submitted data is not clearly quantified and/or available due to various reasons such as CBI. However, efforts will be made to minimize CBI information in working with the facilities to have more generic case studies. In these instances, the data have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting.
P2 Technical Assistance: Limitations arise from the variable attention that States and other grantees pay to collecting data from their reporting sources, data verification, and other QA/QC procedures. P2Rx: Limitations arise from variability in individual state and local P2 programs and their reporting sources, QA/QC procedures, and what is reported. Differences may arise in how programs quantify environmental benefits, based on state or local legislative requirements. GSN/E3: Facilities reviewed by NIST MEP and State technical assistance providers are often reluctant to have their individual facility opportunity assessments shared with EPA or to share proprietary information on quantitative benefits with NIST or EPA. MEP programs can also vary in the level of detail they report from the facility-level opportunity assessments (potential results) to MEP Headquarters, where data are aggregated and then sent to EPA. Although EPA has strengthened the Request for Proposals requirements for the grantee MEP centers eligible to perform GSN and E3 reviews. EPP: FEC has a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting. EPEAT relies on manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products, and the GEC, for data reporting. Error Estimate: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and, therefore, error estimates are not available. New/Improved Data or Systems: The new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Calculator developed for the Regions is widely applicable to all components of the P2 Program. It captures reductions from electricity conservation, renewable energy and green power, stationary sources, fuel specific reductions and substitutions, chemical specific reductions and substitutions, and process changes. DfE: DfE has implemented an emissions calculator for the DfE Automotive Refinishing Partnership. The emissions reduction calculator computes individual or aggregate quantities of toxics eliminated and cost savings based on annual material usage (e.g. gallons of paint) before and after a business switches to best practices or safer alternative paint products. SDSI GHGs will be a new set of results for DfE in FY 2012. This Program will focus on encouraging products that reduce the release of GHG emissions Regional Offices: The development of new calculators and tools described on page 2 above is enhancing the methodology for measuring and reporting outcome results. P2Rx: Centers are developing tracking and user identification approaches to better characterize the customers using their web site information. The centers currently track customers served through phone calls, emails, trainings and evaluate changes in awareness, knowledge, and behavior resulting from their services. Standard operating procedures for these approaches are being developed.
GE: The program is utilizing GlaxoSmithKline/North Carolina State University GSK/NCSU models (Jimenez-Gonzalex C, Overcash MR and Curzons AD. J. Chemistry Technology Biotechnology. 71:707-716 (2001) and plans to combine these models with OPPT tools such as ChemSTEER to accurately utilize inputs from pharmaceutical companies in the estimation of environmental benefits. EPP: Version 2.0 of the EEBC was released in March 2009. These revisions ensure that the EEBC reflects the best available data related to EPEAT-registered and ENERGY STAR-qualified products and adds additional functionality to the EEBC. A complete list of revisions is available in the EEBC and it is currently being converted from an Excel spreadsheet to a Web-based tool, to make it more user friendly. References: GC: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/ DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/ GE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/ P2 Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm , http://www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm GSN: www.greensuppliers.gov EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm Information about the EEBC is on the FEC web site at: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf Regional: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/local.htm P2RX: P2 Results user guide: http://www.p2rx.org/measurement/info/FINAL_user_guide.pdf SOPs for P2RX centers: http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfm
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship Percent increased in use of safer chemicals.
Performance Database: Design for the Environment (DfE) maintains a data collection spreadsheet for all of its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant Alternatives, the Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI), and Auto Refinishing Best Practices). The content of the data collection spreadsheet varies by project requirements and needs, but generally includes measures comparing baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as information on partner adoption and/or market share of safer alternatives. For example, the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program tracks performance data as partners move to safer chemical ingredients in product formulations, based on robust science-based criteria. Performance data includes pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and conversely pounds of safer ingredients.
Data Sources: The source of DfEs evaluation information varies by the project. For example, in DfEs Formulator Recognition Program, partners provide proprietary information on the production volume of their improved formulations. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g., Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information from sources such as industry associations and materials/equipment suppliers. In addition to performance data, DfE also collects technical data as a basis for any DfE assessment, which includes proprietary information from partners, compilation of information from site visits, journal reviews, and development of technical studies as described above. Reductions per federal dollar invested in the DfE program are calculated by comparing DfE chemical reduction data to DfE program resource data that are housed in a central OPPT finance database. Methods and Assumptions: Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and industrial processes. For DfEs Formulator Recognition Program, partner-provided data on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total use of safer chemicals achieved through the program. DfE recognized a total of 1,700 products in 2009. Using company confidential data, DfE estimates that its partner companies are now using more than 476 million pounds of safer chemicals. Recognizing a 10% year-toyear increase in DfE products, the 2015 target is expected to reach 843 million pounds. Suitability: DfE data tracks increases in the use of safer chemicals indicating upward trends in the market share. This measure is a consistent and reliable source for annual reporting and contributes to the overall strategic plan to increase the use of safer chemicals. QA/QC Procedures: OPPT programs operate under the Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as well as under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) (Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, November 2008), and the programs will ensure that those standards and procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use only. Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being added to the data collection spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the environmental benefits described. In addition, the DfE Program maintains Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and Information Collection Requests (ICRs) for the collection of technical and performance data, including the following: Quality Assurance Project Plan: The Design for the Environment (DfE) Best Practices Approach Project; Eastern Research Group, Inc. EPA Contract No. EP-W-05-014;
Information Collection Request Supporting Document for EPAs Design for the Environment Formulators Product Recognition Program. EPA ICR No. 2302.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW; June 22, 2009; and Quality Assurance Project Plan for DfE Wire & Cable and Lifecycle Assessment & Industry Study, Abt Associates, Inc. EPA Contract No. EP-W08-10.
Data Quality Review: OPPT has developed an official response to OIG recommendations published in their January 2009 report Measuring and Reporting Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need Improvement. Overall, the report found the program deserving of its initial Moderately Effectively program assessment rating and includes recommendations such as developing additional and refining existing measures, establishing more comprehensive QA/QC procedures, and addressing improvement opportunities. All P2 programs, including DfE, responded to the OIG recommendations 4.2 and 4.3 Recommending the P2 Programs implement controls to ensure full implementation of the Pollution Prevention Quality Management Plan (QMP). The P2 Program established a Standard Operating Procedures report to govern its collection, tracking, analyzing, and publicly reporting of data on environmental and other performance parameters. These SOPs pertain to the type, format and quality of data to be submitted to the Agency by partners, contractors, and program beneficiaries for use in reporting P2 Program performance. Data Limitations: Occasionally, DfE data on innovative chemistries or technologies are claimed CBI by the developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial pollution prevention practices on a wider scale. Error Estimate: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and therefore error estimates are not available. New/Improved Data or Systems: DfE has implemented an emissions calculator for the DfE Automotive Refinishing Partnership. The emissions reduction calculator computes individual or aggregate quantities of toxics eliminated and cost savings based on annual material usage (e.g. gallons of paint) before and after a business switches to best practices or safer alternative paint products. SDSI GHGs will be a new set of results for DfE in FY 2012. This program will focus on encouraging products that reduce the release of GHG emissions. References: DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/ GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1 FY 2012 Performance Measures:
Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of air pollutants through concluded enforcement actions Support Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of water pollutants through concluded water enforcement actions Support Protecting Americas Waters Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of toxics and pesticides through concluded enforcement actions. Support Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of hazardous waste through concluded enforcement actions. Support Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development Initiate civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence Conclude civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement actions. Data Source: The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Initiated start and end dates for civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases are the key ICIS data fields that create the database record for tracking the milestone data associated with each step of a case from start to finish. For enforcement actions resulting in immediate pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, staff estimates the amount of reduction at the time the enforcement action concludes. For enforcement actions resulting in pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated long-term, staff estimate the reduction for an average year. EPA staff use established statute methodologies, e.g. Clean Water Act (CWA), to calculate the pollutant reductions or eliminations. The calculation determines the difference between the current out of compliance quantity of pollutants released and the post enforcement action in compliance quantity of pollutants released. EPA then converts the difference into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications data calculation methodology. Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years. To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agencys information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPAs enforcement and compliance information. Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS project an estimate of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement. (Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available.) The estimates use information available at the time a case settles or an order is issued. In some instances, EPA develops and enters this information on pollutant reduction estimates after the settlement or during continued discussions over specific plans for compliance. Due to the time required for EPA to negotiate a settlement agreement with a defendant, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at the time of settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECAs expectation is that the overall amount of pollutants reduced or eliminated is prudently underestimated based on CCDS information. EPA also bases the pollutant estimates on the expectation that the defendant/respondent implements the negotiated settlement agreement. Error Estimate: Not available New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICISNPDES includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance with current data and system capabilities. The migration process is projected to be completed in FY2013. As a states data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does the states NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009, ICISNPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities. This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and
timeliness of the DMR data in ICIS-NPDES. To date ICIS-NPDES is the national system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of Mexico facilities in Region 6. References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management); CCDS, Training Booklet, issued November 2000; Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000; and Guide for Calculating Environmental Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update issued August 2004 available: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf; Information Quality Strategy and OCs Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002. FY2012 Performance Measure: Conduct federal inspections and evaluations Presence and Deterrence Maintain Enforcement
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement actions. Data Source: The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS) is used to record key activities and outcomes at facilities during on-site inspections and evaluations. Inspectors use the ICDS form while performing inspections or investigation to collect information on on-site complying actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and compliance assistance provided. The information from the completed ICDS form is entered into ICIS or reported manually. QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data
quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications data calculation methodology. Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years. To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agencys information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPAs enforcement and compliance information. Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS project an estimate of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement. (Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available.) The estimates use information available at the time a case settles or an order is issued. In some instances, EPA develops and enters this information on pollutant reduction estimates after the settlement or during continued discussions over specific plans for compliance. Due to the time required for EPA to negotiate a settlement agreement with a defendant, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at the time of settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECAs expectation is that the overall amount of pollutants reduced or eliminated is prudently underestimated based on CCDS information. EPA also bases the pollutant estimates on the expectation that the defendant/respondent implements the negotiated settlement agreement. Error Estimate: Not available New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICISNPDES includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance with current data and system capabilities. The migration process is projected to be completed in FY2013. As a states data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does the states NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009, ICISNPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities. This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and timeliness of the DMR data in ICIS-NPDES. To date ICIS-NPDES is the national system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of Mexico facilities in Region 6.
References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management); CCDS, Training Booklet, issued November 2000; Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000; and Guide for Calculating Environmental Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update issued August 2004 available: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf; Information Quality Strategy and OCs Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002. FY2012 Performance Measure: Review the overall compliance status of 100% of the open consent decrees Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement actions. Data Source: The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The consent decree tracking measure applies to all open, non-Superfund, non-bankruptcy, judicial consent decrees, coded in ICIS with the Enforcement Action Types "Civil Judicial Actions," "Pre-Referral Negotiations," and "Collection Actions," entered by the courts in FY 2007 and later. For each consent decree, the Regions will track up to four milestones, depending on the content of the consent decrees and the length of their compliance schedules. Three of the milestones address specific, one-time events to be tracked in ICIS as Compliance Schedule Events: Pay Required Penalty Amount in Full; Complete Required Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP); Achieve Final Compliance With All Obligations Under This Order. The fourth milestone addresses overall consent decree compliance status. It applies only to consent decrees with compliance schedules requiring more than three years to complete. The Regions are expected to review the overall compliance status of such consent decrees beginning no later than on the first 3-year anniversary of their entry dates and repeat the reviews at least once every three years from the dates of the most recent reviews until the
consent decrees are closed. Beginning in FY 2010 for end-of-year reporting and FY 2011 for mid-year reporting, OECA will collect the data specified in this guidance through the mid-year and end-of-year certification process. The corresponding reports will be generated directly from ICIS. QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications data calculation methodology. Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years. To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agencys information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPAs enforcement and compliance information. Data Limitations: None Error Estimate: Not available New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICISNPDES includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance with current data and system capabilities. The migration process is projected to be completed in FY2013. As a states data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does the states NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009, ICISNPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities. This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and timeliness of the DMR data in ICIS-NPDES. To date ICIS-NPDES is the national system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of Mexico facilities in Region 6. References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management); CCDS, Training Booklet, issued
November 2000; Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000; and Guide for Calculating Environmental Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update issued August 2004 available: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf; Information Quality Strategy and OCs Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence Per cent of cr iminal cases having the most significant health, envir onmental, and deter r ence impacts Per cent of cr iminal cases with char ges filed Maintain conviction r ate for cr iminal defendants Maintain per cent r ate for cr iminal cases with individual defendants
Performance Databases: The Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) stores criminal enforcement data in an enforcement-sensitive database which contains historical data on all criminal enforcement prosecutions. The data used for all criminal enforcement performance measures are in the CCRS database. Data Source: Data entered into the CCRS for the four FY2012 criminal enforcement performance measures comes from the Investigative Activity Report (IAR) which tracks a criminal investigation from the time EPA opens a case. The IAR indicates when EPA seeks prosecution by the Department of Justice (DOJ) (e.g., an indictment by a grand jury) or when DOJ obtains a criminal conviction (i.e., the defendant will plead guilty or is convicted by a judge or jury). Case closing checklists occur when a case concludes. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The methodology for the criminal enforcement measures Percent of criminal cases with charges filed, and Conviction percentage rate for criminal defendants, employed a five year analysis (FY2006-2010) to develop the baseline and FY2012 target. The methodology for the criminal enforcement measures Percent of criminal cases with individual defendants employed a three year analysis (FY2008-2010) to develop the baseline and FY2012 target. The methodology for the measure percent of criminal cases with the most significant health, environmental and deterrence impact employed a review of the current criminal enforcement docket to develop the baseline and FY2012 target. The cases are analyzed and scored on a variety of case attributes describing the range, complexity and quality of the criminal enforcement docket. Cases are then entered into one of four categories (tiers) depending upon factors such as the human health (e.g., death, serious injury) and environmental impacts, the nature of the pollutant and its release into the environment, and violator characteristics (e.g., repeat violator, size and locations(s) of the regulated entity). The measure only reflects the percentage of cases in the upper two tiers.
QA/QC Procedures: All criminal enforcement special agents receive training on the accurate completion of IAR reports and the entry of criminal case data into the CCRS. Quarterly case management reviews by senior management assure the accuracy of the data contained in the reports. In addition, quarterly reviews by senior criminal enforcement managers of all cases on the criminal enforcement docket will ensure the correct application of three methodologies for identifying cases that meet the criteria for the measure identifying the most significant criminal cases (tier one and tier two cases). The Criminal Investigations Division (CID) has a process in place for document control and records management. Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs). QMPs for the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) and its Criminal Investigation Division (CID), were submitted to the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in July 2009 and are under review. Data Quality Review: OCEFTs Center for Strategic Environmental Enforcement (CSEE) reviews all criminal enforcement data used for compiling performance measures by comparing data entered into the CCRS from the field offices with the final J&C order prepared by the U.S. District Court at the time a defendant is sentenced. Data Limitations: One possible limitation on the calculation of the recidivism measure is the difficulty to identify all appropriate and relevant business relationships among possible repeat violators. It is possible that the information collected during a criminal prosecution may not obviously tie subsequent and initial violators together, especially for corporations that have multiple components or for individuals who may try to hide their ownership status of small businesses that violate the law. The only other possible data limitation for either measure -- likely to occur only very infrequently -- is a successful appeal of convictions (that can take several years to move through the legal system) which requires a recalculation of results for a given fiscal year. Error Estimate: Not available. New & Improved Data or Systems: A new feature of the Criminal Case Reporting System includes a new tab that consolidates information from the Case Closing Checklist and the CCRS to incorporate data elements previously gathered through the criminal enforcement Case Conclusion Data Sheets. References: Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). J&C Orders available through the U.S. District Courts. FY 2012 Performance Measures: Advancing Sustainable Development Support Cleaning up Communities and
Address all Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 99 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is an automated, fully modernized EPA system that is used to capture and report on all essential program and enforcement performance information. CERCLIS is the Superfund programs primary repository of program, enforcement planning, and accomplishment data. CERCLIS contains national removal, site assessment, remedial, Federal facility, and enforcement program data for hazardous waste sites. Data Source: EPAs regional offices are responsible for entering detailed site-specific information into CERCLIS, e.g., the status of cleanups, target and measure accomplishments, and resource planning and use information. EPA Headquarters routinely pulls and reviews CERCLIS data in order to effectively manage the Superfund program, evaluate progress towards reaching program performance goals and measures, and to report Superfund program accomplishments to internal and external stakeholders. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods used to derive this information. Headquarters pulls accomplishment data associated with targets and measures from CERCLIS on a quarterly basis using SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) and Enforcement reports that provide summary and detailed site information. QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, various administrative controls have been established within the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM). The SPIM is a planning document that defines program management priorities, procedures, and practices for the Superfund Program. The SPIM also provides standardized and common definitions for program planning and reporting for the following areas: 1. Report Specifications are contained in CERCLIS reports indicating how reported data are pulled and displayed; 2. A Coding Guide contains technical instructions for data users such as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, data owners, and data input personnel; 3. Quick Reference Guides (QRG) are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed data entry instructions for most CERCLIS modules; 4. Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment (SCAP) and Enforcement reports are used to track, budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; and 5. A historical lockout feature is provided in CERCLIS to ensure that any changes to past fiscal year data can only be made by approved personnel and are recorded within a Change Log report. These controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2008/2009 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm). CERCLIS operation and development is managed by the following administrative control and quality assurance procedures: 1. Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5, (http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 2. The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan, (http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3. Agency platform, software, and hardware standards, (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4. Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained, (http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5. Agency security procedures, (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security?OpenView). In addition to the above, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion, data capture, and CERCLIS outputs. Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no published results. Data Limitations: None Error Estimate: NA New/Improved Data or Systems: None References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan, approved October 2, 2007. FY 2012 Performance Measure: Advancing Sustainable Development Support Cleaning up Communities and
Obtain commitments to clean up contaminated soil and gr oundwater media as a r esult of concluded CERCLA and RCRA cor r ective action enfor cement actions.
Performance Database: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement actions.
Data Source: The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions resulting in immediate pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, staff estimates the amount of reduction at the time the enforcement action concludes. For enforcement actions resulting in pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated long-term, the estimate is based on a 3-year average excluding outliers with values that are 3 times the standard deviation. QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications data calculation methodology. Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prepares a quality Management Plan (QMPs) every five years. The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan was approved October 2, 2007. Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS are based on entered judicial CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions. Error Estimate: NA New/Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICISNPDES includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance with current data and system capabilities. The migration process is projected to be completed in FY2013. As a states data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does the states NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009, ICISNPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.
This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and timeliness of the DMR data in ICIS-NPDES. To date ICIS-NPDES is the national system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of Mexico facilities in Region 6. References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management), OSREs Quality Management Plan.
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS FY 2012 Performance Measure: Percent of GS employees hired within 80 calendar days. (Goal is 25 percent) Percent of GS employees (Other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days. (Goal is 25 percent) Performance Database: EPAs Human Resources Activity and Communication Tracking System (HRACTS) is an in-house, lotus-notes based system designed to track and monitor HR workload including recruitment actions at the Agencys Shared Service Centers. HRACTS also tracks other HR workload activity including awards, reassignment, etc.; tracks EPAs status towards achieving OPMs original 80-day hiring goal for delegated examining recruitment actions and provides status reports to customers. The servicing human resources personnel at EPAs 3 Shared Service Centers enter data into the system. This data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year, quarterly, and as-needed basis. Data Source: Office of Human Resources (OHR) HRACTS. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: OPMs 80-day hiring model is designed only to assess the time to hire new non-federal hires through the delegated examining recruitment actions only, therefore, not all Agency recruitment actions need to be reported as part of this performance measure. However, the Presidents May 2010 Hiring Reform Initiatives memo seeks agencies to improve the timeliness of all hiring actions and in particular hiring actions for Mission Critical Occupations and commonly-filled positions. Agency specific reporting requirements for time to hire statistics are uncertain and not yet finalized. HRACTS can track the time throughout EPAs hiring process from the time a hiring request is initiated until the employee comes on board. HRACTS has multiple date fields for inputting the date for each step in the hiring process. HRACTS is continually undergoing changes and modifications to meet the constant clarification and unique needs of the 80-day end-to-end hiring model. HRACTS has been revised to track the date for each step in the hiring process, while meeting the diverse demands for easy access by Agency-wide managers to track the status of hiring actions. HRACTS reports are being revised to provide organizations with
in-depth information on the status of their pending recruitment actions in a secure and controlled environment. The system is being refined to notify applicants of the status of their vacancy application throughout the hiring process and also provide managers with a link to survey their perspective of the overall hiring process. Past HRACTS limitations have prevented clear delineation of the various types of recruitment actions (e.g. merit promotion, delegated examining) as input fields are just now being incorporated into the system and being populated. This distinction is important as the 80-day end-to-end hiring process is designed to track only new non-federal hires whereas current baseline estimates reflect all hiring actions. Other improvements include better reporting templates to track trends and anomalies along the hiring process timeline. Further system enhancements may be needed to track hiring timeliness for MCOs and commonly-filled positions to meet the Presidents Hiring Reform Initiatives. QA/QC Procedures: HRACTS tracks hiring process activity from the time the request for a recruitment action is requested until the selected candidate enters on-board for duty. Agency-wide, Office-level, and SSC reports can be prepared on an annual, quarterly, or selected time period basis. Manager access was made available to better enable tracking of the status of their individual recruitment actions. Data Quality Reviews: SSC / OHR staff review and analyze the reports to determine trends and assess workload. SSC staff review and validate the data, identify anomalies or data-entry errors, make corrections, and provide the updated information so that the systems reports can be current and accurate. Agency managers can be provided with system access to further enhance data integrity. Questions about the data or resolution of data issues are frequently resolved through discussion and consultation with the SSC and OHR. Data Limitations: HRACTS is not integrated with the Agencys People Plus System, the Agencys official personnel system, therefore, discrepancies may arise such as the total number of hires. While HRACTS can track by the type of recruitment action (DEU, MP, etc), HRACTS is currently not capable of tracking by occupational series (e.g. Mission Critical Occupations and commonly-filled positions). Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: In FY08, EPA implemented HRACTS a new standardized action tracking system across the 3 new HR Shared Service Centers. Changes and modifications are ongoing to further meet the Agencys needs for improved tracking and reporting. This tracking system will facilitate further improvement in EPAs end-to-end time-to-hire process. References: HRACTS
EPAs Human Capital Management
FY12 Budget Performance Measures

FY 2012 Performance Measure Percent of GS employees hired within 80 calendar days Baseline / Actual FY 2009 Target 60 % * per FY08 HCMR FY 2010 Target 20 % per FY09 HCMR FY 2011 Target 23 % (Revised) A 60 % target was established in FY08 for the FY11 budget request * FY 2012 Target 25 %
FY08 - 58 % (Baseline - All hires) * FY09 - 10.7 % (DEU hires) - 13.9 % (All Hires) FY10Q1-Q2 - 4.2 % (DEU hires) - 16.0 % (All Hires)
OPMs original End-to-End 80-day hiring initiative focused on the Agency's entire hiring process from the time a hiring request is initiated until the employee comes on board; the 80-day hiring initiative focused on those non-federal employees hired through the delegated examining recruitment process. In May 2010, the President Hiring Reform Initiatives sought improved governmentwide hiring timelines and a broader hiring focus on all hires and in particular Mission Critical Occupations hires; however, the metric has not been finalized. This measure will track the hiring timeliness for non-federal applicants using the delegated examining recruitment process. However, this measure may be modified to coincide with agency reporting requirements per the Presidents Hiring Reform Initiative which focuses on all hires or for selected types of hires (MCO and commonly filled positions). Therefore, supplemental information will also be provided for All Hires and modified as needed. * These #s are not reflective of Agency-wide hiring results. During this time period, only selected HR offices used HRACTS, data input was limited, data quality was poor, and types of hiring methods used were not tracked. In addition, no other system was utilized to track hiring timeliness across the Agency. Therefore, the #s provided were for informational use and meaningful baseline/targets needed to be established. Upon HR office consolidation to the Shared Service Center in FY09, HRACTS was refined to be useful in tracking Agency-wide hiring timeliness, standards for data quality were developed; and types of hiring methods used (e.g. MP, DEU, etc) were incorporated.
FY 2012 Performance Measure:
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPAs 34 reporting facilities from the FY 2003 baseline
Performance Database: The Agencys contractor provides energy consumption information quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the Energy and Water Database, which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The contractor is responsible for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QCing) the data. Data Source: The Agencys contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each of EPAs reporting facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to the utility company). The reported data are based on metered readings from the laboratorys utility bills for certain utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). In instances when data are missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a proxy or historical average. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A QA/QC Procedures: EPAs contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and fuel logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPAs Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at each reporting facility against previous years verified data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or decreases in energy consumption and costs. Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: EPA does not currently have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill. However, as EPA implements the advance metering requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,which should be well underway by FY 2010, calibration of advanced meters will be performed, at a minimum, on an annual basis. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: N/A
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Increase in number and percentage of certified acquisition staff (1102s) 2012 target is 335 1102 staff (FY 09 baseline of 324 1102's) with 80% certified (FY 09 baseline of 70% certified).
Performance Database: The information for tracking the certification targets is currently maintained in the EPAs Federal Acquisition Certification, Warrants, and BPAs database. Data Source: The data in the Federal Acquisition Certification, Warrants, and BPAs database is reviewed and inputted by EPA Procurement Analysts who are trained to verify documents submitted by employees for Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting (FAC-C) certification and approval. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Executive Agencies were requested to propose plans to increase the Acquisition Workforce by 5%. OMB provided tools to the Agencies to determine what the appropriate size would be for the acquisition workforce which is how EPA determined that we need 351 1102s by FY2014. We proposed adding new contracting personnel annually, in even increments, through 2014 in order to reach this goal. Since EPA is always working on certifying our contracting personnel, the target certification levels for FY2012 include certifying the personnel that EPA is bringing onboard to satisfy the increase in the acquisition workforce and certifying those already at EPA. Since EPAs proposed plan included bringing on mid- and senior-level 1102s, it is expected that many will already be certified. QA/QC Procedures: Before an individual is certified, there are three levels of review and approval of documentation proving certification eligibility. Data Quality Reviews: An initial review is performed on every individuals documentation for certification by an EPA Policy Analyst that specializes in FAC-C certification eligibility. The Analyst aids the applicant in preparing a complete package to be reviewed for approval. Once the package is completed, it is provided to the Policy Analysts Team Leader for review and approval. Once it is determined that the package is ready for final review by the Agency Acquisition Career Manager (ACM) the final completed package is sent forward for review and approval. Once approved FAC-C level I, II, or III is granted based on the information provided and applied for. The FAC-C certification allows for a warrant to be applied for and issued. Data Limitations: The data and results are limited by individuals deciding to apply for certification. Certification and warranting procedures are initiated by the individual seeking the certification/warrant. There may be eligible individuals already in the acquisition workforce who have not yet applied for certification that EPA is unable to track. Error Estimate: An error estimate has not been calculated for this measure. EPA is continually working on certifying our acquisition workforce, however, the estimates proposed rely upon receiving the additional FTE for the acquisition workforce. New/Improved Data or Systems: Not Applicable.
References: March 4, 2009 Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Subject: Government Contracting. October 27, 2009 OMB Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers, Senior Procurement Executives, Chief Financial Officers, Chief Human Capital Officers Subject: Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies FY 2010 2014. EPAs Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan submitted to OMB April 1, 2010.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Cumulative percentage reduction in GreenHouse Gas (GHG) Scope 1&2 emissions from EPAs 34 reporting facilities from the FY 2008 baseline
Performance Database: Scope 1 GHG emissions are emissions associated with fossil fuel burned at EPA facilities or in EPA vehicles and equipment. Sources of Scope 1 GHG emissions include fuel oil and natural gas burned in boilers, gasoline used in vehicles, and diesel fuel used in emergency generators. Scope 2 GHG emissions are emissions associated with indirect sources of energy such as electricity, chilled water, or purchased steam. For example, the GHG emissions from the coal and natural gas used to generate the electricity supplied to EPA facilities are considered EPA Scope 2 GHG emissions. The Agencys contractor provides energy consumption and GHG production information quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption and GHG production data in the Energy and Water Database, which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The contractor is responsible for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QCing) the data. Data Source: The Agencys contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each of EPAs reporting facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to the utility company). The reported data are based on metered readings from the laboratorys utility bills for certain utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). In instances when data are missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a proxy or historical average. Once the energy data is received and verified, the contractor calculates the GHG emissions factor for each facility, by reviewing the e-grid location of the facility vs. the DOE e-grid database. Once the emissions factors for the various utilities are known for each facility, they are worked into an algorithm to produce the facilities GHG equivalents.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A QA/QC Procedures: EPAs contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and fuel logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPAs Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at each reporting facility against previous years verified data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or decreases in energy consumption and costs. Once the energy data is reviewed and verified, the contractor will review and verify the GHG equivalents data ensuring they are using the current translation factors. Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: EPA does not currently have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill. However, as EPA implements the advance metering requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is currently underway, EPA will move to annual calibration of advanced meters. New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: N/A FY 2012 Performance Measures: Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data. Number of states, tribes, and territories that will be able to exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time, using standards and automated dataquality checking. Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA.
Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem. Data Source: Data are provided by State, private sector, local, and Tribal government CDX users. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin reporting. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors and use a number of CDX security mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of individuals identities. QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC has been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance Plan [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange,"
10/8/2004] and the CDX Design Document v.3, Appendix K registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype System Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3; December 2000]. Specifically, data are reviewed for authenticity and integrity. Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with program specifications and the CDX Quality Assurance Plan. EPA currently has a draft plan developed in August 2007 [contact: Charles Freeman, 202-566-1694]. In FY 2011, CDX will develop robust quality criteria, which will include performance metric results and align with the schedule for the upcoming CDX contract recompete. Data Quality Reviews: CDX completed its last independent security risk assessment in February 2007, and all vulnerabilities are being reviewed or addressed. In addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures, statistics and customer service operations are provided weekly to CDX management and staff for review. Included in these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new users, number of submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of errors/problems, and actions taken. These reports are reviewed and actions discussed at weekly project meetings. Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures on data quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to screen systemic problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems generally requires a secondary level of analysis that takes time and human resources. In addition, environmental data collected by CDX is delivered to National data systems in the Agency. Upon receipt, the National systems often conduct a more thorough data quality assurance procedure based on more intensive rules that can be continuously changing based on program requirements. As a result, CDX and these National systems appropriately share the responsibility for ensuring environmental data quality. Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors in registration data and that contribute greatly to the quality of environmental data entering the Agency. These features include pre-populating data either from CDX or National systems, conducting web-form edit checks, implementing XML schemas for basic edit checking and providing extended quality assurance checks for selected Exchange Network Data flows using Schematron. The potential error in registration data, under CDX responsibility has been assessed to be less than 1 %. New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX assembles the registration/submission requirements of many different data exchanges with EPA and the States, Tribes, local governments and the regulated community into a centralized environment. This system improves performance tracking of external customers and overall management by making those processes more consistent and comprehensive. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of web forms and webbased approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce additional automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error. References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2012 Performance Measure:
Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that are certified and accredited
Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking (ASSERT) database. Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and Regional offices. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are conducted using the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and web-enabled this methodology. QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are consistent. The Office of Inspector General consistent with 3545 FISMA, and the Chief Information Officers information security staff conduct independent evaluations of the assessments. The Agency certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report. Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans composed of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices selfreport progress toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data, conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office. Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staffs ability to validate all of the self-reported compliance data submitted by program systems managers. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/; OMB guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19.pdf; ASSERT web site https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/index.cfm; NIST Special Publication 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. February 2005: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html; and, Federal Information Security Management Act, PL107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA_final.pdf
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction; Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action; Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations; and Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System (PMRS) captures and aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results. OIG performance measures are designed to demonstrate value added by promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse as described by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended). Because intermediate and long-term results may not be realized over a period of several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year completed. Database measures include numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2) legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program management, security and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4) best practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of environmental and management actions taken and improvements made; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; 7) criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken, 8) public or congressional inquiries resolved; and 9) certifications, allegations disproved, and cost corrections. Data Source: Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG performance evaluations, audits, research, analysis, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports that track environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks reduced or avoided. OIG also collects independent data from EPAs contractors, partners and stakeholders. Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of linked events, starting with OIG outputs (e.g., recommendations, reports of best practices, and identification of risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIGs outputs, to improve operational efficiency and environmental program delivery are reported as intermediate outcomes. The resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks reduced/eliminated, and conditions of environmental and human health are reported as outcomes. By using common categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and reported. Each outcome is also qualitatively described, supported, and linked to an OIG product or output. The OIG can only control its outputs and has no authority, beyond its influence, to implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management outcomes.
QA/QC Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database require at least one verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and control are performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous compliance with the Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General 12, and regularly reviewed by OIG management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external independent peer reviews. Each Assistant Inspector General certifies the completeness and accuracy of performance data. OIG reports are referenced and independently quality reviewed. Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG PMRS. All data reported are audited internally for accuracy and consistency. Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and services. However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation. Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +/-2%, while the error rate for reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period needed for tracking results and difficulty in verifying a nexus between our work and subsequent actions and impacts beyond our control. Errors tend to be those of omission. New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the PMRS as a prototype in FY 2001 and constantly revises the clarity and quality of the measures as well as system improvements for ease of use. During FY 2008, the OIG implemented an Audit Followup Policy to independently verify the status of Agency actions on OIG recommendations, which serve as the basis for OIG intermediate outcome results reported in the OIG PMRS. During FY 2009 the PMRS was converted to a relational database directly linked to the new Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS). The quality of the data will continue to improve in FY 2012 as staff will have to make fewer data entries due to the integrated nature of the system, gain greater familiarity with the measures, and perform follow-up verification reviews to identify and track actions and impacts. The OIG is also implementing full costing of OIG products to measure relative return on investment from the application of OIG resources. References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG PMRS with supporting documentation available either through the OIG Web Site or other Agency databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig. 13
Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-731G, July 2007; Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated July 2010. U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications; Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig , last updated July 2010.
13
12
Office of Research and Development FY 2012 Performance Measures: 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 risks associated with exposure to drinking water, implement effective safeguards on the quality and availability of surface and underground sources of drinking water, improve the water infrastructure, and establish health-based measures of program effectiveness Percentage of planned methodologies, data, and tools delivered in support of EPA's Office of Water and other key stakeholders needs for developing health risk assessments, producing regulatory decisions, implementing new and revised rules, and achieving simultaneous compliance under the Safe Drinking Water Act Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolid long-term goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the diagnostics and forecasting techniques for the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolids long-term goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 1) restore impaired aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired systems, 3) provide human health risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of biosolids, and 4) forecast the ecologic, economic, and human health benefits of alternative approaches to attaining water quality standards Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal Percent of planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports the standard-setting and air quality management decisions Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and methodologies 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 Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health outcomes long-term goal
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data longterm goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible subpopulations long-term goal Percentage of planned outputs delivered (Global Change Research) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods, models, and data to prioritize testing requirements; enhance interpretation of data to improve human health and ecological risk assessments; and inform decision-making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic substances Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods, models, and data for probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants. Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods, models, and data to make decisions related to products of biotechnology
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database) Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned program outputs. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards achievement of a programs long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against predetermined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are successfully completed on-time. QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones and outputs be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: Drinking Water Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/dw.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007). Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007). Drinking Water Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Water Quality Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007) Land Protection and Restoration Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Human Health Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hh.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007). Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007) Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hhra.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007). Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/sp2.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007) Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007) Human Health Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Global Change Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Human Health Risk Assessment Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007)
Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007) Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html (last accessed August 16, 2007) Sustainability Research Strategy, available at http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/pdfs/EPA-12057_SRS_R4-1.pdf (last accessed August 21, 2008)
FY 2012 Performance 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
Performance Database: No internal tracking system. Data Source: Data are generated based on technical support centers tracking of timeliness in meeting customer needs. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time, and customer outcome feedback are tabulated for the Engineering, Ground Water, and Site Characterization Technical Support Centers. QA/QC Procedures: N/A Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: N/A Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: Land Protection and Restoration Research Program Assessment, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure to submittal to EPAs Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a
credible and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by external expert review) (Efficiency Measure) Performance Database: N/A Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of grants processing time. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Human Health Programs efficiency measure tracks the average time to process and award grants. QA/QC Procedures: N/A Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities. However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure the quality and impact of the program. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: N/A
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: N/A Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of cost per Air Quality Criteria/ Science Assessment document. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program's efficiency measure tracks the cost to produce AQCDs for use by the Office of Air and Radiation in developing their policy options for the NAAQS. Total FTE and extramural dollar costs are cumulated over a five year period and divided by the number of AQCDs produced in this time period, to create a moving annual average $/AQCD. QA/QC Procedures: N/A Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities. However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure the quality and impact of the program. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database). Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing research goals, and 2) spending data. Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost. QA/QC Procedures: N/A Data Quality Reviews: N/A Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review. Error Estimate: N/A New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A References: N/A

EPA Budget in Detail - FY 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPA Budget in Detail - FY 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Official Use Only

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Year 2012

Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains at least 50% recycled fiber

$2,993,779.0 $44,791.0 $37,001.0 $18,379.0 $1,269,732.0 $9,975.0 $26,834.0 $1,306,541.0

$2,966,637.1 $42,238.8 $39,548.8 $16,904.4 $1,372,230.3 $9,337.9 $28,032.8 $1,409,601.0

$2,993,779.0 $44,791.0 $37,001.0 $18,379.0 $1,269,732.0 $9,975.0 $26,834.0 $1,306,541.0

$2,876,634.0 $45,997.0 $41,969.0 $23,662.0 $1,203,206.0 $10,009.0 $23,016.0 $1,236,231.0

$4,978,223.0 $10,339,864.0 ($40,000.0)

$4,392,447.4 $9,801,937.5 $0.0

$4,978,223.0 $10,337,864.0 ($40,000.0)

$3,860,430.0 $9,023,000.0 ($50,000.0)

$9,801,937.5 $22,237.5 $6,925.6 ($4,299.0) $5,190.3 $18,528.1 $48,582.5 $9,850,520.0

75.3 136.1 167.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,417.0

67.0 115.7 142.1 69.0 0.6 0.9 3.8 2.6 17,277.9

75.3 136.1 167.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,417.0

64.3 126.6 145.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,202.1

FY 2010 Enacted Pesticide Registration Fund1 TOTAL, EPA 69.0 17,486.0

FY 2010 Actuals 0.0 17,277.9

FY 2011 Annualized CR 69.0 17,486.0

FY 2012 Pres Budget 69.0 17,271.1

FY 2010 Actuals $1,161,100.7 $487,910.3 $273,033.9 $9,322.0 $382,346.0 $4,447.5 $4,041.0

$5,645,339.6 $1,202,988.5 $156,653.3 $5,924.4 $4,249,791.5 $29,981.8

$4,989,963.6 $1,191,126.7 $151,713.0 $6,286.7 $3,603,724.5 $37,112.7

$5,645,339.6 $1,202,988.5 $156,653.3 $5,924.4 $4,249,791.5 $29,981.8

$4,342,645.5 $1,034,492.8 $150,049.4 $6,849.6 $3,123,517.3 $27,736.3

$2,075,066.9 $358,305.3 $206,733.3 $7,695.3 $327,692.9 $112,155.8

$2,232,328.3 $374,308.1 $203,209.3 $7,964.8 $363,451.3 $111,742.3

$2,073,066.9 $358,305.3 $204,733.3 $7,695.3 $327,692.9 $112,155.8

$2,017,061.5 $358,810.2 $188,420.7 $8,255.4 $346,330.2 $111,586.0

FY 2010 Actuals $14,509.1 $4,491.9 $1,152,651.5

FY 2011 Annualized CR $16,022.6 $4,811.3 $1,041,650.5

FY 2012 Pres Budget $20,540.6 $5,906.8 $977,211.7

$681,126.8 $446,916.7 $179,545.2 $10,007.5 $34,708.6 $2,659.6 $7,289.2

$671,424.4 $446,415.0 $171,878.5 $11,095.6 $34,675.7 $1,812.8 $5,546.8

$681,126.8 $446,916.7 $179,545.2 $10,007.5 $34,708.6 $2,659.6 $7,289.2

$702,542.3 $457,466.5 $188,244.1 $11,446.4 $34,755.5 $3,320.2 $7,309.5

$807,902.7 $499,394.9 $18,232.2 $4,762.3 $26,374.6 $945.2 $2,356.4 $2,104.0 $253,733.0

$795,703.1 $489,114.6 $17,843.0 $4,879.7 $26,778.0 $841.0 $2,395.3 $1,299.5 $252,552.0

$807,902.7 $499,394.9 $18,232.2 $4,762.3 $26,374.6 $945.2 $2,356.4 $2,104.0 $253,733.0

$829,831.4 $525,046.6 $18,297.9 $5,237.7 $26,883.0 $895.0 $3,121.4 $2,743.2 $247,606.6

Sub-Total Rescission of Prior Year Funds Total

$10,339,864.0 ($40,000.0) $10,299,864.0

$9,850,520.0 $0.0 $9,850,520.0

$10,337,864.0 ($40,000.0) $10,297,864.0

$9,023,000.0 ($50,000.0) $8,973,000.0

3,501.9 2,793.0 484.3 198.1 0.0 26.4 0.0

3,471.3 2,761.6 466.4 213.9 5.0 21.7 2.6

3,501.9 2,793.0 484.3 198.1 0.0 26.4 0.0

3,433.9 2,734.9 494.0 180.9 0.0 24.1 0.0

4,483.9 1,707.0 555.0 69.9 84.9 31.8 1,932.6

4,517.2 1,725.4 545.5 62.6 74.7 25.9 1,885.7

4,483.9 1,707.0 555.0 69.9 84.9 31.8 1,932.6

4,338.3 1,661.3 533.5 59.8 100.9 38.5 1,869.6

FY 2010 Actuals 4.1 80.2 85.0 22.8 0.6 0.9 3.8

FY 2011 Annualized CR 0.0 0.0 75.5 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

2,692.5 1,908.2 543.0 17.6 167.8 21.9 0.0 0.0 34.1

2,741.0 1,883.5 576.4 10.4 142.1 18.3 10.8 69.0 30.4

2,692.5 1,908.2 543.0 17.6 167.8 21.9 0.0 0.0 34.1

2,706.4 1,912.6 572.6 21.7 145.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 32.3

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.

FY 2012 Pres Budget

FY 2012 Pres Budget v. FY 2010 Enacted

$1,130,427.9 $196,886.4 $872,147.1 $18,662.6 $42,731.8 2,735.4